|
|
|
|
|
By Hope Huffman
As a cattle producer, and someone who has worked extensively with decision makers in the beef industry, I've
become comfortable with what is called "sound science." Since sound science has become a reliable basis for regulation,
trade and health related matters, I have learned to accept the results as a safe and appropriate way of conducting the
business of agriculture.
However, once the concept of sound science is embraced, I am not free to choose or ignore the results based on my personal preference or individual benefit.
With regard to the re-opening of the Canadian border to live cattle imports, USDA classified Canada a minimal-risk country for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
Their decision was based on the best science available. Unfortunately, this was not the result some cattle producers wanted, so they filed suit and were successful at blocking the border reopening, at least for now.
I think they are wrong. I also think they are short-sighted. It seems to me that their action was taken for short-term, selfish and non-factual reasons. According to them, shutting off imports of beef is a positive move for the industry, one that will ensure current price levels, and at the same time will close the door on BSE.
In fact, 2004 saw record imports of beef in the United States and record high cattle prices. BSE, or mad cow disease (to use the unfortunate media nickname), can only occur from direct ingestion of contaminated food. These same cattlemen have been quoted in newspapers, claiming a real and present danger of BSE crossing the Canadian border and infecting American herds. This is inaccurate, inflammatory and dangerous. Such comments by cattle producers will eventually instill doubt in the mind of consumers.
Consumers now have absolutely no doubt that U.S. beef is safe to eat, as evidenced by the 17 percent increase in demand for beef over the past five years.
Also unfortunate is the fact that this controversy comes at a time when U.S. negotiators are laboring to re-open beef markets in Japan and Korea. Both of these nations are extremely important for U.S. beef exports, but their borders were closed to U.S. beef in December 2003 when that single U.S. BSE case was discovered in Washington State.
In the mist of these negotiations, we have been hearing comments and concerns by Japan and Korea that sound eerily familiar. Their reasons for closure are virtually the same as some U.S. cattlemen are saying about Canadian beef entering the United States.
Canada deals with BSE in much the same way as does the U.S. There is a ban on feeding ruminant protein to cattle. They, and we, have very significant firewalls in place to monitor for the disease and deal with any case that might crop up. Since our beef is safe, then it's reasonable to conclude that Canadian beef enjoys the same level of safety.
For those of us producing beef, consumer confidence is like solid gold! With it, we enjoy a healthy and viable industry. To do or to say anything that would jeopardize consumer confidence in order to achieve a short-term goal is irresponsible and self-destructive.
If a protectionist trade policy is one's goal, then go to Congress and ask for it, but please, don't put the beef industry at risk by falsely giving the impression that our U.S. beef supply is unsafe!
Beef is safe. As producers, our future depends on keeping it safe, and defending it from attacks from the misinformed and politically motivated. It is deeply disturbing to me when such attacks come from those within our own industry, and I believe it should be of concern for others as well.
Hope Huffman is a former state director of the Texas Farm Bureau and currently serves on the board of the Texas Beef Council.
