Public Radio Commentary

presented by Sandy Courtnage

January 16, 2007

 

 

Expand Beef Imports from Canada Proposed

 

Shortly after the New Year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a proposal to expand the list of allowable Canadian beef and cattle imports.

 

Just a quick reading of the proposed rule reveals some troubling measures:  

 

Beef of ALL ages will be allowed – both bone-in and boneless; and

 

There is no explanation of how USDA plans to separate Canadian beef from U.S. beef that is prepared for export.

 

While USDA plans to expand imports, they have yet to address what will happen if another BSE case is found in Canada.  How will that occurrence affect the U.S. and our trading partners. 

 

We can’t help but wonder why they recommend expanding while there have been few assurances that Canada has its BSE problem under control. 

 

We’d like to stop the proposal in its tracks.  USDA seems determined to put re-opening beef trade with Canada above the interests of U.S. cattle producers and consumers.  The next logical response to this proposal, however, is the immediate implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling – or COOL as it has come to be known.

 

A large number of producer and consumer groups again have joined together and are calling for mandatory COOL to be a priority of the 110th Congress.

 

As you may recall, COOL already is a law.  It has been since 2002, when Congress passed the labeling law requiring retailers to notify consumers of the country-of-origin of beef, pork, lamb, produce, peanuts and seafood.  Yet through a series of back room deals, riders have been added to “must-pass legislation” that prohibited the U.S. Department of Agriculture from actually implementing the law.  The current deadline has postponed implementation to as late as September 30, 2008.  The only exception has been seafood.

 

USDA, for its part, has not pushed for timely implementation either.  Throughout this process the big question raised by the department has been the cost of the program.  Back in December of 2002, the department estimated the cost of implementing COOL at $1.9 billion, a figure that farmers, ranchers and consumers labeled ridiculous.  Six months later, the General Accounting Office basically agreed in its report that called the USDA estimate “inflated.”  A few weeks after that, USDA revised its estimate down to $582 million.  

 

While COOL’s delay has been the focus and goal of Congress and USDA, American consumers and producers have repeatedly expressed their strong support for the law.  In fact, in a nationally conducted survey more than 80 percent of U.S. consumers stated they want to know where their food comes from.

 

The time for COOL is long overdue.  Congress needs to provide the Department of Agriculture with the funds necessary to implement the law, and also require it to immediately prepare a common-sense rule so we all can benefit from this important labeling.

 

Fortunately, there are strong hints that some changes are on the horizon.  All of Montana’s Congressional delegation support mandatory COOL, and several laws are being prepared to bump up the implementation date.  They understand that it is the only tool available to protect U.S. cattle ranchers if an additional BSE case is discovered within the Canadian herd.

 

If you feel strongly about the USDA proposal to expand Canadian beef and cattle imports, public comments on the proposed rule will be accepted until March 12, 2007.

 

You can log your comments onto their web site at www.usda.gov.  And, while you’re at it – put in a pitch for labeling.  It’s needed and needed now.

 

For the Montana Farmers Union, I’m Sandy Courtnage.  Thanks for listening.

 

-30-