Posted on 12/17/2004 11:16:43 PM PST by farmfriend
End the "Mad Cow" Madness
By Iain Murray
On his first official visit to Canada, President Bush promised to end the madness: the United States' ban on Canadian beef. Such a move is long overdue. The ban has hurt producers and consumers in both countries -- for no public health gain.
Recent news of a second possible case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) -- popularly known as "mad cow disease" -- in the U.S. proved to be a false alarm when the tests came back negative. But the U.S. border remains closed to Canadian beef because of one confirmed BSE case found in Canada over a year ago.
The President said, "I fully understand the integrated nature of the cattle business and I hope we can get this issue solved as quickly as possible." These are encouraging words. Since the border was closed last year, the previously integrated U.S. and Canadian beef industries have been forced to separate, at great cost.
If the border remains closed for much longer, the two countries' industries will have to adapt permanently, which will mean further cost increases as they duplicate facilities they once shared. And it is consumers who are most hurt by the border closure and the resultant artificial spiking of beef prices. Worse, the total ban on Canadian cattle isn't just economically harmful, it is completely ineffectual in protecting public health.
The simple fact is that the two North American cases of BSE pose no noticeable threat to human health, and precious little to the health of cattle herds. BSE reached epidemic proportions in parts of Europe because of a practice of feeding cattle with contaminated meat, a practice that was always rare in North America because of the ready availability of the alternative soybean meal. But it was nonetheless banned in 1997.
A study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis showed that even if BSE had been introduced to the U.S. in 1990, well before the offending practice was banned, a worst-case scenario estimated only around 24 infected cattle nationwide.
It is inconceivable for such a low level of infection to pose a real threat to human health. For example, recent research has revealed that France suffered an unnoticed BSE epidemic during the 1980s. An estimated 48,000 infected cattle entered the French food chain but only two people contracted the human form of the disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). And in the UK, where possibly millions of cattle were infected, 149 people have contracted the fatal disease and the best estimates place the number of future deaths at fewer than 100 -- a far cry from the apocalyptic mid-1990s predictions of hundreds of thousands of fatalities.
Today, the U.S. guards against contaminated meat through a variety of measures, including the 1997 feed ban, import controls, a BSE surveillance program, and public health response plans.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has long -- and rightly -- argued that the border closure provides no economic or public health benefit. But the agency's efforts to reopen the border were frustrated by an adverse court decision that found USDA rushed through proposals to open the border without giving adequate response to public health and other issues. USDA can easily overcome the court's objections by quickly preparing a more detailed case for re-opening the border.
The case was brought by a regional coalition of Montana beef producers less dependent on exports, but larger groups like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), who have long experience processing Canadian cattle, steadfastly oppose the border closure.
President Bush would be right to listen to the voices of consumers, of groups like the NCBA, and of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, who rightly noted that the issue "has been studied to death."
The Bush administration needs to make good on its good intentions by hastening USDA's work. Every day of delay hurts cattle ranchers, consumers, and America's relations with Canada, its biggest trading partner. It's long past time to end the "mad cow" madness.
Iain Murray is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (www.cei.org), where he specializes in the debate over climate change and the use and abuse of science in the political process.
Since public perception (wrongly or rightly) is an important component of the consumption equation, the USDA's argument goes too far. There are economic benefits in erring on the side of caution. If BSE concerns are dismissed in a way that's scientifically accurate but publicly perceived as too blithe, there will indeed be economic consequences.
In finally addressing permanent, tamper-proof RFID for large food animals, the US will go a long way toward reassuring the consumer. Fortuitously, the technology is now cheap enough, and sophisticated enough, to also provide real management advantages in addition to being a sop for (unwarranted) public fears.
Just bring back the 99 cent Whopper at Burger King and I will be happy.
Oh heck. This is just a way to slap down that arrogant, uncooperative Canadian government.
It is inconceivable for such a low level of infection to pose a real threat to human health.
This reeks of a study whose conclusion was agreed upon prior to it being initiated.
Was this study conducted with only beef animals in the sample group? Or were dairy cattle included also?
If there is no risk, than why has the USDA been so obstructionist in allowing individual beef producers to have their herds tested, even if the producers are willing to foot the bill?
And why does the USDA not require that every dairy cow be tested prior to entering the food chain? The age and feeding practices would place them in the highest risk category for BSE contamination. Especially dairy animals imported from Canada.
After all, testing every animal does create more American jobs which cannot be easily outsourced.
I find it rather sad that Canada was testing DOUBLE the number of cattle it needed to, and BECAUSE the mutually agreed upon system worked, the Canadian (read 99% conservative Canadians, mostly in Western Canada) cattle industry has suffered a brutal blow.
The industry can and will recover, but at what cost?
Your nation and mine agreed to a protocol, and my nation bent over backwards, sideways and upside down to ensure that any eventuality was mutually dealt with in a reasoned and logical manner. Then ONE cow IN Canada (about 30 miles from my family farm, btw) was found, tested and confirmed as BSE positive. ONE other cow that made it across the border as STOCK is suspected.
The USDA and the rest of your government, aided and abetted by the wild-eyed panic-mongers in your press, made MUCH of this "tempest in a teapot", and slammed the border shut.
Even your USDA (admittedly not exactly the paragon of intelligent actions) admits it was mistaken in the Cdn beef ban. WHY won't your elected officials (PUBBIES at that!) work more quickly to correct this obvious and egregious error?
Perhaps if Canada wants something from the US, Canada should consider Canada's recent actions and statements by Canada's politicians.
As long as Canada wants to act as the spur in America's side, Canada shouldn't expect much help...
BTTT!!!!!!
Letting our cows back in might go a long way to restoring our sanity.
Unfortunately, the folks who raise the cows and are being hurt the most are not our stupid politicians, they are good conservative pro-American Ranchers.
If you read the article, you will note that this policy hurts Americans just as much as Canadians.
mark for later
I love that Graphic. Thanks for posting it again...
For which virtually no one at USDA is accountable. That's what you get with government "protection."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.