Rules

I didn't comment on the <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym>'s OTM rule yesterday allowing older Canadian Cattle to be imported into the US. It's one of those situations that I have mixed feelings about.<br />n<br />nThe people opposed to the OTM rule say that they oppose it because it is a food safety issue. We could possibly be importing <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> into the US from Canada and have additional <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> problems here. There is a very slim chance this is true. I don't quite buy that this is the true reason for their opposition. It's to protect our market is the true reason, at least that is the way I see it and I don't have a problem with that.<br />n<br />nThe people supporting the OTM rule, besides Canadian Cattlemen, say that it is a matter of market fairness. Both the US and Canada are considered "minimal risk" areas for <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym> and their should be minimal trade restrictions. We in the US want the Asian markets to open up to more of our beef product under this "minimal risk" rule. If we believe in the "minimal risk" rule and want other countries to respect it, shouldn't we allow in cattle to the US under the same "minimal risk" rule that we want other countries to respect for us? Seems awful hypocritical if we don't allow the cattle in. We can't have it both ways here. <br />n<br />nEither we as a country believe in the "minimal risk" rule or we don't. If we want Asian countries to follow the "minimal risk" rule then we should. That's why I am torn on this issue. I hate hypocrisy and fighting this OTM rule strikes me as hypocrisy. I did see where the Farm Bureau is calling for <a href="http://www.theindependent.com/stories/11182007/new_cattle18.shtml">increased testing of Canadian cattle for <acronym title="Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy">BSE</acronym></a> as a possible compromise to groups that oppose the OTM rule on food safety grounds. This seems to make sense and might be just the right compromise to make this work.<br />n<br />nIn the meantime we will have to see what comes of <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gE6ljRKwTSxkgc7FUVI7K4UYPEmAD8T0M0N81">R-Calf's lawsuit to stop</a> this trade. It's really truly no surprise that they are doing this. The courts are their favorite battle ground and that is where they are fighting this.<br />n<br />nI hope you see why I am conflicted on this issue. We want other people to respect a rule but we don't want to? That's not right. Mutual respect is something I learned a long time ago and I have to live to my code.<br />n<br />n<strong>An once of hypocrisy is worth a pound of ambition. Michael Korda</strong>