Guess there's no point arguing this one as you and I are on oppostite sides of the border and oppostie sides of the issue. It's simply that the farmers in my area find it frustrating to hear that the decisions will be based on science, not politics, in regards to the opening of the border.
I pointed out that I believe the same thing, that science should guide this, to which she
You've apparently misunderstood my comment. I, and other farmers in my area, don't have a problem relying on science, but the "science" you are referring to does not back up keeping the border closed. What I asked is that you explain the scientific reasons for keeping the border closed. What are the "reasonable standards of science" involved here that you refer to?
Instead of responding in my comments I decided to bring it up to front and center.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has repeatedly rejected World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) science-based minimal criteria for designating a country as a “minimal” BSE-risk country, arguing instead that Canada’s good-faith intentions to reduce BSE are appropriate substitutes for objective, science-based evidence. OIE standards require a country with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) to have had a meat-and-bone meal (MBM) feed ban “effectively enforced for at least eight years.” The USDA has judged Canada a “minimal” BSE-risk country, even though Canada has not met the required eight-year feed ban.
According to correspondence from OIE – before USDA decided to ignore this minimal eight-year feed ban requirement – the agency sought the advice of OIE scientists to determine whether OIE would agree to any relaxations of the animal-health organization’s BSE minimal-risk standards contained in OIE’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
On Sept. 26, 2003, OIE rejected USDA’s request to relax OIE’s BSE minimal-risk standards, stating, “One of the most important conclusions of the recent OIE expert group is that the scientific basis used in the present Code is still valid.”
Canada can qualify only as a “moderate” BSE-risk country under OIE standards, and Canada should be practicing more intense BSE mitigation measures than those already implemented by the country if it wishes to be classed as a "minimal" BSE-risk country. I know it's only one point, the MBM ban, but that is where the science is against Canada being a "minimal" BSE-risk country and is in keeping with more stringent border safeguards for the US.
In the USDA's Final Rule published on Jan. 4, 2005, USDA permanently lifted the restriction on Canadian beef from cattle over 30 months of age, effectively allowing the most risky beef into the U.S. food supply. This part of the rule was eventually rescinded by the Secretary of Agriculture but points out that scientific criteria was not being followed.
There is also an issue of reciprocity involved here. The United States meets the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) standards for a country provisionally free of BSE. Knowing this Canada is unwilling to let U.S. beef from cattle over 30 months of age into the Canadian food supply, even though all cases of BSE found to date have been in cattle of Canadian origin.
I would also like to point out to everybody my statement I have made before:
I think this is the right decision but I will admit upfront that I have a vested interest in keeping the border closed. I have tried to weigh that against the public safety and I think the public safety is the reason I am standing the way I do on this issue.
I have always been upfront that I have a financial stake in this decision. I've always known that Canadian cattle were a drag on our market in the US but accepted that as a condition of doing business. I joined R-calf in its original purpose to discover if Canadian cattle producers were unfairly dumping cattle on the US market. The US government studied the issue and discovered that the Canadian cattle producers were in fact dumping cattle on the US market but they would do nothing about it since it's affect was very slight on the US market in their opinion. I knew this was going to be the answer going into it but was happy with the results in knowing that Canadian cattle producers were in fact trying to hurt our markets.
If you carefully read all of my BSE" target="_new">BSE articles you will find I supported Canadian cattle producers and urged caution on all of us up until it was reported that Canadian feed still was showing signs of MBM in its production and distribution. This revelation caused me to re-evaluate my position on Canadian cattle. With this information in hand and based on the science of the issue that Canada is not a "minimal" BSE-risk country I felt it was necessary to oppose the opening of the border to live cattle.
I hope this answers my newest commenter's questions as to what the science is that I speak of in keeping the border closed. Right or wrong, that's where I stand.
Science is a system of statements based on direct experience, and controlled by experimental verification. Verification in science is not, however, of single statements but of the entire system or a sub-system of such statements. Rudolf Carnap
Consider: In England, which had cattle-feeding practices that were substantially unique, the mid-nineties BSE outbreak resulted in the slaughter of more than 4,000,000 cows. Of these, more than 200,000 were infected with BSE. It stands to reason that countless thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, entered the food supply before the problem was identified and acted upon. They were then chopped up into bangers—undoubtedly with all sorts of nerves and organ meat in the mix—because the English love their sausage.
These facts were considered very scary back in the nineties, and there were predictions that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Brits would eventually die of variant CJD, the human prion disease that (allegedly) comes from eating cattle infected with BSE. Naturally, the entire world panicked.
Fortunately, the scare-mongering predictions were laughably wrong. To date, only 156 Brits have died of vCJD. More tellingly, deaths peaked in 2000. People now think that the total deaths from vCJD in Britain will not go much over 200.
Now, CJD itself spontaneously (or apparently spontaneously) occurs in about one person in a million, and it is inevitably fatal. The variant form, allegedly from BSE, is the only form that is theoretically avoidable. If you run the numbers back o’ da envelope, it looks like the risk of contracting vCJD—if you lived in Britain during the height of the BSE scare—is one in four million, or one quarter the risk of regular CJD. This is a tiny percentage of lightening-strike risk, folks.
So now fast forward to the summer of 2003. One crummy Canuk cow falls over. Does the American beef industry take this golden opportunity to calm fears of BSE? Does it take the high road and say “As far as we’re concerned, Canadian beef is as safe as it ever was. There is no meaningful risk to human health from BSE, as we have all learned from the British experience.” Did they get a couple of public health gurus to write articles for the NYT op-ed page explaining same? No. Why? Because they thought that this was going to be a great chance to ban Canadian imports. By implicitly acknowledging an essentially imaginary risk to humans from BSE, the beef industry consigned itself to fighting over a shrinking market instead of expanding or at least preserving the total market. Stupid. It's falling into the trap of the anti-cattle crowd (a lot of the BSE fear-mongering comes from the political vegans).
The problem, of course, was that it set up the United States to have its beef banned when a case surfaced here, which was inevitable even though there is essentially no monitoring of the problem (and the DOA refuses even to <em>permit</em> slaughterhouses to screen for it, which is transportingly stupid). So what happened when an American case surfaced six months later? The world slammed its door shut on American beef, and there was more than one off-the-record snarky comment that we were only getting our just desserts. In this case, at least, they were right.
The American beef industry massively blew this issue, all so that it could score some temporary protection against Canadian beef. In doing so, it missed a golden opportunity to explain to the public that <em>there is no risk to human health from BSE</em>.
I agree with your point Tigerhawk but that is not the way the world operates. The whole thing is about public relations. If the beef industry would have stood up and said there is no health risk to humans from BSE people would have looked at the 156 deaths and the infamous pictures of the dairy cow staggering around and called us liars and would wonder what we are hiding. By standing up and saying yes, BSE is a problem and these are the steps we are taking to protect the consumer it appears that we are aware of the situation, care for the consumer, and are doing something to fix the situation.
Like it or not, its all about public perception. The vast majority of the American public doesn't see that the risks are statistically insignificant, just that there are risks.
The USDA, the packers or the producers?
Based on your comments about Canadian producers dumping cattle on the American market, I plan to do some additional research. My understanding was that many of the Canadian cattle that made their way to the States was the result of American feedlot owners coming up (or contracting buyers) to purchase Canadian cattle at auction to fill up their lots (ie. there wasn't enough supply in the States to meet the consumer demand). Of course, it also made sense for US feedlot owners to purchase Canadian cattle when our dollar was worth 65 cents US. Find this interesting and will have to investigate further.
Lastly, in response to your reciprocity statement. Given that prior to the border closing it was so transparent and Canadian and American cattle crossed back and forth all the time (for feeding out, breeding, etc.), why would we allow cattle over 30 months of age back in. If our animals are indeed so risky (and I don't believe for one minute they are), why would we take the chance that you would ship back to us a load of "infected" animals. That wouldn't be very astute.
About cattle moving across the border freely that is a fairly new thing too. My uncle was a member of the group that got Canada to allow Americna cattle to cross the border into Canada with minimal interfernece. It happened 5-7 years ago. Before then to get US cattle into Canada was a 6-12 month quarantine process. It didn't happen very often because of it.
I feel for the Canadian cattle producers. I know they have been hurt by all of this, not just the non-reopening but the whole thing. I would like to see our foriegn markets open back up too but it hasn't happened yet. Luckily we have enough internal demand to hold our prices up while Canada doesn't. Wish I had the answer for all of us but I don't.