A Beef with Japan
The specter of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is haunting U.S. beef trade with Japan. Not that U.S. beef has any problem, mind you, but that the Japanese have: 1) found that a single case of Canadian BSE is reason to make sure that no Canadian beef gets mixed in with American beef exported to them; and 2) conveniently ignored that Japan’s own BSE outbreak two years ago led to a big drop in beef consumption there, resulting in a significant decline in the amount of U.S. beef imported, which has finally returned to pre-BSE levels.
The second point is particularly problematic because the Japanese have used this so-called “surge” to justify jacking up their tax on beef imports. Normally, under current law, their tariff is 38.5 percent on imported beef. But, according to a “safeguard” provision, the Japanese can raise that tax to protect their own beef producers from a sudden influx of imports.
The Japanese argue that they’ve imported more beef this year than last – hence a tariff hike is in line with World Trade Organization rules. U.S. officials say, however, that “historical levels” of imports should be the baseline, not BSE-depressed levels.
As U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Ann Veneman said, what the Japanese are calling a surge in imports is, in reality, “an artificial surge.”
What Now, Brown Cow?
What now, in the wake of the BSE-infected Canadian cow, will happen to Canadian exports of beef and cattle across the U.S. border? Or, as a reporter put it to USDA Secretary Veneman at a Washington, DC, press conference, “There’s a lot of concern about the backup of live animals in Canada that are just waiting to flood across the border, and what precau-tions are being taken to prevent that?”
The secretary’s response was that through a permit process, boxed beef from Canadian cattle under 30 months of age will be allowed into the United States. The theory is that these younger animals are virtually BSE-risk free.
Letting live cattle under 30 months of age into this country is also being considered. But, according to Veneman, “it will take some time to actually do the regulation.”
Whether or not to let older cattle into the United States will take the longest to decide. Assessing any risks will be a more complex process.
Note: The United States, Canada, and Mexico were to have laid out proposals to the World Organization for Animal Health on how to continue trade now that Canada is in the “moderate BSE risk” category.
A Weighty Debate
The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for all countries to phase out the use of antibiotic growth promotants in animal feed. WHO has no authority to require that countries heed this call, but that doesn’t mean the call won’t have clout.
WHO based its action on a study of what has happened in Denmark, the world’s largest exporter of pork, after that country banned low-dose antibiotics in animal feed in 1998. Use of antibiotics there was cut in half, and the amount of resistant bacteria in pork and chicken declined “dramatically,” according to the official WHO report. Costs to pork producers only went up one percent.
Peter Braam, project leader for the report, commented, “We have believed for some time that giving animals low dosages of antibiotics throughout their lives to make them grow faster is a bad idea. Now we have solid scientific information.”
By 2006, the whole European Union plans to join Denmark by banning the promotants.
U.S. pork producers don’t like the idea of a ban one bit. Danish producers may have only seen a one percent rise in costs, they say, but in the U.S. open-market economy, the costs would be staggering. U.S. producers – some 85,000 of them – stand to lose $700 million over the next 10 years, according to the National Pork Board. That figures out to about $4.50 per pig.
Here in the United States, explained board spokesman Paul Sundberg, the packers dictate the size of hog they want. Anything heavier or lighter won’t bring top dollar. Growth promotants help producers regulate weight.
They Said, They Said
The sure-to-be new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief, Mike Leavitt, has the distinction of being the longest serving governor in the United States. And he’s kept that seat in Utah by championing states’ rights. As head of EPA, he’ll work to wrest power out of Washington, letting the states help shape environmental regs and how they are enforced.
Predictably, Republican lawmakers and businessmen praise him; Democrats on Capitol Hill and environmentalists blast him. All speak of his amiable demeanor. His supporters say it leads to consensus building; his detractors say it’s just smooth talking.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hailed Leavitt as “committed to keeping balance in the nation’s environmental policies.” A spokes-man for the Sierra Club, Lawson LeGate, called Leavitt “another spinmaster. What we will see is a lot of pro-environmental talk but a lot of anti-environmental action.”
USDA Grants of Interest
• Iowa: $46,500 to research marketing meat by-products and assist small-scale meat processors in business planning and product development.
• Maine: $50,000 to explore new marketing channels for the state’s dairy farmers.
• Minnesota: $69,000 to look at opportunities for direct marketing northern soybeans as a feed for poultry in selected overseas markets.
• New Jersey: A portion of $110,390 to educate meat goat producers on techniques and marketing strategies.
• Ohio: $69,210 to study opportunities for exporting feeder cattle to Israel and to lay the groundwork for trial shipments of Ohio calves.
• Wyoming: $77,000 to analyze the economic feasibility and practicality of a mobile meat processing unit.
Got (Too Much) Milk?
At last count, Uncle Sam had record stockpiles of nonfat dry milk – 1.28 billion pounds.
In the past 10 months alone, USDA has spent $575 million buying up the stuff in order to keep fluid milk prices from falling. And there is no end in sight.
The department has been trying to pare down that mountain by giving the powdered milk to school lunch programs, food banks, and foreign aid programs, including to post-war Iraq. It even donated 200 million pounds for cattle feed.
“We’ve moved a lot of milk, and we’ve bought a lot of milk, and I don’t see an end – not until the next farm bill,” USDA official Bill March said. As for the current stockpile? “We don’t want it!” he replied.
Note: The dairy industry says producers plan to cull about 30,000 cows to cut milk production by some one billion pounds.
Briefly
• Catfish farmers, based on their feed purchases in 2002, can get disaster assistance if they’ve suffered from adverse weather or other natural conditions. USDA has $34 million in the kitty. v
• EPA’s general counsel has ruled that the agency has no jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Such emissions are often blamed for contributing to global warming.
October 2003 Render