USDA Still Against Voluntary Testing of 100% of Cattle

[conjur]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/...news/local/9457810.htm

While Kansas and the rest of the nation gears up to test high-risk cattle for mad cow disease, the Agriculture Department has not budged on its refusal to let Creekstone Farms Premium Beef test for BSE all cattle processed at its Arkansas City slaughter plant.

R-CALF USA, which represents U.S. cattle producers, last month urged the Agriculture Department to grant the requests of packers such as Creekstone Farms in Kansas and Gateway Beef in Missouri to voluntarily test for BSE 100 percent of the animals they process.

Such voluntary testing has been opposed by rival industry groups like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Bill Fielding, chief operating officer at Creekstone Farms, said the company again asked the Agriculture Department about three weeks ago for permission to test.

Fielding said he was told that with the surveillance program in place and with progress in the negotiations with Japan people are optimistic the borders would be open within 60 days.

But Fielding said he was not as optimistic - and wants timelines in place so as if the export markets are not open by Oct. 1 or Nov. 1 Creekstone would be allowed to test.

The company processes about 1,000 head of cattle a day at its Arkansas City location, and contends its Japanese customers would buy its products again if it tested all animals slaughtered at the plant.

http://www.hpj.com/archives/20...gissuedividescattl.CFM

BSE testing issue divides cattle industry

WICHITA, Kan. (AP)--If government regulators allow Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to test all its cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopthy, it would start a "domino effect" resulting in other countries and domestic consumers insisting on 100 percent testing, a competitor said April 19.

Steve Hunt, chief executive officer of Kansas City-based U.S. Premium Beef, said that the cost to the industry would be nearly $1 billion a year--a cost that the industry cannot expect consumers to cover.

Hunt, who heads the nation's fourth-largest meatpacking plant, told reporters during a news conference hosted by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association that food safety is not a free-enterprise matter.

"This is not an issue of big versus small. Let us be clear, the long-term costly effects of this issue will be borne by the smallest of us all, the farmers and ranchers of this great country," Hunt said.

b[]With many other cattle and farm industry groups lining up to support Kentucky-based Creekstone Farms, the NCBA put together a hastily called telephone news conference April 19 to reaffirm its opposition to private testing.

Hunt took no questions following his statement.

Creekstone Farms chief executive John Stewart--who called into the teleconference while reporters questioned other participants--was abruptly cut off by NCBA when he tried to make a statement in support of his company's position. [/b]

"We do strongly believe in what we are doing," Stewart said. "We think our direction is right."

Bill Fielding, Creekstone's chief operating officer, told The Associated Press after the news conference that Hunt was wrong.

"It is hard to understand how a little company with less than 1 percent of the industry capacity is going to force the big packers into anything," Fielding said. "It seems just the opposite."

NCBA, the nation's largest cattlemen's group, has been under increasing attack from cattlemen who contend it represents mostly the interests of big meatpackers at the expense of the nation's ranchers.

The latest such split was April 16, when a group of cattlemen in Washington state broke off from the Washington Cattlemen's Association, contending it aligns itself too closely with NCBA and its policies.

Several other cattlemen, including those in Kansas, have done the same thing in their own states--long before BSE became an issue.

The Kansas Livestock Association has declined to take a stance on private testing for BSE.

The splinter Kansas Cattlemen's Association has condemned the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to bar Creekstone from testing its cattle and has sided with Creekstone on the issue.

Meanwhile, the alternative national cattlemen's group--R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America--has called on the USDA to allow Creekstone to voluntarily test its cattle, praising Creekstone's entrepreneurial spirit.

Jan Lyons, president of the NCBA and a cattle producer from Manhattan, Kan., said mad cow testing is not a simple marketing decision.

"This unwarranted testing would become the standard for doing business, and the cost will be borne by U.S. cattle producers," Lyons said. "This is a decision that affects the entire industry."

I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather have beef that had been fully tested for BSE. And costs could be absorbed by cattle ranchers being able to sell into Japan and South Korea (meaning, they could raise more cattle and make up costs through sales volume.)

 

[glenn1]

This is simply trade protectionism under transparently bogus cover. If Japan and Korea can insist we test every cattle before they'll buy from us, I think it's only fair that we insist that every product we buy from them be tested also, from kimchi to cars to electronics. The testing process will be a helluva lot cheaper for us than it is them, plus we're not economically dependent on exports to them like they are to us.

This is not to say that 100% testing is necessarily a bad idea, but I think the Department of Agriculture is better equiped to make that call than our tariff-happy friends in Japan. That being said, I'm somewhat confused that a company that WANTS to do testing is being refused permission to do so, or that they need to ask permission in the first place. What would the Ag Dept. do if the company went and tested anyway, throw them in jail?

 

[f95toli]

YOu can hardly compare cows to cars. The difference in this case is that even if you import a "bad" car from Japan there is no risk that the "disease" will spread and for example destroy all the cars that are produced by GM in USA, but this is exactly what can potentially happen with BSE: Even importing meat is risky because if the way BSE spreads.

 

[Kibbo]

This is funny.

It's quite possible that Japan will accept exports from Canada before it accepts them from the US.

Keep up the good work, our cattle farmers need the help right now.

 

[sandorski]

France is one country that has 100% testing. Though it adds an expense to meat processing, when BSE infected cattle are detected(and they find BSE infected cattle every year) no one cares, because they know that the Beef at the supermarket is safe. So full testing is possible, people just need to demand it.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: sandorski
France is one country that has 100% testing. Though it adds an expense to meat processing, when BSE infected cattle are detected(and they find BSE infected cattle every year) no one cares, because they know that the Beef at the supermarket is safe. So full testing is possible, people just need to demand it.

 

[outriding]

DP

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: glenn1
This is simply trade protectionism under transparently bogus cover. If Japan and Korea can insist we test every cattle before they'll buy from us, I think it's only fair that we insist that every product we buy from them be tested also, from kimchi to cars to electronics. The testing process will be a helluva lot cheaper for us than it is them, plus we're not economically dependent on exports to them like they are to us.

This is not to say that 100% testing is necessarily a bad idea, but I think the Department of Agriculture is better equiped to make that call than our tariff-happy friends in Japan. That being said, I'm somewhat confused that a company that WANTS to do testing is being refused permission to do so, or that they need to ask permission in the first place. What would the Ag Dept. do if the company went and tested anyway, throw them in jail?

I disagree. Since US trade policy has been sucking great big donkey balls for three decades most countries have developed far more sophisticated means of denying equal access for US goods. Here the problem is that the US good is CLEARLY inferior to other goods.

Further, if Samsung sends a bad LCD or the Civic hybrid only gets 40mpg . . . no one DIES.

The USDA is not in a better position b/c they do no represent the interests of US consumers. USDA is essentially the Commerce Dept with a regulatory arm that rarely does its job. Fortunately most farmers/processors aren't terrible so the food supply is inherently decent. But USDA doesn't exactly go out of its way to insure a safe food supply. Or even a healthy food supply . . . school lunch programs and old WIC were forced to buy crappy whole milk and beef in order to keep subsidized producers happy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You guys are funny
This isn't about tariffs at all. This is entirely a bureaucratic mess within the US. Other countries demand it - Some suppliers want to do it - but our bureaucracy says no for a variety of reasons. Personally I fail to see how the USDA can stop the export of 100% tested beef to Japan if a company here wants to do so - especially since the Japanese are willing to pay more for the tested meat. I think they fear that it force everyone else to test 100% and create another level of the beef market. From what I gather(from listening to 1.5 hrs of the Farm show everyday) - cattlemen aren't really all that concerned and just want to get their beef gone, it's basically a fight between business and a bureaucracy that doesn't want to change at this point.

I say let the market decide - not the bureaucracy.

CsG

 

[Amused]

Good for the USDA not giving into and thus fueling hysteria

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You guys are funny
This isn't about tariffs at all. This is entirely a bureaucratic mess within the US. Other countries demand it - Some suppliers want to do it - but our bureaucracy says no for a variety of reasons. Personally I fail to see how the USDA can stop the export of 100% tested beef to Japan if a company here wants to do so - especially since the Japanese are willing to pay more for the tested meat. I think they fear that it force everyone else to test 100% and create another level of the beef market. From what I gather(from listening to 1.5 hrs of the Farm show everyday) - cattlemen aren't really all that concerned and just want to get their beef gone, it's basically a fight between business and a bureaucracy that doesn't want to change at this point.

I say let the market decide - not the bureaucracy.

CsG

Creekstone is also diving into the all natural beef market. No growth hormones, anti- biotics and zero animal bi-products in the feed. They are looking for their little niche in the market and I also say, let them have it. Could open up some new markets in EU also.

Big Packers don't want competition and 'that' is what this is all about.

 

[Moonbeam]

When I read that a downed cow was cut up and shipped to seven states god only knows where after that and tested only after, costing a multi million dollar panic, and also that Japan tests every cow sent to market, and then too that the US would still refuse to test and 15% of the cattle sold are of an age they could be infected, added to the fact that they couldn't trace the herd the infected cow came from, I said f*ck the mainstream American cattle industry, I won't eat their meat. I haven't eaten or bought, in a restaurant or store a single ounce of beef that is not certified grass fed, except for two McDonald's burgers soon after I made and forgot my pledge. If some donkey somewhere is going to sit on his fat ass and decide for me that the beef market is save enough as is not to test each cow for the sake of money and the industry will go along they can screw themselves. I am acting through the market and you can see the effect. I am probably one person is a million that has any information or sense, right? I'm sure I will win in the end. All risk benefit analysis should be done with the address of the decision makers posted on their policies so the families of the dead know whom to supply with the most recent data.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can buy certified Oregon grass fed beef at Whole Foods.

 

[imported_Sasha]

While I can see the confidence-building aspect of 100% cattle testing I have to wonder exactly how much more difficult it is in the USA to implement such a system.

First, we have a more wide-spread (complex?) production spread over a much larger area. Does this mean more difficult (costly) implementation issues? Also, would the increased sales of USA beef in Japan & Korea greatly offset the costs of implementing the system?

Secondly, how many Americans are holding off consuming beef because of current testing methods? Would there be significant increases in American consumption to make-up shortfalls in offset-costs for a new system to be implemented?

Finally, how accurate is the current system in testing for the cattle that does get tested? Will the revised system afford cattle ranchers to destroy only portions of stock for per-head flags? If a flag is raised on a post-processed head of cattle, what measures are done at and beyond the slaughterhouse?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Sasha
While I can see the confidence-building aspect of 100% cattle testing I have to wonder exactly how much more difficult it is in the USA to implement such a system.

First, we have a more wide-spread (complex?) production spread over a much larger area. Does this mean more difficult (costly) implementation issues? Also, would the increased sales of USA beef in Japan & Korea greatly offset the costs of implementing the system?

Secondly, how many Americans are holding off consuming beef because of current testing methods? Would there be significant increases in American consumption to make-up shortfalls in offset-costs for a new system to be implemented?

Finally, how accurate is the current system in testing for the cattle that does get tested? Will the revised system afford cattle ranchers to destroy only portions of stock for per-head flags? If a flag is raised on a post-processed head of cattle, what measures are done at and beyond the slaughterhouse?

1) In this day and age being spreadout is a non-issue. The size of the herds might be an issue though. From an Export perspective, 100% testing makes more sense for Canada than the US, due to much larger proportion of Canadian Beef is raised for Export than in the US. That said, the US Exports are large enough that Beef producers are concerned with those losses.

Coincidently, in Canada there has been quite strong support for 100% testing, a lot of the opposition to it is coming from the US. The reason is that if Canada goes 100% testing, the pressure increases on the US to go 100% testing.

2) Don't really know, but it is likely that Beef consumption has not really changed or gone up(Atkins).

3) AFAIK, the testing is very accurate. The rest of the question is more difficuly as how those things are cared for depend on the Country/System. Again, in France they don't kill herds or parts of herds if BSE is found in 1 cow, they simply exclude the infected cows meat from going to Market.

That is another advantage to a 100% testing system, you don't need to stage dramatic "actions" to place the Consumer at ease.

 

[imported_Sasha]

I've certainly done no research on this subject, but I have to wonder exactly how much of a cost increase this would involve. I am not against paying more for my steak IF there is reassurance and accountability for what I am paying at the steakhouse is getting tested, too.

Maybe the beef industry needs to perform some counter-marketing against the poultry industry, and especially against Chic-fil-a (did I spell that right?) asking people if they'd rather consume a succulent steak or a dirty hen.

Also, I do not see the problem with segregated systems where stock heading towards Japan & Korea, and other demanding markets, could not be assured that no mixing of cattle/processing is allowed, and as such affords that exported beef comes with a higher assurance factor than what we feed in-country.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Sasha
I've certainly done no research on this subject, but I have to wonder exactly how much of a cost increase this would involve. I am not against paying more for my steak IF there is reassurance and accountability for what I am paying at the steakhouse is getting tested, too.

Maybe the beef industry needs to perform some counter-marketing against the poultry industry, and especially against Chic-fil-a (did I spell that right?) asking people if they'd rather consume a succulent steak or a dirty hen.

Also, I do not see the problem with segregated systems where stock heading towards Japan & Korea, and other demanding markets, could not be assured that no mixing of cattle/processing is allowed, and as such affords that exported beef comes with a higher assurance factor than what we feed in-country.

One possible problem with a mixed testing system is that you can only test for BSE by using the brains of the cow in question, not the meat itself. So for an Importing country there could be issues of whether non-tested beef was entering into the Export system.

Here's an interesting FAQ from the EU, the cost/test is apporx $30-40 US per cow.