Cattle Alert: Japanese Officials Tell R-CALF Actions Will Delay Re-opening Border

Inside Washington Today/cattlenetwork.com ^ | March 15, 2005 | James Wiesemeyer

[prairiebreeze]

R-CALF placed a half-page lobby-type ad in today's Washington Post, thanking the U.S. Senate for passing a resolution (52-46) that would, if it passed the House and was signed into law by President Bush (both unlikely events) do what a district court judge in Billings, Montana (Judge Richard Cebull) has already helped R-CALF accomplish: maintain the closure of the U.S.-Canadian border to live cattle under 30 months of age.

The ad urges the House of Representatives to support the resolution of disapproval "against USDA's weakening of U.S. import standards." The ad was paid for by the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (www.r-calfusa.com).It includes R-CALF friendly quotes

What the ad does not say is what some Japanese officials reportedly told R-CALF in a recent meeting with them -- that R-CALF's actions have helped delay the time that it will take Japan to resume imports of American beef. Japanese sources told me that, "R-CALF officials were perplexed when we told them they are part of the problem."

A Japanese official told me the following:

"R-CALF's actions will actually delay the re-opening of the Japanese border. Current actions by [U.S.] Senators and House members have stimulated the Japanese media and Japanese consumer associations to start an opposition campaign. This will delay the internal Japanese review process, especially the risk-communications process for consumers.

"In addition, your (R-CALF) actions are increasing [the U.S.] Congress's frustration and their elevated political pressure on Japan is only complicating the issue opening the Japanese border. Political pressure or interference is not assisting in the normalization of beef products between our two countries.

"When R-CALF points to the risk of Canadian beef, you are increasing Japanese consumers' anxiety for U.S. beef, because we believe the risk of beef from both countries is similar. And if you point to the risk of Canadian cattle, you are ignoring the function of removing SRMs (Specified Risk Materials) as the internationally accepted food safety measure and area also increasing Japanese consumers' anxiety for U.S. beef."

To recap, several Japanese officials told me last week that...

-- Japan views the U.S. and Canada as an integrated market and as Japan nears resuming American beef buys, it will be hard to communicate to the Japanese public and definitely Japanese consumer groups if the U.S.-Canadian border is still closed.

-- It will be July or August before Japan makes a final decision to resume U.S. beef imports -- and that is assuming "no more litigation delays."

-- Regulatory comment periods ahead: There are two four-week comment periods coming up via the Japanese regulatory process on this topic.And there is a likely one-month timeline for revision of ministerial ordinances regarding domestic BSE measure. That's nine weeks and does not include the time it will take to issue a final report on the consultations to resume beef trade.

-- Powerful Japanese consumer groups must be dealt with: U.S. officials, farm-state lawmakers. and farm group representatives continue to underestimate the sensitivity of BSE issues among powerful Japanese consumer groups.

-- Political pressure on Japanese officials and agencies is a negative in getting a timeline established regarding resuming American beef shipments.This includes the talk President Bush had last week with Japanese Prime Minister.

-- Japanese domestic producers do not benefit from the Japanese import prohibition. Japanese calf prices are at a record high. This has reduced profits for feeders in Japan. If feeders lose economic power, Japanese calf producers will lose their markets. Numerous BBQ restaurants in Japan have closed and that has reduced potential demand for beef in Japan. "Keeping the border closed to U.S. beef is not in the interest of Japanese beef interests," the Japanese officials concluded.

[prairiebreeze]

What the ad does not say is what some Japanese officials reportedly told R-CALF in a recent meeting with them -- that R-CALF's actions have helped delay the time that it will take Japan to resume imports of American beef. Japanese sources told me that, "R-CALF officials were perplexed when we told them they are part of the problem."

"When R-CALF points to the risk of Canadian beef, you are increasing Japanese consumers' anxiety for U.S. beef, because we believe the risk of beef from both countries is similar.

ping

[prairiebreeze]

reverse ping

:^)

[Peach]

I am MORE convinced than before that this is being done to undermine our economy. It does NOT make any sense!

[prairiebreeze]

If the US and Canada could both approach this as a "North American" beef issue, both would be in much stronger positions to be able to negotiate on the world market.

However, Canada is going to be in a much stronger place than we are to do just that, courtesy of R-CALF.

[Peach]

THis is such an extreme measure to take it makes me wonder who exactly is behind R-CALF.

[prairiebreeze]

R-CALF Website

An action legal fund. It's interesting to let those words sink in for a minute.

[Peach]

Oh, brother. Okay. Since reading that link, it's starting to become clear. Lawyers. Say no more.

Lawyers looking for another group to demonize. And ruin. Is this how lawyers make their living nowadays?

And I'd love to see if someone could audit them. I'll bet they aren't really what we typically think of as non-profit either.

[prairiebreeze]

R-CALF from day one, has been a single-issue organization with one objective. To get the Canadian border closed to cattle and beef imports. R-CALF has pushed COOL (country of origin labeling) for some time. Although there will be associated costs to this sort of program it's probably going to be a necessary step in order to participate on the world market. However, R-CALF in the past has fought hard against a national database or individual animal ID. It seems disengenuous to insist on one but resist the other, doesn't it?

Why do they oppose this? IMO it's because they didn't want any means for anything to ever be traced back to any of their members cow herds, although the explanation from R-CALF would be framed with references to "too much Big Brother", too much costs etc. in that sort of program.

I think R-CALF has begun realizing that this is going to catch up with them though, because recently their tune has changed slightly. The reason is I believe, because they finally realize that the packers, retailers etc, and world customers will demand that individual animal ID system. R-CALF hasn't jumped entirely on board with this as they are only at this point counseling their members to get birthdate verification, not source verification.

When you go out and sell a concept, parsed in the framework of Mom, America and apple pie, it's often easy to convince rural Americans that it's the righ thing to do. (And I want to be clear, I am not taking a swipe at rural Americans.)Unfortunately, the larger concepts, the bigger implications have been conveniently left out or ignored by R-CALF and aren't fully realized by their membership.

[NorthOf45]

This could be a legitimate concern ...

Weaknesses Found in U.S. Mad Cow Feed Ban

WASHINGTON, DC, March 15, 2005 (ENS) - U.S. cattle are "at risk of spreading" mad cow disease because of weaknesses in a federal government program to keep certain kinds of banned animal protein out of cattle feed, Congressional investigators said in a report made public today.

More than five million cattle across Europe have been killed to stop the spread of mad cow disease, formally called bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Found in 26 countries, including Canada and the United States, BSE is believed to spread through animal feed that contains protein from BSE infected animals. Consuming meat from infected cattle has also been linked to the deaths of about 150 people worldwide.

In its report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said weaknesses in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) program for keeping nervous system tissue of ruminant animals out of cattle feed "continue to limit the effectiveness" of a 1997 ban on feeding this material to cattle.

In a February 25 letter to the Congressmen and Senators who requested the report, GAO Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Robert Robinson acknowledged that the FDA does not agree with many of the conclusions of his report and warned against taking FDA reports to mean that the industry is in compliance with the feed ban.

"FDA believes that it already reports inspection results in a complete and accurate context, as we recommend. We disagree," wrote Robinson. "As noted above, given the data concerns and compliance unknowns raised in this report, FDA’s data should not be used to project industry compliance."

The ban was established to keep infectious prions out of cattle feed. Known to cause BSE, these prions are misfolded proteins most likely to be found in the brain, spinal cord and small intestines of infected animals.

- snip -

GAO report

[Peach]

I find it hard to believe they're a non-profit organization, which they claim. And they are a legal organization, basically, aren't they?