Cattle Rack Rancher
Well-known member
U.S. packers warn against ban on SRMs
this document web posted: Wednesday, February 9, 2005 20050210p82
By Barry Wilson
Ottawa bureau
GATINEAU, Que. - The chair of the American Meat Institute is warning Canada against banning specified risk materials from all animal feed, predicting trade implications and a decrease in Canadian packer competitiveness.
William Buckner, who is also a senior Cargill executive from Minneapolis, said Canada should not move faster than the U.S. in setting feed rules. He was responding to a Canadian Food Inspection Agency proposal to ban suspected BSE transmitter brain and spinal cord material from all animal feed. A public consultation period on the proposal will end soon.
Buckner said the idea should be dropped because it is not being considered in the U.S. Instead, only SRM material from animals older than 30 months should be destroyed.
"We believe SRMs is an area we need to harmonize as much as possible in North America because we believe the global trading partners we have will hold us to a relatively similar standard," he said in an interview after a Feb. 4 speech to the annual meeting of the Canadian Meat Council.
"Our perspective on a full SRM ban is that it would be very costly, it would take a long time to implement and would have serious environmental concerns that haven't been addressed yet. We haven't seen plans that would address the huge volume of waste that would be created by a complete SRM ban."
He said the AMI proposal to destroy SRM material only from older animals is a proper "systems management scientific approach" that would reduce risk almost as much as a total ban. The AMI represents the packing industry in the U.S.
"We come back to the idea of having harmonization to the greatest extent possible so we don't have differences going to the world marketplace."
He said a Canadian decision to create SRM restrictions that were tougher than those in the U.S. would create problems.
"We believe it creates problems for a number of trading situations," he said.
"You have this integrated marketplace for livestock and meat in North America and yet we have different standards in how we deal with specified risk materials and so we do think lack of harmonization in this area makes it more complex, more costly, more inefficient, more difficult."
As well, he said it would affect the competitiveness of Canadian packers compared to their American rivals. Cargill's plant in High River, Alta., would suffer.
"Yes, there are (implications for the Alberta plant)," he said.
"Hopefully it is obvious that business models in Canada would bear a little extra complexity, cost and inefficiency versus plants in the United States, Australia, New Zealand or other beef producing places in the world."
Canadian agriculture minister Andy Mitchell said the CFIA will consider the comments received during the SRM-ban consultation. He also said it is important to work with the Americans.
However, he suggested the government remains committed to the idea of a total SRM ban from animal feed, including pet feed.
"We believe there's importance in having an SRM ban in terms of animal feed," he said.
"We want to work towards ensuring that the small possibility of cross-contamination is minimized to the greatest extent possible. That's our public policy objective."
He said it is a balancing act between creating compatible regulations throughout North America while taking the most effective measures for Canadian animal health.
this document web posted: Wednesday, February 9, 2005 20050210p82
By Barry Wilson
Ottawa bureau
GATINEAU, Que. - The chair of the American Meat Institute is warning Canada against banning specified risk materials from all animal feed, predicting trade implications and a decrease in Canadian packer competitiveness.
William Buckner, who is also a senior Cargill executive from Minneapolis, said Canada should not move faster than the U.S. in setting feed rules. He was responding to a Canadian Food Inspection Agency proposal to ban suspected BSE transmitter brain and spinal cord material from all animal feed. A public consultation period on the proposal will end soon.
Buckner said the idea should be dropped because it is not being considered in the U.S. Instead, only SRM material from animals older than 30 months should be destroyed.
"We believe SRMs is an area we need to harmonize as much as possible in North America because we believe the global trading partners we have will hold us to a relatively similar standard," he said in an interview after a Feb. 4 speech to the annual meeting of the Canadian Meat Council.
"Our perspective on a full SRM ban is that it would be very costly, it would take a long time to implement and would have serious environmental concerns that haven't been addressed yet. We haven't seen plans that would address the huge volume of waste that would be created by a complete SRM ban."
He said the AMI proposal to destroy SRM material only from older animals is a proper "systems management scientific approach" that would reduce risk almost as much as a total ban. The AMI represents the packing industry in the U.S.
"We come back to the idea of having harmonization to the greatest extent possible so we don't have differences going to the world marketplace."
He said a Canadian decision to create SRM restrictions that were tougher than those in the U.S. would create problems.
"We believe it creates problems for a number of trading situations," he said.
"You have this integrated marketplace for livestock and meat in North America and yet we have different standards in how we deal with specified risk materials and so we do think lack of harmonization in this area makes it more complex, more costly, more inefficient, more difficult."
As well, he said it would affect the competitiveness of Canadian packers compared to their American rivals. Cargill's plant in High River, Alta., would suffer.
"Yes, there are (implications for the Alberta plant)," he said.
"Hopefully it is obvious that business models in Canada would bear a little extra complexity, cost and inefficiency versus plants in the United States, Australia, New Zealand or other beef producing places in the world."
Canadian agriculture minister Andy Mitchell said the CFIA will consider the comments received during the SRM-ban consultation. He also said it is important to work with the Americans.
However, he suggested the government remains committed to the idea of a total SRM ban from animal feed, including pet feed.
"We believe there's importance in having an SRM ban in terms of animal feed," he said.
"We want to work towards ensuring that the small possibility of cross-contamination is minimized to the greatest extent possible. That's our public policy objective."
He said it is a balancing act between creating compatible regulations throughout North America while taking the most effective measures for Canadian animal health.
