Importation of Canadian cattle discussed today
Shaun Epperson; Science Reporter; O'Collegian
The Senate Agriculture Committee plans to meet today to discuss importation of cattle from Canada – something U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe said could harm Oklahoma’s economy and possibly consumers’ health if mismanaged.
Lucas, R-Okla., and Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote a letter Jan. 4 to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture requesting that plans to reopen the border with Canada to live cattle on March 7 be delayed.
It called for a gradual introduction of cattle from Canada over a period of six months, according to a release from Inhofe’s press office.
“We cannot afford to open the border at this time, as there are simply too many unresolved issues vital not only to Oklahoma but to our entire nation,” Inhofe said in the release.
Damage to Oklahoma’s cattle business is one of the concerns Lucas and Inhofe cited to support a gradual importation of live cattle from Canada.
“It has been estimated that flooding the American market with Canadian cattle in March will likely produce an adverse, aggregate impact of more than $35,000,000 for Oklahoma cattlemen,” Inhofe and Lucas wrote in their letter to the USDA.
While a flood of cattle from Canada could, in theory, affect Oklahoma’s cattle business, the border opening will likely not cause a sizable economic problem, said Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University professor and livestock marketing specialist.
“There’s not as many up there as people think there are, and they’re not all going to come at once, anyway,” he said.
This is partly because, with the exception of May through July 2003, beef importation from Canada has halted only for live cattle and not processed meat, he said.
“The issue of staggering the cattle (importation) is based on the assumption that the Canadians have been accumulating inventories of cattle since 2003,” Peel said.
“However, the reality is that since the meat market was closed only a couple of months, we have been importing beef in product form most of that time.”
The 2003 halt on Canadian beef importation came after the discovery of a cow in Canada infected with mad cow disease, a health risk associated with importation of live cattle and not processed beef, said Inhofe’s press secretary Jim Luetkemeyer.
“A live cow still has the potential of infecting others (cattle),” he said. “Processed beef doesn’t have that potential.”
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently announced the discovery of what is now the third case of mad cow disease in cattle from Canada, and that represents a current risk associated with live cattle importation, Inhofe and Lucas’ letter to the USDA suggests.
Dave Lalman, OSU beef and cattle specialist, said the risk of a human becoming affected by the disease is minimal. “It’s incredibly low,” he said. “USDA’s done a good job.”
Peel also said the risk associated with mad cow disease in cattle from the United States or Canada is “very, very low.”
