USDA's decision to adopt a final rule reopening the Canadian border to live Canadian cattle seems to have made no one happy. (See USDA reopens Canadian border to live cattle imports, Meatingplace.com, Dec. 29, 2004.) Proponents of keeping the border closed, like R-CALF USA, charge that USDA has been sloppy, unscientific and premature in adopting the rule. Proponents of opening the border say there are still too many limitations, such as the 30-month age maximum, placed on trade.

J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute, said in reaction, "Science and international beef and cattle trading guidelines set by the Office of International Epizootics (OIE) both say that the United States should permit imports of Canadian cattle regardless of age."

Bill Bullard, chief executive of R-CALF, also cited OIE, noting that while we have now classified Canada as a minimal-risk region, the OIE, essentially the international standards-setting body for disease regulation, has not classified Canada as such. He also said that the 30-month limit is far too high, and that for safety's sake, the acceptable age should be much lower, closer to the Japanese standard of 20 months.

Rosemary Mucklow, executive director of the National Meat Association, called the decision tantamount to "outsourcing our cattle slaughter industry. They will allow the meat from a 30-month old animal into the country, but not the actual animal." She says that once NMA digests the entire rule, it may appeal to USDA to issue an emergency regulation allowing for import of cattle of all ages.

Both sides will have 60 days after the rule is published on Jan. 4 to lobby Congress to overturn or modify it, and given the degree of unhappiness evident in the industry on Wednesday afternoon, there may be some bitter battles in Congress, as members with varying constituencies and interests battle it out. The rule will go into effect on March 7 unless Congress takes explicit action to stop it.

One implication of the rule is that other countries could quickly apply for minimal-risk status, and would have to live up to the same set of rules the USDA applied to Canada. While this rule is specific to Canada, other nations meeting the criteria could apply for their own rule.

The rule is also set up to prohibit breeding cattle from being imported. All cattle imported must go directly by sealed conveyance directly to one, and only one, feedlot, and from there to a USDA-certified slaughterhouse. That specification, along with clear, permanent branding of the cattle to make it clear that they are of Canadian origination, is meant to keep the two national herds from merging.

R-CALF's Bullard, however, noted that USDA is allowing a loophole. Although he had not had time to read the entire rule, he said that the indication is that rules about the removal and disposal of specified risk materials (SRMs) such as brains and the spinal column would be similar to those applicable to American cattle. That means that unless such a loophole is closed, some SRMs, in addition to blood, which is not an SRM, could be rendered into feed for poultry and the resultant poultry litter, possibly infected with prions from infected Canadian cattle. Litter could then be introduced to feed given to U.S. cattle. That in effect circumvents the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, Bullard said.

Bullard also charged that "it is irresponsible of the agency to relax food safety guidelines" just as the United States is entering the final stages of negotiations with countries such as South Korea and Japan to open their markets to American beef again.

As for USDA's contention that the 2 million Canadian cattle expected to cross the border in the first 12 months after the rule takes effect will be easy for the American market to absorb, Bullard noted that the previous record was 1.7 million. That was in 2000, when the U.S. export market was virtually unlimited. Today, dozens of countries refuse to allow American beef over their borders, and Bullard asked, "Where is all this beef going to go?"