I was reading the latest issue of Business Week and found an
article (luckily available online) on BSE that was interesting. It talks about the research into how it works and new techniques to fight it. There was one part that really set me off though.
Those many uncertainties are in the spotlight right now as the Agriculture Dept. prepares to resume trading of some live cows and packaged beef with Canada on Mar. 7. Restrictions have been in place since May, 2003, when a mad cow was discovered in Canada. Three more have been found since, including one animal that was imported to the U.S. and slaughtered in December, 2003. The USDA is torn between its mission to protect public health, its commitments to meatpackers and ranchers who want access to Canadian cattle, and its desire to facilitate U.S. exports. The problems won't be resolved until scientists get a firmer grip on the pathology of the disease.
RANCHERS
WANT ACCESS TO CANADIAN CATTLE? I DON'T THINK SO!!!! Anybody reading this knows that is not true and many cattle men through R-Calf are fighting this. I wrote a letter to the editor of Business Week politely pointing out the problem in the story.
Your story about Mad Cow's Stubborn Mystery has some facts I believe to be in error and wish to correct. You state that the USDA wants to help the meatpackers and ranchers who want access to Canadian cattle.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The cattle ranchers organization R-Calf USA, with over 10,000 members which I am one of, has been fighting to keep the border closed to protect the American public from possible contaminated beef from Canada since the USDA proposed re-opening the border.
Just today, 03/02/2005, R-Calf USA gained a temporary restraining order preventing the border from opening until a full hearing could be held. I feel this is a step in the right direction in protecting American consumers.
As you can see not all cattle ranchers want access to Canadian cattle, some of us want to protect ourselves and the American consumers from problems over the border until all pertinent issues have been discussed.
Believe me I was seething but you tend to get a better response if you are calm and polite instead of ranting and raving which I wanted to do. I think maybe the authors of the article need to check their facts a little better.
Facts speak louder than eloquence. Chinese proverb
Of course, I may be biased as the wife of an Alberta Cattle farmer, but perhaps all facts should be researched before making accusations.
I know some guys around here who might be involved with something like that but none of them are members of R-Calf even though they have a lot of pull with ranchers in the area and people think they are involved with R-Calf, they are *not*.
If R-calf representatives were buying cattle in expectation of the border re-opening, why would they be the only group going to court to keep the border closed? Seems like it would be shooting yoursel in the foot and costing you a lot of money. 1+1 defenitly doesn't equal 2 in this case.
However, I don't buy that it would have been unreasonable financially to play both sides of the coin. If the efforts to keep the border closed failed, any ranchers who purchased Canadian Cattle at depressed prices stood to make a fair profit. If the border remained closed, US markets stayed high, the cattle purchased in Canada could be fed out at Canadian feedlots and sold to a slaughterhouse in Canada (likely not at much, if any profit, but not a huge loss either). Certainly it would have been a reasonable calculated risk.
Guess there's no point arguing this one as you and I are on oppostite sides of the border and oppostie sides of the issue. It's simply that the farmers in my area find it frustrating to hear that the decisions will be based on science, not politics, in regards to the opening of the border. In Canada, we follow the same testing and surveillance practices that you do, I believe we implemented our feed ban at the same time you did, and we've had mandatory tracking (barcoded ear tags) for years, while the States has just implemented a voluntary tracking system. I'm just not sure how the "science" justifies keeping the border closed to cattle under 30 months. I'd appreciate it if you would explain it for me (I'm not being sarcastic, I seriously would like to understand what American ranchers are thinking about).
By the way, and I know this is off-topic - I read that the US cattle markets were up 10% today. My husband and I may go sit in on our local auction on Monday - if so, will let you know what's happened to ours.
It's simply that the farmers in my area find it frustrating to hear that the decisions will be based on science, not politics, in regards to the opening of the border.
What is wrong with relying on science when it comes to the BSE issue? There are resonable standards of science involved here and R-Calf wants them followed.
The politics of the issue are the meatpackers want the border open and are using their political power to accomplish it. Also President Bush wanted it open to make nice with Canada for the Missile Shield issue. R-Calf just wants to inject scientific debate into the equation. I don't see the problem.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/03/08/953941.html
http://nowherethoughts.net/sarpysam/archives/803-BSE-and-Science.html
to read it.