Unintended Consequences: Post-BSE World

By Terry Stokes
CEO, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
March 16, 2005

December 23, 2003, was a day each of us will never forget. Our industry has changed and we are struggling to define “normal” in a post-BSE world. What does “normal” mean? Does it mean there are simple answers to complex questions? Does it mean we should maximize short-term gains while sacrificing long-term opportunities? Does it mean questioning the safety of beef to keep from resuming trade based upon sound science? Finally, does it mean keeping our borders closed to trade for short-term profitability for our cattlemen? There are some within our industry who think so.

This short-sighted approach to defining “normal” in a post-BSE world will have unintended consequences for our industry. First, it will result in a decline in consumer demand due to the loss of consumer confidence in the safety of beef. Consumer confidence in the safety of our beef is at an all time high. Nine out of ten consumers believe that our beef is the safest in the world. Since 1997, consumer confidence is 21 percent higher and beef demand has increased 25 percent. This has resulted in an additional $200 per head for our cattlemen.

Are we willing to let recent accusations by a faction of our industry, including a misinformed judge, affect consumer confidence in our product and sacrifice this $200 per head? Today, we have firewalls in place to ensure the safety of our product. Science clearly shows that the removal of central nervous system tissue protects our consumers from BSE. This is not a food safety issue.

We have a cattlemen’s activist group within our industry which is risking consumer demand by litigating science to protect their short-term economic interest. There has been no other time in history where a group of our own people disparaged our product for personal gain. The risk is $200 per head.

Secondly, keeping the border closed from Canada will result in continued loss of export markets. We lost $175 per head to our cattlemen when our trading partners halted trade on Dec. 24. Fed cattle prices were $93 cwt. before December 23rd and fell to $78 cwt. afterwards. This occurred because of the loss of export markets. Many of these markets remain closed because of protectionist attitudes within those countries. We are taking the same approach with Canada. Is this the example we want to set for the rest of the world?

A couple of weeks ago, a resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives for sanctions against Japan for not basing trade decisions on science while the Senate passed a resolution to not resume trade with Canada without any basis in science. This is the ultimate hypocrisy. This type of action increases the difficulty of reopening our export markets and regaining the $175 per head we lost December 23rd.

Actions like these clearly have unintended consequences. If we lose the beef demand we have gained in the last eight years by destroying consumer confidence, we will lose $200 per head. If we are unable to regain export markets because we don’t make decisions based upon science, we will not regain the $175 per head. Short term we may experience higher prices, but longer term we will experience lower prices and reduced profits.

These unintended consequences jeopardize our future and the future of the next generation of cattle ranchers. Loss of demand means lower prices and fewer cattlemen. Loss of export markets means lower prices and fewer cattlemen. More regulation means more concentration, increased costs and fewer cattlemen. I don’t think this is what we want for ourselves or for our children. We want a growth industry that comes from increased demand for our product both here and around the world, which means more cattlemen, higher profits, and a brighter future.

Someone once said, “Every now and then, somewhere, someplace, sometime, you are going to have to plant your feet, stand firm, and make a point about who you are and what you believe in.” It is time for us to stand for resuming trade based upon science. It is time to stand for the safety of our product and reprimand those who disparage it. It is time for us to stand firm for who we are and what we believe. Most importantly, it is time to plant our feet and stand firm for solutions that ensure the future of our families and our legacy.

This article has been provided in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. This material is provided without profit for research and educational purposes. Prior to republication of this material in its entirety we recommend contacting the source for appropriate permissions. Alternatively, publication of an abstract with a link to the originating source page to see the full text is generally allowed.

‘Defining time’ for US cattle biz: Cattle Raisers prepare for ‘a defining time’ in the beef industry

FORT WORTH, Texas, March 22, 2005 - Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association will support efforts of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to ensure free and open trade and little or no government regulation in the beef industry.

“We’ve got to get behind the right message,” incoming President Dick Sherron told TSCRA members during the concluding session of the group’s annual convention.

More than 2,600 cattle producers, family members and representatives of allied industry gathered in Fort Worth March 18-21 for the annual convention, trade show and School for Successful Ranching conducted by the 128-year-old beef industry trade organization.

“The right message” was delivered in a rousing speech by NCBA President Jim McAdams who promised to do everything he can to unify a divided beef industry. McAdams, from Atkins, Texas, is also a long-time TSCRA director.

“We’re truly in a defining time in our industry,” Adams asserted. “At any minute we could not only be facing the loss of our checkoff from the Supreme Court ruling, but we could be starting trade wars. That could happen any day now and they could be going on at the same time.
“In addition we’ve got to develop a national animal I.D. program that could either be a breakthrough that allows our industry to progress at a much more rapid rate or one of the biggest boondoggles we’ve ever faced.

“We’re also at a point where we have probably the best opportunity we’ve had maybe in forever to get permanent repeal of the death tax and fix the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Protection Act. And we’re starting to talk in Congress about the next Farm Bill that could redefine agricultural policy in this nation for generations.

“And yet we’re more divided than ever. I think I can make the argument that we’ve never had it better, yet been madder about it!”

McAdams reminded cattle raisers how the industry came together to overcome crises in the past.

“We don’t have to look back very far to when we were in a drought,” he recalled. “We didn’t know how bad it was going to be or how long it would last. It looked like corn would be going to $5 a bushel and fed cattle would be going below 50 cents a pound.

“But we stepped up as an industry, we came together and we adopted a common vision that called for a dynamic and profitable beef industry. It focused resources around a unified plan; it consistently met local consumer needs and built demand.

“Since that time we’ve had remarkable success because we started working together off of one plan with one budget and speaking with one voice,” he insisted.

McAdams pointed out that U.S. producers suffered from a huge deficit in beef trade prior to passage of the mandatory checkoff that collects $1 per head each time a beef animal is sold. The program is currently in jeopardy due to constitutional challenges being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“When we got a mandatory checkoff and started focusing dollars on building international markets, we turned those huge trade deficits into trade surpluses billions of dollars in trade surpluses that went directly in our pockets,” McAdams emphasized.

But even as beef producers were benefiting from the trade dollars, there were voices in the beef industry that were speaking out against international trade, McAdams said incredulously.

“A competing vision started to emerge and today we have two competing visions diametrically opposed to one another.

“Our vision says that the answer is building consumer demand and building it faster than we increase supplies,” McAdams explained. “We do that by producing the safest, highest quality, most consistent beef product in the world. That means we can produce more and sell it at ever-increasing prices.

“This isn’t impossible,” he declared. “We’ve already done it!

“From 1998 to today, beef demand has increased 25 percent. What we’ve forgotten is that from the ’70s until 1997, we lost 50 percent of our demand. We need to remember that that 25 percent increase amounts to $22 a hundredweight on a fed steer. That’s a lot of money!

McAdams said a 7.74 increase in demand during 2004 was responsible for the high prices enjoyed by beef producers. However, some producers attribute the price increases to the ban on imports of cattle from Canada. They want to continue the ban that was imposed after BSE (mad cow disease) was discovered in December 2003 in a U.S. dairy cow imported from Canada.

“The competing vision says the reason we have high prices and the way to maintain profitability is by limiting supplies.” McAdams continued. “They’ve actually called for more government involvement in where the cattle can come from, who can own the cattle and even how we can market our product.

“This creates more government involvement in our business and it also creates higher costs. I reject that vision, NCBA rejects that vision and I hope that you reject that vision.

“NCBA’s going to stick to its mission, which says we’re for increasing the profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers by enhancing the business climate,” McAdams said. “That means holding down costs, limiting government involvement and building consumer demand.

“We’re going to fight to make sure that that competing vision doesn’t ruin this industry,” he vowed.

“We’ll have prosperity by building demand, not limiting supplies. We’ll have it by having a fair, effective and focused state and national self-help program, not by trying to do away with the checkoff program."

“We’ll have it by having international trade rules that are based on sound science, that are fair and effective, and not international trade rules that are based on pseudo science or political science."

“The way to prosperity is by accentuating our advantages so we’re stronger tomorrow, not by being satisfied with the status quo."

“It’s by building relationships and fostering trust, not by twisting the facts and distorting the truth or by trying to change things back to the way they were yesterday.”

McAdams said unity is essential for the future success of the beef industry.

“But we can’t have unification in the name of appeasement,” he declared. “We cannot appease everybody."

“The most important thing for the future of our success is to stay with the values and principles that have sustained this industry throughout our history,” he continued.

“We cannot adopt the tactics of the activists whose sole value seems to be ‘the end justifies the means, ’he exhorted. “We cannot afford to be passive or to be spectators at this time!
McAdams appealed to individual cattle producers to “cowboy up” and get involved.

“You’re going to have to go out and get more members for TSCRA and for the NCBA if you believe in what NCBA is doing."

“You have to stand up to people that are propagating the competing vision and stand up for what you believe. “And you’re going to have to take the time to inform yourself.”

TSCRA President Sherron promised to get the message out to TSCRA members.

“We’re going to take some hits in our own organization from some who want instant gratification instead of a long-term future,” Sherron admitted. “But we’ve got to keep this business going. We can’t be looking at what we get today in the cash market as the end of the road. "

“We’re going to Washington, D.C., and support in NCBA in April,” Sherron said. “We might alter the way we go through the course,” he added, “because we’re going to be pulling this wagon, not following it!”

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association is a 128-year-old trade organization whose 13,000 members manage approximately 5.4 million cattle on 70.3 million acres of range and pasture land, primarily in Texas and Oklahoma.

This article has been provided in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. This material is provided without profit for research and educational purposes. Prior to republication of this material in its entirety we recommend contacting the source for appropriate permissions. Alternatively, publication of an abstract with a link to the originating source page to see the full text is generally allowed.

Manitoba farmer fights R-CALF

CBC News
4-3-05

Excerpt...WINNIPEG - A Manitoba beef producer is collecting signatures for a class-action lawsuit against a U.S. lobby group that delayed the reopening of the border to Canadian cattle.
John Morrison has formed a group called Fair Market Beef, which plans to take on R-CALF USA, an American advocacy group that is formally known as the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America.

The lobby group, citing concerns about mad cow disease, was granted an injunction to stop a planned March 7 reopening of the border.

The injunction came as a result of its lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Two groups representing the American meat packing industry filed a court brief on Saturday that says the border closure has resulted in thousands of layoffs.

Morrison said he has the support of thousands of people so far as his group tries to collect damages from R-CALF.

This article has been provided in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. This material is provided without profit for research and educational purposes. Prior to republication of this material in its entirety we recommend contacting the source for appropriate permissions. Alternatively, publication of an abstract with a link to the originating source page to see the full text is generally allowed.

R-CALF's Bullard Misses the Points

Agribusiness Freedom Foundation4-4-05 In a guest opinion column in the March 28, 2005 issue of Western Livestock Journal, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard illustrated R-CALF's continuing lack of understanding of the beef industry beyond the ranch gate. And in typical liberal activist group (LAG) style, he hammered their buzzwords over and over, lest us less intelligent folks not get his points.

In a 12-paragraph letter, he used the buzzwords "independent," as in cattleman or business six times, "multi-national packer" four times and "relax," "lower," or "set well below," as in import standards, five times. The idea - as perfected by Washington, D.C. activist-groups - is that if you repeat a buzzword often enough - whether true or not - it will become part of the "conventional wisdom" and enter the lexicon of the media. Bullard evidently continues to use techniques picked up from R-CALF's LAG associates.

As for "independent," R-CALF evidently drums a rancher out of the organization if he/she becomes successful enough to buy another ranching operation. If a cattle feeder becomes successful enough to buy another feedyard, then one must assume he jumps from the already iffy status of a cattle feeder to a definite bad guy. We're not sure whether leasing another ranch or feedyard counts against you or not.

"Multi-national corporation" is a long-time LAG epithet applied to any company that is not strictly a "mom and pop" company. R-CALF just adapted it to packers, making a term for them that is a double negative, "multi-national" and "packer." R-CALF has never suitably explained how the vast U.S. retail and foodservice industry would manage to efficiently assemble the over 20 billion pounds of beef it buys annually from the biggest four packers now. R- CALF wants to replace the four majors with hundreds of small packers - a mind boggling efficiency obstacle for the industry we have today. R-CALF railed in its suit against the USDA about the environmental impact of those semi-trucks hauling cattle in from Canada. Wonder how the EPA would like handling the environmental headaches of 200-300 new packing plants?

As for lowering standards, R-CALF has referenced the OIE (World Organization for Animal Health) as the authority on animal health issues. That's fine, as far as it goes. Trouble is, the OIE does not set standards, as R-CALF has claimed. Further, the OIE does not recommend countries ban meat imported - with SRMs removed - from countries with low or high BSE risk, contrary to R-CALF's implication.

In addition, there are no standards recognized for importing meat from minimal- or low-risk BSE countries. The U.S. is trying to set standards as precedent for trade, based on nearly 20 years of science. R-CALF wants trade only with countries who have never had a BSE case. They have not explained how many years they want the rest of the world to sit around and wait until it's okay to trust science and begin trading. Or how they would justify keeping imports out if ever a BSE case was discovered in the U.S. or export again ever.

I also cannot confirm the import figures Bullard quotes in his column. Bullard claims 5 billion pounds of imported beef into the U.S. in 2002, the year he uses. My charts from USDA/ERS and from U.S. Commerce Dept. both show 3.2 billion pounds, a 35- percent lower figure and less than 12 percent of total production. More importantly, for the year, he doesn't mention at all the net beef imports - imports minus exports - was roughly 750 million pounds or just 2.8 percent of the total beef supply.

Of course, for the last two years, that net figure has risen because of the closure of export markets. And no group's work has done more to keep that net figure worse longer than R-CALF. Bullard has stated the U.S. has been doing just fine without exports, so Japan's concern with the U.S. policy toward Canadian cattle and international perception of beef safety must not worry him.

Just as importantly, Bullard said that the U.S. competitive edge in maintaining market share is that it, "holds itself to the highest health and safety standards." I disagree. Consumers buy beef primarily because of the high quality, taste and convenience. Safety and wholesomeness is assumed, a given, the price of admission.

To operate in the belief that consumers' primary buying motivation is not the high quality and convenience of the product is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of marketing - domestically or internationally. Consumers buy quality and benefits. How many consumers buy the model of television they do because they believe it won't shock them when they plug it in? How many select the recliner they do because they think they're less likely to fall off it?
Safety and wholesomeness is a critical, built-in assumption the U.S. must safeguard. That is the reason for the careful methodical evaluation of science and process that has gone on. But beyond the importance of the actual safety is the consumer perception of safety. And R-CALF has been attempting to damage that perception, not protect it, all for the sake of a turf war strategy.
Bullard is correct in his assessment of the United States beef industry as the most successful in the world. But it never got so big and successful by:

• Continually attacking and denigrating other essential players in that successful beef chain;
• Publicly assaulting the credibility of U.S. consumers' guarantor of beef safety, the USDA or ;
• Attempting to force international trade policy to be conducted on the basis of protectionism and prejudice rather than verified science and policies fostering economic growth.

http://www.mad-cow-facts.com/News-Commentary/r-calf-bullard-4-4-05.htm

Red Meat - Study Finds No Association Between Diet and Pancreatic Cancer Among Men and Women

Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)

BOSTON, April 4 (AScribe Newswire) -- Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), assessing dietary patterns among men and women and risk of pancreatic cancer, found no association with two wide-ranging dietary patterns and the risk of pancreatic cancer. The findings appear in the April 6, 2005 edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Dominique Michaud, assistant professor of epidemiology at HSPH and lead author of the study and colleagues, assessed the dietary patterns of nearly 125,000 participants who were enrolled in the Brigham and Women's Hospital-based Nurses Health Study (NHS) and the HSPH based Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). Analyzing detailed food frequency questionnaires sent to the participants every four years between 1984 (for NHS participants) and 1986 (for HPFS participants) and up to 2000, they identified two dietary patterns; the western diet, consisting of high consumption of red meat, processed meat, French fries, processed grains, sweets, desserts and sugared beverages and the prudent diet, consisting of high consumption of fruits, vegetables, fish, poultry, legumes and whole grains. During the span of the study 366 cases of pancreatic cancer were documented (185 men and 181 women).

The researchers found no strong association between the two dietary patterns and the risk of pancreatic cancer among the study participants, even when looking at lifestyle factors such as smoking and body mass index. Participants who were the strongest adherents to the prudent diet also had healthier lifestyle behaviors, such as not smoking, exercising more, taking multivitamins and drinking less alcohol compared to the participants in the study who were the strongest adherents of the western diet.

"Although we did not find any associations with two major dietary patterns, individual dietary components are still likely to play a role in the risk of pancreatic cancer," said Dominique Michaud. "We have previously shown that a high glycemic load and dietary sugar are related to an elevated risk of pancreatic cancer among women. More research needs to be done to examine individual dietary factors. Prevention is a priority in such a highly fatal disease. Both smoking and obesity increase pancreatic cancer risk and should be considered for prevention."

The research was funded by grants from Public Health Service and the National Cancer Institute.

- - - -

CONTACT: Kevin Myron, HSPH Media Relations, 617-432-3952, kmyron@hsph.harvard.edu
ABOUT HSPH: Harvard School of Public Health is dedicated to advancing the public's health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 300 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 900-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children's health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: www.hsph.harvard.edu

Media Contact: Kevin Myron, 617-432-3952, kmyron@hsph.harvard.edu