You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.
The Washington Times Online Edition

The Canadian beef scare

Question of the Day

Who do you think, among the GOP presidential candidates, will raise the most funds?

View results

On Thursday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, siding with the federal government, ruled in favor of reopening U.S. markets to Canadian cattle. This is good news and long overdue. Since the ban went into effect, the U.S. beef industry has suffered greatly from what can be described as a case study in the workings of protectionist policies. Americans have seen a 27 percent increase in beef prices, while processing plants have been forced to lay off thousands of workers.

In May 2003, the United States halted Canadian cattle imports after a single Canadian cow was diagnosed with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, otherwise known as mad cow disease. At the time, closing the border was probably the most prudent way to assure the American public that the federal government was taking mad cow seriously. Aside from higher prices and fewer jobs, the embargo of course has had other unfortunate results. Having lost access to U.S. processing plants, Canada went to work on investing in its own processing industry. Meanwhile, Japan, one of the United States' largest beef trading partners, reacted similarly when a BSE-infected cow showed up in the United States in December 2003. As a result, the U.S. beef industry has lost billions of dollars.

Mad cow is indeed a serious threat to cattle herds. During the 1980s and 1990s, Great Britains's cattle herds were devastated by the then-mysterious malady. The epidemic reached critical mass when it was discovered that humans could contract a lethal variation of mad cow when ingesting the brain and spinal tissue of an infected cow.

But the threat to humans was greatly exaggerated. Scientists now know that humans can eat the beef of an infected cow with zero threat of contracting the disease. The United States, as well as the other top beef-producing nations, have mitigated the threat by imposing stricter cattle-feed regulations and discarding the areas of the cow that carry the disease.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has understood the real threat to humans for some time now, but its efforts to relax the embargo were met with stiff resistance from the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF) of Billings, Mont., which had the assistance of powerful Washington lawmakers. R-CALF, of course preferring the higher prices resulting from the ban, wanted to extend it indefinitely, citing safety as its primary reason. The group managed to convince a district judge in March to issue a temporary injunction against USDA's plan to reopen the border. Although the 9th Circuit's ruling is likely to take precedence, the district judge will still hear R-CALF's case for making the injunction permanent later this month.

The 9th Circuit's decision will also help Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns' effort to convince our trading partners like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to lift their own bans on American beef. Meanwhile, it will probably take some time before Canadian cattle shipments offset the embargo's negative effects.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like
  • Antonya Huntenburg, 21, of Hillsborough, N.J., a student at the Corcoran College of Art and Design, says everyone she knows is under some kind of economic pressure, including her parents. She says she joined the Occupy D.C. encampment on McPherson Square "to be safe." (Rod Lamkey Jr./The Washington Times)

    Youths show economic frustration in streets around the world

    By Patrice Hill - The Washington Times

  • **FILE** Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan attends the OutServe Armed Forces Leadership Summit on Oct. 15, 2011, in Las Vegas. (Associated Press)

    Military gay group growing, aiming for more rights

    By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times

  • ** FILE ** The Rev. William E. Lori, Roman Catholic bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., gestures while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing: "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion & Freedom of Conscience." From left are, Lori, the Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and C. Ben Mitchell, professor of Moral Philosophy Union University. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

    Battle lines are drawn over whether Obama is waging a war on religion

    By Cheryl Wetzstein - The Washington Times

  • Happening Now

          Independent voices from the TWT Communities

          Legally Speaking

          Despite cynicism about the law, it can provide you justice, protection, and ensure your rights. It can be exasperating, and at times, wildly entertaining.

          Sportfolio

          Exploring the world of adventure sports—where “adventure” is sometimes only a state of mind.

          Political Potpourri

          A collection of reader guest articles, thoughts and opinions by Communities writers and breaking news and information.