preston39
Well-known member
Posted from Angus e-list 5/06/05;
"Time To Put The 100% Testing Debate To Rest
The Kansas Department of Agriculture and Kansas State University released last week the most extensive report yet on the economic effect of BSE. It showed the U.S. industry had lost $3.2 to $4.7 billion as the result of BSE.
The report did a great job of detailing U.S. producer losses to BSE, and the long-term structural changes that will forever change the revenue dynamics of our industry in a negative way. But this wasn't the portion of the report that received the most discussion.
Receiving the most coverage is the study's conclusion on the potential lost revenue when USDA decided against 100% testing. The report maintains that if the U.S. had retained its export markets (which wasn't assured), and BSE-tested less than 25% of its cattle, the cost would have been a little more than $600 million (not factoring in any implementation costs, and assuming the cost of testing would fall), meaning the industry could have captured around $800 million more rather than losing the billions it did.
Of course, if we had universal testing, we would continue to incur those costs in the long term, which would also change the dynamics.
Without question, USDA miscalculated how long it would take for Japan to accept the science and admit 100% testing was unnecessary. But, with the entire world in agreement that testing animals younger than 30 months is a waste, the U.S. already has made a significant concession to get trade re-established and one that is not without cost. It is time for the calls for mandatory testing to end.
-- Troy Marshall "
"Time To Put The 100% Testing Debate To Rest
The Kansas Department of Agriculture and Kansas State University released last week the most extensive report yet on the economic effect of BSE. It showed the U.S. industry had lost $3.2 to $4.7 billion as the result of BSE.
The report did a great job of detailing U.S. producer losses to BSE, and the long-term structural changes that will forever change the revenue dynamics of our industry in a negative way. But this wasn't the portion of the report that received the most discussion.
Receiving the most coverage is the study's conclusion on the potential lost revenue when USDA decided against 100% testing. The report maintains that if the U.S. had retained its export markets (which wasn't assured), and BSE-tested less than 25% of its cattle, the cost would have been a little more than $600 million (not factoring in any implementation costs, and assuming the cost of testing would fall), meaning the industry could have captured around $800 million more rather than losing the billions it did.
Of course, if we had universal testing, we would continue to incur those costs in the long term, which would also change the dynamics.
Without question, USDA miscalculated how long it would take for Japan to accept the science and admit 100% testing was unnecessary. But, with the entire world in agreement that testing animals younger than 30 months is a waste, the U.S. already has made a significant concession to get trade re-established and one that is not without cost. It is time for the calls for mandatory testing to end.
-- Troy Marshall "
