Posted on 07/15/2005 3:07:15 AM PDT by Clive
WASHINGTON (CP) - U.S. Agriculture Secretary Michael Johanns took immediate steps to reopen the border to Canadian cattle late Thursday after a federal appeals court dismissed arguments that imports could spread mad cow disease.
American officials have already been in contact with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to prepare certifying cattle for shipment, said Johanns. Canadian officials expected trucks to roll next week to take cows south for the first time since May 2003 when Canada discovered its first case of mad cow.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was released Thursday after a one-day hearing in Seattle, where an American ranchers' group argued Canadian cows are unsafe.
"It has taken a lot of hard work, at all levels, in both of our countries, to reach where we are today," said Canadian Agriculture Minister Andy Mitchell, who spoke with Johanns.
It will take a few days to arrange export permits and match buyers with sellers, he said, among other preparations.
"They're routine in nature and officials on both sides of the border are determined to expedite that as quickly as possible."
Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert called the ruling and the U.S. announcement "some of the best news we have had in two years."
"The lock will be when I see that truck crossing the border with (live cattle). That will be the lock."
Canadian producers, who've lost some $7 billion Cdn during the devastating ban, were jubilant.
But they tempered their reaction by warning that there's another legal hurdle to cross on the long-term fate of the border later this month.
The appeals court overturned a March ruling by Montana judge Richard Cebull, who sided with the protectionist group R-CALF and temporarily blocked the border from reopening as expected.
Cebull is holding his own hearing July 27 in the Billings district court, where R-CALF will argue vigorously for a permanent ban on Canadian cattle and beef products.
"It was what we were hoping for and what we anticipated," Saskatchewan Agriculture Minister Mark Wartman said of the appeal court's decision.
"It's a piece of good news and it will be interesting to see how that affects the court ruling on the 27th."
Stan Eby, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said the group is "very pleased and very excited."
"This is wonderful news that has been long awaited," said Eby. "I hope that all the necessary paperwork will soon be in place so that we may see the first shipments of cattle crossing the border in short order.
"We are not out of the woods completely on the legal front," said Eby, "but we feel this is a strong message from the Court of Appeal to the court in Montana."
Mitchell said Canadian officials have been preparing contingency plans in case things go awry in Montana but he wouldn't provide details.
Observers say Cebull will be influenced by the appeal court's decision that R-CALF's arguments don't make sense. However, if he does invoke a permanent ban instead of dismissing the case, American officials would doubtless appeal it.
Ted Haney, president of the Canada Beef Export Federation, called the decision "very encouraging."
"This is very positive and takes us one step closer to resuming at least restricted trade in live cattle to the United States."
The ruling applies to cattle younger than 30 months of age, thought to be at lowest risk for contracting mad cow.
Most cattle sales take place in late summer and early fall, said B.C. Agriculture Minister Pat Bell, "so we are ideally positioned to take advantage of this opening."
"I think it just spells great news for our ranchers. They can really look forward to having a positive year this year."
At Wednesday's appeal hearing, R-CALF argued that dropping a ban on cattle "would subject the entire U.S. beef industry to potentially catastrophic damages."
The group also said Canadian imports present a "genuine risk of death for U.S. consumers" and the U.S. Department of Agriculture erred in trying to reopen the border.
But U.S. government lawyer Mark Stern slammed R-CALF for using questionable scientific reasoning to justify a continued ban. The group has been attacked for trying to drive up cattle prices to line their pockets.
"Their risk assessment assumes everything goes wrong," said Stern, and doesn't take into account all the safety improvements that American have made.
Like Canada, the U.S. restricts animal tissues from cattle feed, thought to be the primary way that mad cow, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is spread.
The judges, in siding with U.S. officials, said they would issue another ruling soon explaining their rationale.
"We are disappointed," said R-CALF head Bill Bullard. "The (appeal court) gave no reasons for their action, so there isn't much we can do until we see those reasons."
"R-CALF is confident that when we have a full hearing on the merits of the case, we will demonstrate to (Cebull) that USDA's actions are premature and unjustified."
While Canadian losses have been high, U.S. meatpackers have also suffered, losing an estimated 8,000 jobs without a steady supply of cows to process.
Patrick Boyle, head of the American Meat Institute, said the group is "grateful that the court has ruled on the side of science" and vindicated USDA's "thoughtful, science-based rulemaking process."
"The legal stonewalling that R-CALF has engaged in has done real harm, but today's ruling will help the industry rebuild. It's a great - and long overdue - day for the beef industry and for consumers."
Canada has had three cases of mad cow disease, while the U.S. has had two, one in a Washington State cow that was born in Alberta and another in a Texas-born cow.
The U.S. lost many of its prime beef export markets after its first case in December 2003 and officials have long viewed the Canada-U.S. problem as an impediment to regaining their confidence.
"(This) bolsters our position with other international trading partners by following the very advice we have given them to base trade decisions on sound science," said Johanns.
-
Why in the world should we favor Canadian ranchers over our own? Because the Cannuck government and media is always so nice to the US?
This would be happier news if I hadn't had ordered a rib steak at one of the best restaurants in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, a couple of weeks ago. Nice dining room, nice ambiance, almost full. I was completely unsuspecting. What I got was quite simply the worst piece of beef I've ever been served (which is saying a ton). It wasn't cheap, either. Cutters-and-canners grade, all gristle, no meat, and repulsively raw. I couldn't even cut it.
It isn't favoring one or the other, but rather abundant production in both countries that brings the price down.
Priced a good steak lately?!
They can sell it, but they cat make me buy it.
cat=can't
Actually, cat is very tasty. (Just kidding- couldn't resist.)
=8-0
Without country of origin labeling, how can one know for sure?
Right up there with the best of Texas.
Mmmmmmm, beef ping.
Priced a good steak lately?!
$8-$12 a pound in my local market! Family of 4--2 teenaged sons who think a pound of steak is the appetizer course--Beef ain't what's for dinner around here. And the pork is awful--98% of the stuff in the case is that Hormel 'Always Tender' 'enhanced' crap that isn't fit to eat. Worse yet is that chicken is going that way but the 'natural' product is still around. I'm starting to think that meat packers are conspiring to force me to eat tofu.
Enhanced Meat: A meat product that has received injections of water, salt and sodium phosphate to season the meat and to keep it from drying out. As meat producers increasingly raise leaner animals that contain significantly less fat, alternative processes are being developed to replace the flavor and moisture loss due to the reduction in fat on the animal. Enhancing the meat is one such process.
More like 'alternative processes' are being developed to sell water, salt & sodium phosphate for $2.89+ per pound.
Hold muh PRIONS alert!
The meat processing plants are in the US and the US herds are not enough to supply their needs.
Because of the actions of a few protectionist ranchers and a sympathetic judge, the border has been closed for much longer than needed and US processing plants have suffered shortages.
Most people in the US meat industry, including ranchers, want the border open and the former integrated beef industry restored.
Had the border remained closed, a lot of the meat processing that is now done in the US would have moved to newly established (US owned) processing plants in Canada.
Keep in mind that the Canadian and US economies in most areas are more closely integrated than the average citizen realizes.
Actually, using the same standard used to judge that the U.S. has had two cases of mad-cow, then Canada has had four since there was also a cow imported from Britain to Canada that was infected with mad cow (the 1993 case). And two of Canada's native cases were discovered just this year in January, with the third native case being found in 2003.
This helps US consumers, like me, who would like to pay less for their beef. You'll notice also that allowing Canadian beef back into the US helps US-based meatpackers. Why should we favor US ranchers over US meatpackers?
Fletcher J
Too true. If they sold the I "heart" Alberta beef stickers here I would plaster one on my car.
While I'm happy for the ranchers and the fine, American loving, Albertans, I am sad that the low priced Alberta beef I have been buying in Ontario will start to rise in price again.
Tipping my hat to both Texas and Alberta!
I like my wine and my meat red!
>"U.S. Agriculture Secretary Michael Johanns took immediate steps to reopen the border to Canadian cattle ...."
the border never was completely closed to canadian beef.
even during the "ban" the canadians slaughtered cattle, processed them, froze them, boxed them and shipped them into the united states.
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.