|
|
|
|
|
By Dan Dierschke
TFB State Director
District 8
When Texas Farm Bureau President Kenneth Dierschke asked me to head up the TFB BSE/Canada Task Force a few
weeks ago, his charge was clear. To summarize, he wanted us to closely examine the impact of opening the Canadian border
to live cattle under 30 months of age. We were to study the risk of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, also known
as mad cow disease), the market impact and the long term consequences for the U.S. beef industry.
Let me begin by thanking the five individuals that served with me on the task force. I believe their work was thorough. I also believe we arrived at the correct conclusion. As you've heard by now, we are convinced that the Texas Farm Bureau should not oppose reopening the Canadian border under the restrictions USDA has set. The TFB board has adopted that position.
Quoting directly from the report, "Our industry is in the best position we can be in at this time to take this action. Further, it greatly enhances the possibility of reopening critical export markets such as Japan, Korea and full reopening of Mexico. As difficult a decision as this is, we believe Texas beef producers will be best served by Farm Bureau not opposing the planned reopening on March 7."
Of course, the border was not opened on March 7. Another cattle group persuaded a federal judge to grant an injunction and a resolution to delay reopening the border passed the U.S. Senate.
We believe both these actions are ill advised and based on the misguided fear that a great flood of cattle would surge across the border once it reopens.
The task force, however, found that reopening the U.S. border to Canadian beef imports would have minimal impact on Texas producers. There might be some short-term impact, but the evidence suggests there are not that many cattle in Canada, at least few of those that meet the conditions of the border reopening.
Quoting from our report again, "Cattle Fax (an industry marketing group) analysis indicates a possible impact of $2 per hundredweight for cattle coming out of the feedlot and $4 per hundredweight for the feeder market. While price impact of reopening the border is an important consideration, a greater concern is fear of consumer resistance to prices being charged in the retail meat case, especially in comparison to retail prices for poultry and pork."
In other words, prices could get so high that consumers might "vote with their dollars," and choose other meat products.
The task force reviewed the science related to BSE and concluded that allowing the importation of Canadian beef does not present a risk to consumers or the U.S. beef herds. This is a very important point. If Canada is doing essentially the same things as the U.S. with regard to protecting the food supply from BSE, and they are, then their beef is safe. We know this because we have confidence in our own beef supply. Keeping the border closed sends a message to U.S. consumers that is dangerous and based on a false assumption.
A few days ago, one of the groups opposing the reopening of the Canadian border was told by representatives of Japan that their actions are complicating the goal of reopening Japan to American beef.
This should be obvious. We can expect that every word we say to prevent Canadian beef imports will be read back to us by the Japanese. The value of potential beef exports to Japan are far greater than the value of imported beef from Canada.
Over the years, we've been frustrated by other nations' tendency to use trumped up health claims to block imports when their real concern was economic protectionism. Unfortunately, continuing the Canadian beef ban is exactly the same thing, and it will be seen around the world for what it is.
U.S. beef is safe. Allowing certain Canadian beef to cross our borders under controlled conditions would prove that we really believe that.
You may read our report on the Texas Farm Bureau web site— www.txfb.org and judge the evidence for yourself.
