HAY MAKER
Well-known member
Jolley: Five Minutes With An Angry Bill Bullard
9/21/2007 7:52:00 AM
Jolley: Five Minutes With An Angry Bill Bullard
R-Calf has fought a long and bitter battle on the border, losing more often than not. They are adamantly opposed to Canadian cattle moving south…vehemently opposed to older Canadian cattle entering the U.S. marketplace. It's idea that will get them out of the saddle with their dukes up in a heartbeat.
So when the USDA announced Rule #2 last Friday – a decision that effectively opened the border between Alberta and Montana where Governor Brian Schweitzer has vowed to do what he says the feds won't do – the explosion at R-CALF's offices in Billings registered as an 8.5 on the Richter scale as measured at the University of California, Berkeley. One could almost imagine the Montana National Guard, backed by a reserve militia of R-CALF members barricading I-15 about midway between Milk River, Alberta and Sunburst, Montana, creating another kind of immigration problem for the U.S. government.
Of course, it doesn't help that the top guy at the USDA, Mike Johanns, resigned his position yesterday (Thursday) to run for a less contentious office – Senator from Nebraska? Higher office in 2012? Anyway, he's leaving the problem for acting Secretary Chuck Conner to handle.
I talked with an angry Bill Bullard last Friday. His tone was quiet, measured but with an undertone loaded with anger and frustration. It was a little early to ask the important questions. R-CALF was still trying to absorb the impact of Rule 2. I asked if I might come back to him later with a series of questions aimed at taking the measure of their response.
Batten down the hatches. Lock the barn door. Secure the corral. The battle has begun.
Q. The contents of rule #2 weren't a surprise to many observers but it did set off an immediate uproar at R-CALF headquarters last Friday. Can you give me a sense of the reaction from both the staff as well as the rank-and-file members?
A: Frankly, R-CALF USA staff, members, and directors can't believe that USDA could be so reckless as to subject consumers and the U.S. cattle herd to a known risk of introducing BSE into the U.S. just to achieve its trade objectives. BSE is incurable in both cattle and humans. The USDA rule acknowledges the agency really doesn't know how widespread the BSE problem is in Canada.
The agency also acknowledges there is a risk of importing this disease from Canada. USDA acknowledges that Canada's feed ban did not stop the spread of BSE. Yet, USDA does not even plan to test older Canadian cattle for this disease before they enter the U.S. food chain, despite the fact that Europe and Japan have successfully removed hundreds of BSE-infected cattle that were not yet exhibiting outward signs of the disease from their food chains through mandatory testing. USDA could not be operating more irresponsibly or carelessly with the health and safety of our cattle industry and our consumers as it is in this rule.
Q. Last Friday's R-CALF broadcast and your comments early this week indicate that the organization wants to work with congress first to overturn the rule then go to court if that fails. There are just two short months between now and implementation of the rule and we all know congress tends to be glacial in these matters. Will you be working both options simultaneously and will you try a pre-emptive strike by asking for injunctive relief soon?
A: Because this rule was determined to have a significant economic impact, Congress is afforded a 60-day period to conduct a review before the rule can be implemented. That's why the rule is scheduled for implementation on Nov. 19, 2007. When USDA published its first rule in early 2005 to relax the United States' longstanding BSE import restrictions, the same 60-day congressional review period applied. R-CALF USA worked with Congress to overturn the rule.
The majority of the U.S. Senate agreed the rule was unacceptable and passed a Resolution of Disapproval, which would have overturned the rule. More than 40 U.S. House members sponsored a similar Resolution of Disapproval, but the leadership of the House refused to allow the rule to be voted on by the full House. Now that we have new leadership in Congress, we are working with Congress and are hopeful that both the Senate and the House will act quickly to overturn this new, unacceptable rule.
Q. Rick Paskal, a Alberta-based cattle feeder, was asked to comment on the effect of the rule on the Canadian market and said "The ability of (commercial cattle herd) producers to be able to verify their age, I think, is next to nil, so the impact that this is going to have on that part of the industry is going to be very insignificant."
In fact, other reports seem to suggest very few cattle will actually cross the border and all of them will be age-verified. Joining most other meat industry trade associations, Phil Kimball, Executive Director of the North American Meat Processors Association, applauded the decision, saying, "The management of cattle movement and the beef trade between Canada and the US is watched by our trading partners, particularly Japan. By normalizing the cattle movement of all ages in North America, we will send a powerful signal to the rest of the world that the minimal risk approach is based on sound science and, therefore, should be used by all countries to restore and normalize world beef trade."
The safety issue is seemingly assured, the impact on U.S. markets should be non-existent and a tool to help re-open world markets is at hand. Do you agree and can you detail your objections?
A: No. First, the negative impact on U.S. cattle prices likely will be worse than USDA predicts. That's because even if it takes one or more years for all of Canada's older cattle to be age verified, this rule also allows the importation of beef from older cattle of any age. This beef does not need to come from age-verified cattle. As a result, the combined increase in beef supplies resulting from the importation of both beef and cattle will put immediate downward pressure on U.S. cattle prices.
The overriding concern about this rule, however, is that the importation of Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, would weaken consumer confidence in beef sold in the U.S. and create unease for potential health concerns because 40 percent of Canada's BSE cases have been detected in cattle born after the March 1, 1999, eligibility date. We believe this eligibility date in unjustified. In addition, this rule is not in compliance with minimal international standards because, contrary to the standards set by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the rule would allow high-risk tissues from older Canadian cattle to enter the U.S. animal feed system (hog, poultry, and pet food that could cross-contaminate cattle feed) and be used in the production of fertilizer.
Q. Let's do the numbers. It's been R-CALF's long-held position that Canadian cattle are a substantial risk with the occurrence of BSE at a very high rate. Would you compare the U.S. and Canadian herds and tell me where you think they've failed in herd management?
A: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are recognized experts in the area of disease risks. The CDC states that the proportion of BSE cases detected in the Canadian cattle herd is 26-fold higher than is the proportion of cases detected in the United States. This means that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely to have BSE. You can view the CDC's analysis at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/. Thus, we have two federal agencies giving us two conflicting reports regarding the difference in BSE risk between the U.S. and Canada. Given USDA's demonstrated propensity to favor trade over health and safety concerns, we have far more confidence in the CDC's analysis.
Q. I think it's fair to say that come hell or high water (and the cattle industry of late has seen plenty of both) R-CALF sticks by its principles. The organization's record in court, though, hasn't been very good. If you have to take Rule 2 to court, what points can you make that will tilt a decision in your favor? Basically, with almost all the industry influence groups arrayed on the other side of the aisle, can you win?
A: Yes, we can win. USDA is trumping science with its political trade goals and the agency is threatening the long-term viability of our industry. R-CALF USA will not quit the fight to ensure that we have a comprehensive disease protection policy that protects our U.S. cattle herd from the introduction of diseases from foreign countries.
Actually, our past legal record is pretty good considering the recent decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The litigation we initiated resulted in a successful preliminary injunction that blocked USDA from allowing ground beef, processed beef, and live cattle from Canada for eight months beginning in May 2004. We then won a second preliminary injunction in 2005 that blocked USDA's rule to allow imports of under 30-month Canadian cattle until mid-2005. USDA withdrew its plans to allow the importation of beef from older Canadian cattle while our lawsuit was pending, and, USDA amended its rule to prohibit the importation of pregnant Canadian heifers as a result of our lawsuit. It is clear that R-CALF USA's past legal actions have increased protections to the U.S. cattle industry and to U.S. consumers against the importation of foreign animal diseases.
Q. You have a friend in Jerry Kozak, CEO of the National MIlk Producers Federation, who said, "Our dairy farmers can't take any comfort from USDA's probabilities and statistical projections. The reality is that animals infected with BSE in Canada become our problem when they arrive in the U.S." Will you be working with him? And are there any other organizations that will back R-CALF as you do battle with the USDA?
A: R-CALF USA agrees, completely, with Jerry Kozak's statement, and yes, we will be contacting him to determine how we can best work together to protect our respective industries. In addition, because this rule presents a risk to consumers, we will be working with the major consumer groups as well.
9/21/2007 7:52:00 AM
Jolley: Five Minutes With An Angry Bill Bullard
R-Calf has fought a long and bitter battle on the border, losing more often than not. They are adamantly opposed to Canadian cattle moving south…vehemently opposed to older Canadian cattle entering the U.S. marketplace. It's idea that will get them out of the saddle with their dukes up in a heartbeat.
So when the USDA announced Rule #2 last Friday – a decision that effectively opened the border between Alberta and Montana where Governor Brian Schweitzer has vowed to do what he says the feds won't do – the explosion at R-CALF's offices in Billings registered as an 8.5 on the Richter scale as measured at the University of California, Berkeley. One could almost imagine the Montana National Guard, backed by a reserve militia of R-CALF members barricading I-15 about midway between Milk River, Alberta and Sunburst, Montana, creating another kind of immigration problem for the U.S. government.
Of course, it doesn't help that the top guy at the USDA, Mike Johanns, resigned his position yesterday (Thursday) to run for a less contentious office – Senator from Nebraska? Higher office in 2012? Anyway, he's leaving the problem for acting Secretary Chuck Conner to handle.
I talked with an angry Bill Bullard last Friday. His tone was quiet, measured but with an undertone loaded with anger and frustration. It was a little early to ask the important questions. R-CALF was still trying to absorb the impact of Rule 2. I asked if I might come back to him later with a series of questions aimed at taking the measure of their response.
Batten down the hatches. Lock the barn door. Secure the corral. The battle has begun.
Q. The contents of rule #2 weren't a surprise to many observers but it did set off an immediate uproar at R-CALF headquarters last Friday. Can you give me a sense of the reaction from both the staff as well as the rank-and-file members?
A: Frankly, R-CALF USA staff, members, and directors can't believe that USDA could be so reckless as to subject consumers and the U.S. cattle herd to a known risk of introducing BSE into the U.S. just to achieve its trade objectives. BSE is incurable in both cattle and humans. The USDA rule acknowledges the agency really doesn't know how widespread the BSE problem is in Canada.
The agency also acknowledges there is a risk of importing this disease from Canada. USDA acknowledges that Canada's feed ban did not stop the spread of BSE. Yet, USDA does not even plan to test older Canadian cattle for this disease before they enter the U.S. food chain, despite the fact that Europe and Japan have successfully removed hundreds of BSE-infected cattle that were not yet exhibiting outward signs of the disease from their food chains through mandatory testing. USDA could not be operating more irresponsibly or carelessly with the health and safety of our cattle industry and our consumers as it is in this rule.
Q. Last Friday's R-CALF broadcast and your comments early this week indicate that the organization wants to work with congress first to overturn the rule then go to court if that fails. There are just two short months between now and implementation of the rule and we all know congress tends to be glacial in these matters. Will you be working both options simultaneously and will you try a pre-emptive strike by asking for injunctive relief soon?
A: Because this rule was determined to have a significant economic impact, Congress is afforded a 60-day period to conduct a review before the rule can be implemented. That's why the rule is scheduled for implementation on Nov. 19, 2007. When USDA published its first rule in early 2005 to relax the United States' longstanding BSE import restrictions, the same 60-day congressional review period applied. R-CALF USA worked with Congress to overturn the rule.
The majority of the U.S. Senate agreed the rule was unacceptable and passed a Resolution of Disapproval, which would have overturned the rule. More than 40 U.S. House members sponsored a similar Resolution of Disapproval, but the leadership of the House refused to allow the rule to be voted on by the full House. Now that we have new leadership in Congress, we are working with Congress and are hopeful that both the Senate and the House will act quickly to overturn this new, unacceptable rule.
Q. Rick Paskal, a Alberta-based cattle feeder, was asked to comment on the effect of the rule on the Canadian market and said "The ability of (commercial cattle herd) producers to be able to verify their age, I think, is next to nil, so the impact that this is going to have on that part of the industry is going to be very insignificant."
In fact, other reports seem to suggest very few cattle will actually cross the border and all of them will be age-verified. Joining most other meat industry trade associations, Phil Kimball, Executive Director of the North American Meat Processors Association, applauded the decision, saying, "The management of cattle movement and the beef trade between Canada and the US is watched by our trading partners, particularly Japan. By normalizing the cattle movement of all ages in North America, we will send a powerful signal to the rest of the world that the minimal risk approach is based on sound science and, therefore, should be used by all countries to restore and normalize world beef trade."
The safety issue is seemingly assured, the impact on U.S. markets should be non-existent and a tool to help re-open world markets is at hand. Do you agree and can you detail your objections?
A: No. First, the negative impact on U.S. cattle prices likely will be worse than USDA predicts. That's because even if it takes one or more years for all of Canada's older cattle to be age verified, this rule also allows the importation of beef from older cattle of any age. This beef does not need to come from age-verified cattle. As a result, the combined increase in beef supplies resulting from the importation of both beef and cattle will put immediate downward pressure on U.S. cattle prices.
The overriding concern about this rule, however, is that the importation of Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, would weaken consumer confidence in beef sold in the U.S. and create unease for potential health concerns because 40 percent of Canada's BSE cases have been detected in cattle born after the March 1, 1999, eligibility date. We believe this eligibility date in unjustified. In addition, this rule is not in compliance with minimal international standards because, contrary to the standards set by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the rule would allow high-risk tissues from older Canadian cattle to enter the U.S. animal feed system (hog, poultry, and pet food that could cross-contaminate cattle feed) and be used in the production of fertilizer.
Q. Let's do the numbers. It's been R-CALF's long-held position that Canadian cattle are a substantial risk with the occurrence of BSE at a very high rate. Would you compare the U.S. and Canadian herds and tell me where you think they've failed in herd management?
A: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are recognized experts in the area of disease risks. The CDC states that the proportion of BSE cases detected in the Canadian cattle herd is 26-fold higher than is the proportion of cases detected in the United States. This means that Canadian cattle are 26 times more likely to have BSE. You can view the CDC's analysis at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/. Thus, we have two federal agencies giving us two conflicting reports regarding the difference in BSE risk between the U.S. and Canada. Given USDA's demonstrated propensity to favor trade over health and safety concerns, we have far more confidence in the CDC's analysis.
Q. I think it's fair to say that come hell or high water (and the cattle industry of late has seen plenty of both) R-CALF sticks by its principles. The organization's record in court, though, hasn't been very good. If you have to take Rule 2 to court, what points can you make that will tilt a decision in your favor? Basically, with almost all the industry influence groups arrayed on the other side of the aisle, can you win?
A: Yes, we can win. USDA is trumping science with its political trade goals and the agency is threatening the long-term viability of our industry. R-CALF USA will not quit the fight to ensure that we have a comprehensive disease protection policy that protects our U.S. cattle herd from the introduction of diseases from foreign countries.
Actually, our past legal record is pretty good considering the recent decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The litigation we initiated resulted in a successful preliminary injunction that blocked USDA from allowing ground beef, processed beef, and live cattle from Canada for eight months beginning in May 2004. We then won a second preliminary injunction in 2005 that blocked USDA's rule to allow imports of under 30-month Canadian cattle until mid-2005. USDA withdrew its plans to allow the importation of beef from older Canadian cattle while our lawsuit was pending, and, USDA amended its rule to prohibit the importation of pregnant Canadian heifers as a result of our lawsuit. It is clear that R-CALF USA's past legal actions have increased protections to the U.S. cattle industry and to U.S. consumers against the importation of foreign animal diseases.
Q. You have a friend in Jerry Kozak, CEO of the National MIlk Producers Federation, who said, "Our dairy farmers can't take any comfort from USDA's probabilities and statistical projections. The reality is that animals infected with BSE in Canada become our problem when they arrive in the U.S." Will you be working with him? And are there any other organizations that will back R-CALF as you do battle with the USDA?
A: R-CALF USA agrees, completely, with Jerry Kozak's statement, and yes, we will be contacting him to determine how we can best work together to protect our respective industries. In addition, because this rule presents a risk to consumers, we will be working with the major consumer groups as well.
