U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–813 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–78

THE IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN BEEF THAT

COMES FROM ANIMALS OLDER THAN 30

MONTHS OF AGE

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 

TRADE, AND TOURISM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 21, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

MARGARET SPRING, Democratic General Counsel 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TRADE, AND TOURISM 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, 

Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina, Ranking 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 21, 2007 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1

WITNESSES

Barth, Elwood ‘‘Woody’’, State Secretary, North Dakota Farmers Union ........... 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Becker, Patrick, President, Independent Beef Association of North Dakota 

(I–BAND); Cow/Calf Producer ............................................................................. 47

DeHaven, Dr. Ron, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Department of Agriculture ............................................................ 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Froelich, Kelly, Director, Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I–

BAND); Cow/Calf Producer ................................................................................. 48

Froelich, Hon. Rod, Representative (District 31), State of North Dakota Legislature ..................................................................................................................... 41

Huseth, Mark, President, North Dakota Stockmen’s Association ....................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18

Johnson, Roger, Commissioner, North Dakota Department of Agriculture; 

accompanied by Dr. Susan Keller, North Dakota State Veterinarian ............. 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Keller, Dwight, Vice President, American Simmental Association; Cow/Calf 

Producer ................................................................................................................ 45

Kinev, Larry, Cow/Calf Producer ........................................................................... 45

Krueger, James E., Cow/Calf Producer .................................................................. 44

Lund, Allen, Secretary, Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I–

BAND); Cow/Calf Producer ................................................................................. 43

McDonnell, Jr., Leo R., Former President/Co-Founder, Ranchers-Cattlemen 

Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R–CALF USA) ............ 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Orts, Dorothy, President, Galloway Association of the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association; Cow/Calf Producer ................................................................ 48

Schmidt, James, Cow/Calf Producer ...................................................................... 44

Schumacher, Herman, Co-Founder, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, 

United Stockgrowers of America (R–CALF USA); Co-Owner, Herreid Livestock Market ......................................................................................................... 44

(1)

THE IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN BEEF THAT 

COMES FROM ANIMALS OLDER THAN 30 

MONTHS OF AGE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TRADE, AND

TOURISM, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Bismarck, ND. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in the 

Missouri Room, Bismarck State College, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. We’ll call the hearing to order. I’m Senator 

Byron Dorgan from North Dakota. This is a hearing of the Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. The Subcommittee that I chair includes the interstate commerce issues as 

part of its jurisdiction. The Ranking Member of my Subcommittee 

is Senator DeMint from South Carolina. He’s not able to be with 

me today, but I want to thank all of you for coming. 

This hearing will include a number of witnesses, following which 

we will have an open microphone, as you see in the middle of the 

room, to hear some of your comments. My hope would be to finish 

the hearing in 2 hours, but we’ll see how that goes. 

Let me describe why I’m here and why I’ve called this hearing. 

There is a proposal by the Department of Agriculture to expand the 

imports of live cattle from Canada over 30 months of age and boxed 

beef from animals of any age coming from Canada, and that proposal is very controversial. I have spoken publicly in opposition to 

the proposal. 

There is now a public comment period on the proposal until 

March 12th, and I felt it appropriate to hold a hearing on the subject now. This is a very important issue to a very important industry in our country. 

We have the Department of Agriculture (USDA) with us today. 

The head of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Dr. DeHaven, is with us. We have other witnesses I have asked 

to make statements this morning. I will ask questions of the witnesses, and as I indicated, following that we will have an open 

microphone for the hearing. 

2

David Strickland is the principal staffer with me today from the 

Senate Commerce Committee. David, thank you for being here. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m going to give a statement at the opening to 

describe why this is an important issue and share my perspectives 

and some of the perspectives of others on the subject. 

The beef industry is the largest segment of America’s agricultural industry. About a million family farmers and ranchers in this 

country raise beef in all of our 50 states. North Dakota has 1.7-million head of cattle on 11,700 farms and ranches, and the beef industry contributes about $600,000,000 a year to this state’s economy. It’s a big deal, and any of us who have traveled much around 

North Dakota understand the consequences of this industry. 

In May of 2003 the U.S. closed the border to live cattle coming 

in from Canada when a cow from Alberta, Canada, was discovered 

to have BSE, better known as mad cow disease. The first animal 

with BSE was the first native cow to be found in North America. 

Unfortunately, it was not the last cow. There have been 12 native 

cases of BSE found in North America, and 10 of them have been 

in Canadian animals. 

Here is a chart that shows the history of this from March 20, 

2003, through Thursday, February 8th, this month, in which Canada found the—I say tenth case of BSE because the cow in Washington State with BSE was actually a Canadian cow. So we’re talking about ten head of cattle in a relatively short period of time. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Timeline of BSE Cases in North America 

May 20, 2003: Canada finds 1st native case in an animal born in March 1997.

December 23, 2003: Canada’s 2nd BSE case is found in Washington State.

January 2, 2005: Canada finds 3rd BSE case.

January 11, 2005: Canada finds 4th BSE case in an animal born after feed ban.

June 24, 2005: U.S. finds 1st native-born BSE case in a 12-year-old cow.

January 22, 2006: Canada finds 5th BSE case in an animal born after feed ban.

March 13, 2006: U.S. finds 2nd BSE case in a 10-year-old cow.

April 16, 2006: Canada finds 6th BSE case in an animal born after feed ban.

July 4, 2006: Canada finds 7th BSE case.

July 13, 2006: Canada finds 8th BSE case in an animal born after feed ban.

August 23, 2006: Canada finds 9th BSE case.

Thursday, February 8, 2007: Canada finds 10th BSE case.

Now, I want to show you the consequences of all of this. As you 

know, USDA Prime is the best label you can have on a cut of beef. 

It means that cut of meat has been certified by USDA as among 

the most choice cuts of beef, and American beef has largely been 

recognized as the safest in the world because of our inspection system and because of what we have done to make sure that reputation exists. None of us want to do anything that would jeopardize 

that reputation. 

Now, let me talk about the imports of Canadian beef over the 

last decade, and this chart shows what has happened. You’ll see we 

were up to 1.7-million head per year, in 2002. Immediately after 

the first Canadian cow was discovered, we shut off the import of 

Canadian cattle and beef to this country, and you can see the consequences of that were pretty dramatic. And then cattle under 30 

3

months of age were allowed in and some boxed beef, and you see 

these numbers climbing back up.

If this rule is, in fact, changed that Secretary Johanns and the 

Administration want to change, we’ll see 1.3-million head of Canadian cattle that will await import in 2007 under the new rule. That 

number comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

Now this shows what happened to our beef exports as a result 

of these activities. As you can see in the 2003 period, shortly thereafter, it just dropped off the table. An unbelievable impact. In 2004 

we exported 209,000 metric tons of beef. Our share of the world’s 

beef export was 3 percent. 

Prior to that time it was very different, with 18 percent of the 

world’s beef exports coming from this country. One in every five 

pounds of beef that was exported around the world was ours, and 

1.1-million metric tons of beef were exported. That dropped precipitously, first almost to zero and then to just about 3 percent, just 

after the mad cow disease was discovered in December 2003. 

Ranchers lost about $100 million a month nationally, and it was 

a pretty devastating time. 

As the next chart shows, another consequence of the animal that 

was found in Washington State, again a Canadian animal, was 

that Japan closed its markets to American beef for two-and-a-half 

years. Japan was our biggest customer, they’d been our number 

one export market, and we lost them for two-and-a-half years.


catt1.eps
4

* ‘‘Thirty-five foreign countries accept U.S. beef, but not Canadian beef.’’—Canadian Beef Export Federation Newsletter (January 2007). 

** Yonhap News, Wednesday, July 26, 2006, article entitled, S. Korean Undecided on Timing 

for Lifting of U.S. Beef Ban: Official. 

We’re now trading with them again, and there are 35 foreign 

countries that will accept U.S. beef now, and we’ve worked hard to 

make that happen, but they will not accept Canadian beef. * Some 

would like there to be a North American market that has no distinction. There ought to be a distinction, in my judgment. 

The next chart shows trade with South Korea, another example 

of the trouble we’ve had. We’ve been working hard to try to get 

back to that South Korean market after they stopped buying U.S. 

beef December 2003. It took a long while to get them to open their 

market, and it finally happened in October of last year. But we’ve 

run into trouble with them turning back boxes of beef coming into 

South Korea. 

This article from a South Korean news agency says this: ‘‘The 

procedure of butchering both U.S.-raised cattle and cattle from 

neighboring countries is commonplace in the United States. It has 

sparked concerns in South Korea because beef from Canada, which 

has reported numerous mad cow cases, could be included by mistake.’’ ** 

I make that point only to say that we don’t operate in a vacuum 

here, and if we don’t have country-of-origin labeling, don’t have 

segregation, don’t have the kinds of things that will give our customers overseas confidence of what they’re buying, then we bear 

the consequences of that financially. 

Next chart, please. USDA has proposed a rule, and Secretary 

Johanns has been active in pushing it, to open this market, and as 

I indicated, there is now a comment period. 


catt2.eps
5

Let me tell you about the Harvard study that was done. ‘‘The expected number of infected cattle in the U.S. over 20 years as a result of importing cattle from Canada would amount to 21 animals. 

Most of those infected animals (approximately 90 percent) would be 

imported directly, while the remaining 10 percent would represent 

secondary infections (i.e., native U.S. cases).’’

The point is that a reputable study of this situation shows that 

we are going to be importing a problem, a problem for our market. 

And while my heart breaks for the Canadian ranchers, you know, 

I understand how awful this must be for them, our first responsibility is for our domestic industry, for this country’s interests. That 

must be our first responsibility. 

Dr. DeHaven, who is with us today—and he can respond to 

this—is quoted, as saying ‘‘Considering Canada has roughly 5.5 

million [head of] cattle over 24 months of age, under OIE guidelines, they could detect up to 11 cases of BSE in this population 

and still be considered a minimal-risk country.’’

That minimal-risk issue might well be the case with respect to 

this assignment of words, but that is not the case with respect to 

those with whom we want to trade and those to whom we expect 

to be able to sell American beef. They will not view this as minimal-risk with respect to a marketplace in which we have 1.3-million head of Canadian cattle coming down across the border. 

Now, let me make a couple of final points. I understand this is 

a very controversial issue, and I have been very concerned about 

opening this border quickly and precipitously. I’ve been one of 

those who has fought for a good number of years for something 

called country-of-origin labeling, and I know there are some people 

who don’t like that. 

Consumers can find out where their shoes come from, where 

their T-shirts come from. There are labels on everything, but you 

can’t find out where your piece of meat comes from when you buy 

it at the grocery store, and that’s wrong. 

So we enact country-of-origin labeling; it is the law. And then the 

USDA drags their feet for 2 years to implement it because they 

don’t like it, and then at midnight a provision is stuck in a bill to 

delay it by another 2 years. But we’re going to try very hard this 

year to get that done, to finally force country-of-origin labeling to 

be implemented. It makes no sense to me under any circumstance 

to allow the influx of 1.3-million Canadian cattle at a time when 

we have not been willing to do country-of-origin labeling; and even 

then if the acceptance of cattle from Canada is going to bring into 

this country additional cases of BSE or mad cow disease, it will 

have significant consequences on our beef market. And as I said before, our first responsibility is to our industry and our economic 

well-being. That is not being protectionist. That’s just using some 

common sense. So I’m holding this hearing to solicit some testimony. I know that we’re a big livestock state. We care a lot about 

these issues, all of us do, and I also know that Secretary Johanns 

is proceeding ahead and he intends to open this market if he can. 

The period is still open for comments, and we’re going to continue to do a number of things, including holding this hearing, to 

try to get all of the facts on the table so that we understand the 

consequences of what’s being proposed. 

6

Now that’s the prelude. I’m sorry it took as long as it did, but 

I wanted to at least set the stage. You can see by the graphs that 

foreign demand has fallen off the table, and all of the consequences 

of these issues. 

We have a number of witnesses with us today, and I’m very appreciative of them being here. Dr. Ron DeHaven is the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, 

in Washington, D.C. Mark Huseth is President of the North Dakota 

Stockmen’s Association. Roger Johnson is the North Dakota Agricultural Commissioner. He’s accompanied by Dr. Keller, the State 

Veterinarian. Elwood Barth is Secretary and Board Member of the 

North Dakota Farmers Union. Mr. Leo McDonnell is former President and Co-Founder of R–CALF USA, who is also a North Dakota 

rancher. 

I want to thank all of you for being here. I am going to ask Dr. 

DeHaven to begin, and following the testimony of witnesses I intend to ask a series of questions. Following that we will have an 

open microphone period. I would ask that you summarize your testimony for us, in five to seven minutes. 

Dr. DeHaven, thank you again. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RON DEHAVEN, ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL 

AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS),

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Chairman Dorgan, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide information on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rule to amend the minimal-risk region regulation for bovine 

spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. 

In January 2005 the USDA published a final rule that established conditions for the importation of live cattle younger than 30 

months of age and certain other commodities from minimal-risk regions for BSE. A minimal-risk region can include a region in which 

BSE-infected animals have been diagnosed, but where sufficient 

risk-mitigation measures have been put in place to make the introduction of BSE into the United States unlikely. This rule designated Canada as the first minimal-risk country recognized by the 

Department of Agriculture. 

Our current proposal published on January 9, 2007, would expand the scope of this 2005 rule to facilitate fair, science-based 

trade consistent with international standards as defined by the 

World Organization for Animal Health, or the OIE. 

The rule proposes allowing the importation of bovine blood and 

blood products, bovine casings and part of the small intestine, and 

live bovines for any use born after March 1, 1999. This is the date 

that we have determined to be the date of an effective enforcement 

of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada. 

The public comment period on these proposed actions, as you 

have indicated, will close on March 12th, and I want to encourage, 

along with you, that all stakeholders be part of our decisionmaking 

process by providing feedback through the submission of public 

comments. 

Science played a central role in the development of the regulation, particularly with regard to the rigorous evaluation of risk. 

Sound science continues to guide our proposed actions. 

7

The single most important thing that we can do to protect 

human health is the removal of specified risk materials, or SRMs, 

from the food supply. SRMs are those tissues that could be infected 

from a cow that is in fact infected with BSE. Likewise, the most 

significant step that we can take to prevent the spread of BSE in 

the animal population and bring about its eradication is the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. 

International standards as defined by the OIE served as our reference in developing this minimal-risk region regulation and they 

continue to guide our proposed actions. 

The OIE recommends the use of risk assessment to manage 

human and animal health risks of BSE. The OIE guidelines recognize that there are different levels of risk in countries or regions 

and suggest how trade may safely occur according to those levels 

of risk. 

As we’ve moved forward in issuing the proposed changes, our 

risk assessment continues to include careful consideration of the 

entire risk pathway—all of the steps in both Canada and the 

United States that must occur for BSE to spread to an animal in 

our country. I want to stress that one individual step cannot be 

considered to represent the entire risk pathway. In short, we found 

that the risk to the United States by allowing these additional animals and commodities from Canada is negligible. 

The risk assessment took into careful consideration the possibility that Canada could experience additional cases of BSE. Our 

risk assessment acknowledges that BSE is present in Canada at 

this time. We estimated the prevalence of BSE in the Canadian 

cattle herd using the exact same methods we used to determine the 

prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd. We then used this estimate of 

prevalence to help assess the likelihood that BSE would be introduced into the United States from Canada over an extended period 

of time. We found that from a practical standpoint the risk to the 

United States via trade in animals and products with Canada is 

negligible. 

The OIE standards recognize that trade can safely be conducted 

with countries that have BSE present in their cattle populations. 

Our proposed rule is consistent with these international standards. 

The majority of imports from Canada are expected to be less 

than 2 years of age at the time of import. Our expectation is that 

BSE prevalence will continue to decrease given Canada’s ruminantto-ruminant feed ban, which has been in place since August 1997. 

Combined with the mitigative effects of both import requirements 

and the young age of most animals at the time of import, the likelihood of a BSE animal being imported is minimal. 

In addition, the series of strong risk mitigation measures in place 

in our country would make it highly unlikely that the disease 

would infect a U.S. animal. 

We also recognize that there have been cases in animals born 

after March 1, 1999. These cases are not unexpected, nor do we 

consider such diagnoses to undercut our conclusion that March 1, 

1999, can be considered the date of effective enforcement of the 

feed ban in Canada. 

Experience worldwide has demonstrated that, even in countries 

with a feed ban in place, BSE has occurred in cattle born after a 

8

feed ban was implemented. But such isolated incidents do not contribute to further significant spread of BSE. 

As part of the original minimal-risk rule an evaluation was done 

that concluded Canada’s feed ban is effectively enforced. Our proposed—in our proposed rule we considered when full implementation and effective enforcement of the Canadian feed ban was 

achieved. Full implementation occurred after completion of an initial implementation period and then after sufficient time had 

elapsed to allow most feed products to cycle through their system. 

So in following the OIE standards, we identified March 1, 1999, 

as the date when Canada’s feed ban became effective. We are not 

defining effective to mean 100 percent compliance or that there is 

no possibility for human error through that process, nor does it 

mean that no affected animals will be born after this date. Again, 

despite feed bans in many countries, affected animals continue to 

be found, but at a dramatically declining rate. 

Senator our proposed actions are an important move in our efforts to promote fair, science-based trade practices. I am confident 

in saying that we can take this next step while at the same time 

protecting American agriculture and maintaining confidence in the 

U.S. beef supply. 

I would be happy to answer your questions later in the program. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. DeHaven follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RON DEHAVEN, ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL AND PLANT

HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Chairman Dorgan, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to provide you 

information on my agency’s proposed rule to amend the minimal-risk region regulation for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) to allow the importation of 

ruminants over 30 months of age from minimal-risk regions. Currently, only Canada 

has received that designation. 

In developing this proposal, we very carefully reviewed all the scientific information available to us and built upon the extensive analysis we conducted in writing 

the initial minimal-risk region regulation. Our regulatory actions are consistent 

with the guidance on BSE provided by the World Organization for Animal Health, 

or the OIE. The OIE guidelines, which I will describe further in a moment, promote 

safe trade in live animals and animal products based on how countries manage the 

known risk factors associated with the disease. 

Our proposal, which remains open for public comment until March 12, is appropriate from both a scientific and practical standpoint and I appreciate the opportunity to share information with you on both these fronts. 

USDA’s Minimal Risk Region Regulation 

As you know, in January 2005, USDA published a final rule that established conditions for the importation of live cattle younger than 30 months of age and certain 

other commodities from minimal-risk regions for BSE. A minimal-risk region can include a region in which BSE-infected animals have been diagnosed, but where sufficient risk-mitigation measures have been put in place so that the importation of 

ruminants and ruminant products will present a minimal-risk of introducing BSE 

into the United States. This rule designated Canada as the first minimal-risk country recognized by USDA. 

Before discussing our current proposal, let me go back and discuss the central role 

science played in the development of the regulation, particularly with regard to the 

rigorous evaluation of risk. 

Since the discovery of the first case of BSE in Great Britain in 1986, we have 

learned a tremendous amount about this disease. That knowledge has greatly informed our regulatory systems and response efforts. 

We have learned that the single most important thing we can do to protect human 

health regarding BSE is the removal from the food supply of specified risk materials 

(SRMs)—those tissues that, according to the available scientific evidence, could be 

9

infective in a cow with BSE. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) enforces this ban domestically and ensures that all countries exporting beef to the 

United States comply with the SRM ban. Likewise, the most significant step we can 

take to prevent the spread of BSE and bring about its eradication in the animal 

population is the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. It is because of the strong systems 

the United States has put in place, especially these two essential firewalls, that we 

can be confident of the safety of our beef supply and that the spread of BSE has 

been prevented in this Nation. 

USDA has conducted a comprehensive risk analysis to support the January 2005 

regulatory changes, and updated the analysis when the comment period was reopened and again when the rule was made final. This analysis drew on findings 

from the Harvard-Tuskegee BSE risk assessment, findings from the epidemiological 

investigation of BSE in Canada, information on Canadian BSE surveillance and feed 

ban, and history of Canadian imports of cattle and meat and bone meal from countries known to have BSE. 

The results of that analysis confirmed that Canada has the necessary safeguards 

in place to protect U.S. consumers and livestock against BSE. These mitigation 

measures include the removal of SRMs from the food chain supply, a ruminant-toruminant feed ban, a national surveillance program, and appropriate, science-based 

import restrictions. Additionally, the extensive risk assessment conducted as part of 

USDA’s rulemaking process took into careful consideration the BSE prevalence in 

Canada and that Canada could identify additional cases of BSE. 

OIE Guidelines 

As I mentioned earlier, international standards as defined by the OIE served as 

a reference in developing the minimal-risk region regulations and they continue to 

guide our proposed actions. 

These international standards are used by national veterinary authorities to prevent the introduction of animal diseases, such as BSE, while avoiding unjustified 

trade barriers. The OIE recommends the use of risk assessment to manage human 

and animal health risks of BSE. OIE guidelines, based on current scientific understanding, recognize that there are different levels of risk in countries or regions, and 

suggest how trade may safely occur according to the levels of risk. 

As we’ve moved forward in issuing the proposed changes to the minimal-risk region regulation, our risk assessment continues to include careful consideration of 

the entire risk pathway—all of the steps, in both Canada and the United States, 

that must occur for BSE to be spread to an animal here in the United States. 

APHIS conducted a thorough risk assessment and found that the risk to the United 

States presented by allowing these additional animals and commodities from Canada is negligible. 

Proposed Changes to the Minimal Risk Region Regulation 

Our current proposal, published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2007, would 

expand the scope of the 2005 rule to facilitate fair, science-based trade, consistent 

with international standards as defined by the World Organization for Animal 

Health, or the OIE. 

Specifically, the rule proposes allowing the importation of live bovines for any use 

born on or after, March 1, 1999; blood and blood products derived from bovines, collected under certain conditions; and casings and part of the small intestine derived 

from bovines. As I will discuss further in a few moments, March 1, 1999, is the date 

we have determined to be the date of effective enforcement of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada. 

I’ll note here that meat and meat products from animals of any age, with specified 

risk materials removed, were addressed in the January 2005 final rule that established the minimal-risk region classification. In March 2005, APHIS published a notice of a delay of applicability of certain provisions of that rule. This delay affected 

only meat and meat products from animals 30 months of age or older. If the proposed rule published on January 9 is made final, it would be consistent to lift the 

delay and also allow the importation of products derived from animals over 30 

months of age into the United States. 

Again, the public comment period on these proposed actions opened January 9, 

and will close on March 12, 2007. I encourage all stakeholders to be a part of our 

decisionmaking process by providing feedback through submission of public comments. 

Analysis of Risk to U.S. Animal Health 

APHIS completed a comprehensive risk assessment to evaluate the risk presented 

by allowing the additional commodities outlined in the January 2007 proposal to be 

imported from minimal-risk regions. The risk assessment breaks down the possible 

10

pathways for the establishment of BSE in the U.S. cattle population into a series 

of steps and analyzes the likelihood of these steps in the process. It is important 

to note that the impact of any specific step depends on its relationship to the other 

steps in the pathway. In other words, one individual step can not be considered to 

represent the entire risk pathway. 

As part of the risk assessment, we estimated the prevalence of BSE in the standing adult cattle population of Canada with the same methods that we recently used 

to estimate the prevalence of BSE in the United States. We then used this current 

estimate of prevalence to help assess the likelihood that BSE would be introduced 

into the United States over an extended period of time. We chose to evaluate what 

could happen over the next 20 years, assuming that the proposed rule would apply 

into the foreseeable future. 

First we looked at the most likely scenario. Given that Canada has had a feed 

ban in place since 1997 and evidence indicates that the implementation of a feed 

ban results in decreasing BSE prevalence, the most likely scenario is that BSE prevalence in Canada will continue to decrease over the next 20 years. 

This decrease, combined with the mitigative effects of our import requirements 

and the fact that the majority of imports from Canada are young animals that pose 

little risk of harboring BSE due to the disease’s lengthy incubation period, would 

continuously decrease the possibility that infected animals would be imported over 

the 20-year period. Under this scenario, then, the likelihood of BSE exposure and 

establishment in the U.S. cattle population as a consequence of importing infected 

Canadian cattle is negligible. 

We then considered other less likely scenarios that may over-estimate the overall 

risk. In these less likely scenarios, we assumed that BSE prevalence in Canada 

would remain constant during the next 20 years. 

This would mean the continued detection of infected animals—born after the implementation of the feed ban—during the entire 20-year time frame. Even with 

these less likely scenarios, our assessment indicates that BSE will not be spread or 

become established in the United States as a result of the proposal. 

The majority of imports from Canada are expected to be less than 2 years of age 

at the time of import. With the expectation that BSE prevalence will continue to 

decrease, and the mitigative effects of both the import requirements and the young 

age of animals at the time of import, the likelihood of a BSE positive animal being 

imported is minimal. In addition, the series of strong risk mitigation measures in 

place in our country would make it highly unlikely that the disease would infect 

a U.S. animal. 

Analysis of Risk to U.S. Public Health 

Although our risk assessment was conducted to evaluate animal health risks, we 

did use one model in our assessment to also consider possible impacts on public 

health. The results of this model also indicated that these potential impacts are extremely low. 

As you know, public health in the United States is protected through slaughter 

practices, including the removal of specified-risk materials, and the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. 

In conclusion, for all commodities considered under the current proposal, the risk 

of BSE infectivity is negligible and the disease will not become established in the 

United States. This is true even if Canada identifies additional cases of BSE and 

even if infected animals were to be imported to the United States. 

BSE Cases in Canada 

From the time of detection of the first native case of BSE in Canada in May 2003, 

10 cases of Canadian-born BSE-infected cattle have been identified. Nine of these 

cases have been detected in Canada, and the other case was in a native-born animal 

exported to the United States, which tested positive for BSE in December 2003. The 

most recent case was detected in a mature bull from Alberta on February 8, 2007. 

Right from the start, we’ve had an excellent working relationship with Canada 

that has enabled us to participate directly in several of their epidemiological investigations and receive all of the information we have needed to conduct the various 

risk analysis and regulatory work I’m discussing with you today. 

All of the cases of BSE in Canada, save for the most recent, are considered in 

our prevalence estimate. However, let me stress that the model used for that estimate is much broader than simply evaluating the number of cases detected. As mentioned previously, we used that same model in our estimate of the prevalence of 

BSE in the United States. That analysis documented the fact that identifying additional cases of BSE over time does not significantly impact the overall estimate of 

prevalence, because the model incorporates a wide range of epidemiological informaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:54 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 035813 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35813.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
11

tion and assumptions. The same principle would apply to our use of the model in 

estimating the prevalence in Canada—i.e., the identification of additional cases 

would not significantly change the prevalence estimate. 

We also recognize that there have been cases in animals born after the date proposed in our regulation as when the feed ban was effectively enforced. Let me say 

that these cases are not unexpected, nor do we consider such diagnoses in any way 

to undercut our conclusion that March 1, 1999 can be considered the date of effective enforcement of the feed ban in Canada. Let me also say that this is an area 

in which I invite all interested stakeholders to contribute to our decisionmaking 

process and provide us with their comments before March 12. 

Experience worldwide has demonstrated that, even in countries with a feed ban 

in place, BSE has occurred in cattle born after a feed ban was implemented. No regulatory effort can ensure 100 percent compliance or avoid human error. But such 

isolated incidents do not contribute to further significant spread of BSE, especially 

when considered along with the series of other strong risk mitigations in place. 

Our risk assessment acknowledges that BSE is present in Canada at this time. 

From a practical standpoint, however, the risk to the United States via trade in animals and products is negligible. 

OIE guidelines recognize that trade can be conducted safely with countries that 

have BSE present in their cattle population. Our proposed rule is consistent with 

these guidelines. I want to emphasize again that our risk assessment considered the 

entire risk pathway—all of the series of risk mitigations in place. The proposed requirement—only allowing imports of live bovines born on or after March 1, 1999—

is one step in the process that effectively decreases the risk. 

Canadian Feed Ban 

I’d like to say a few more words about the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in Canada and our evaluation regarding its effectiveness. 

Similar to the United States, Canada has had feed ban regulations in place since 

August 1997. 

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has conducted a comprehensive epidemiological investigation into each of the BSE cases found in the country. In each 

instance, appropriate measures have been taken to identify and remove any birth 

cohorts (animals born within a year of the affected animal and that could possibly 

been exposed to the same feed at the same time) that were still alive. Each investigation also included a detailed examination to determine the possible feed exposure source. In those instances where noncompliance events occurred, CFIA has instituted enforcement investigations for regulatory violations. 

Finally, as part of the original minimal-risk rule, an evaluation was done that 

concluded Canada’s feed ban is effectively enforced. This conclusion was based on 

consideration of the regulations in place and the statutory authority for those regulations, adequate infrastructure to implement the regulations, and evidence of implementation and monitoring. In our January 9 proposed rule, we gave additional 

consideration to defining when full implementation and effective enforcement of the 

Canadian feed ban was achieved. Full implementation occurred after completion of 

an initial (or practical) implementation period and after sufficient time elapsed to 

allow most feed products to cycle through the system. For Canada, this practical implementation took approximately 6 months, and then 12 months was considered sufficient time to allow products to cycle through the system, given cattle management 

practices in that country. 

In following the OIE guidelines for trade in live animals, we therefore identified 

March 1, 1999, as the date when Canada’s feed ban was effectively enforced. We 

are not defining effectively enforced to mean 100 percent compliance, however, or 

that there is no possibility for isolated incidents/human error throughout the process. Nor does it mean that no affected animals will be born after this date—again, 

despite feed bans in many countries, affected animals continue to be found, but at 

a declining rate. 

International Trade 

USDA’s efforts to reopen export markets to U.S. beef remain a top priority. We 

believe that the most effective way of promoting harmonized international beef 

trade is to base our own policies in sound science, and to encourage our trading 

partners to also base their import requirements on science. Our proposed changes 

to the minimal-risk region regulation are another positive step forward in this regard. 

In regard to trade, Secretary Johanns has said on numerous occasions that our 

actions must be undertaken with the utmost deliberation, using science as the basis. 

In the absence of that science, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) restrictions will be 

12

used arbitrarily by some nations, without any basis of protecting human or animal 

health. 

I want to be very clear that while protecting human and animal health must remain our top priority, I know that we can seek to return to normal patterns of international commerce by continuing to use science as the basis for decisionmaking by 

U.S. regulatory authorities and our trading partners. 

Conclusion 

Senator, these proposed actions are an important move in our efforts to promote 

fair, science-based trade practices. I am confident in saying that we can take this 

next step while at the same time protecting American agriculture and maintaining 

confidence in the U.S. beef supply. 

I am happy to answer any questions you have regarding the issues I’ve raised in 

my testimony. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.

Senator DORGAN. Dr. DeHaven, thank you very much. Obviously 

you have stimulated my interest to ask a lot of questions, but I will 

defer until all our witnesses have testified. I will now call on North 

Dakota Agricultural Commissioner Roger Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, NORTH 

DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Senator Dorgan, for holding 

this hearing. It’s certainly a timely subject, and thank you, also, for 

granting me permission to be accompanied by our State Veterinarian, Dr. Keller. 

Whenever I make statements relative to BSE, I’ve been careful 

to consult with her and to use the science that she understands as 

the basis of my statements and of my positions, and so I very much 

appreciate the fact that you’ve allowed her to be with me. It is—

and I would also anticipate that if there are very technical questions, I would hope that I could defer to her scientific training to 

respond to some of those. 

It has been frustrating for me to witness USDA’s continuing efforts to open the border to Canadian cattle and products despite 

the known risk and the unknown prevalence of BSE in the Canadian cattle herd. 

USDA acknowledges that cattle over 30 months of age are at 

even greater risk of having the disease than are the younger cattle 

currently allowed in under only stringent movement restrictions 

that require the transport of animals in a sealed truck directly to 

approved feedlots and/or slaughter. 

Canada has now recorded, as you indicated, ten cases of BSE, six 

since the beginning of last year, and the most recent case just this 

month. I think there are a number of issues that we need to talk 

about. 

First of all, Canada, itself, is taking additional precautions over 

and above what we are doing internally, and so it really begs the 

question, if we are allowing the Canadian cattle to come into our 

herd, should we be doing additional things to protect our herd as 

a result of that intermixing that’s likely to be occurring? 

USDA, I think, has unilaterally ignored the fact that other countries do not approve of USDA’s new BSE minimal-risk status. This 

is something that was created just for Canada. 

Canada will implement more stringent restrictions on the use of 

SRMs, specified risk materials, in both ruminant and non-rumiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:54 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 035813 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35813.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
13

nant feed. The success of this prohibition will be inconclusive for 

several years. During the meantime, we will be importing these additional Canadian cattle. 

This minimal-risk rule number two acknowledges the risk of 

SRMs from older Canadian cattle by declaring that the distal 

ileums of these older-aged animals cannot enter the U.S. The same 

rule, however, allows older cattle to be trucked across the border 

with their distal ileums intact. It makes no effort to completely remove the distal ileums from all U.S. beef shipped. 

USDA’s overall lack of responsible actions with respect to BSE 

in Canada has already decreased the status of the U.S. cattle herd 

in the eyes of our trading partners. And the information that you 

put up, Senator Dorgan, coming right out of the Korean press I 

think absolutely makes that point. When we intermingle these 

herds, other countries are going to take notice of that. 

The second issue deals with feed cohorts and the types of BSE. 

Canada acknowledges that contaminated feed was the likely source 

of the infection up there and that additional feed cohorts are likely 

to be infected, as well. Yet higher risk, older feed cohorts will now 

be allowed to come across the border if this rule is adopted. 

In addition, five Canadian BSE cases reportedly were born after 

the implementation of the 1997 feed ban, indicating that the feed 

ban has not been effective in preventing BSE or there is an even 

greater prevalence of BSE in their country than what was originally thought. Either scenario increases the probability that infected cows will be imported into the USA. 

Canada is clearly admitting that it has a BSE problem. Through 

regulatory actions USDA appears to want to bring Canada’s problem into the U.S. and make it ours. 

The identification issue. If Canadian cattle over 30 months of age 

are allowed to come into the U.S., those animals must be permanently identified with an official tag and a CAN brand and must 

be strictly segregated by USDA through the entire slaughtering 

process. Should positive cases of BSE be found in any Canadian 

animals that are processed in the U.S., it must not be to the detriment of the U.S. cattle industry or our consumers. 

USDA should not implement this rule until it can assure domestic and foreign markets of the origin of our beef products. Finding 

another BSE-infected cow from Canada in the U.S. could be just as 

devastating to our domestic market as it has been to our export 

markets. 

As you indicated, I believe that we must have mandatory country-of-origin labeling fully implemented before we even consider additional imports of Canadian animals. 

The question of age. Allowing the importation of Canadian-born 

cattle after March 1, 1999, does not make scientific sense in light 

of the BSE cases diagnosed in Canada after USDA declared that 

Canada’s feed ban was, ‘‘effective.’’ It’s also unenforceable since it 

is nearly impossible to verify the true age of older cattle. In many 

cases veterinarians will have to accept producers’ statements as the 

only source of verification on the age of the cattle. 

BSE minimal-risk status. BSE is not only an animal health concern, it’s also a public safety concern. Congress should demand that 

USDA adhere to the most conservative policies with respect to BSE 

14

that the OIE guidelines allow. USDA appears to be establishing a 

much more lenient approach to animal health standards for the 

U.S. How can producers and consumers be assured that USDA’s 

minimal-risk status would not be assigned to other countries subsequently who may have 19 or 109 or 229, or whatever number, 

greater number of BSE cases? 

Foreign markets is the last issue I want to address. I believe this 

proposed rule will make it more difficult for the U.S. to regain its 

lost export markets. The United States must first restore and 

maintain the confidence of our foreign trading partners before we 

allow additional suspect animals into the U.S. marketplace from a 

country that has not met international standards of minimal-risk. 

Japan and Korea have reduced U.S. beef imports and continue 

to put up additional restrictions and roadblocks. I believe that this 

issue of access to our foreign market needs to be resolved before we 

go down this road. 

In summary, I believe that opening the border to these older 

than 30 months of age cattle in the manner proposed in this Minimal Risk Rule 2 cannot be justified at this time and will only serve 

to increase the risk of BSE being introduced into the U.S. cattle 

herd. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, NORTH DAKOTA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Senator Dorgan and Members of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Interstate 

Commerce, Trade, and Tourism, I am North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner 

Roger Johnson. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of North Dakota 

State Veterinarian Dr. Susan Keller and myself in opposition to the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposal allowing importation of Canadian cattle 

over 30 months of age. 

It is frustrating to witness USDA’s continuing efforts to open the border to Canadian cattle and products, despite the known risks and the unknown prevalence of 

bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the Canadian cow herd. USDA acknowledges that cattle over 30 months of age are at even greater risk of having the disease than are the younger cattle currently allowed in only under stringent movement restrictions that require transport of animals in a sealed truck directly to approved feedlots and/or slaughter. Canada has now recorded 10 cases of BSE, six 

within the last year and the most recent case just this month. Before we further 

lift of our import restrictions and requirements on Canadian cattle, we must consider a number of issues. 

Canada Taking Additional Precautions 

While Canada is taking additional measures to decrease the potential amplification and spread of typical BSE, USDA has unilaterally ignored the fact that other 

countries do not approve of USDA’s new BSE minimal-risk status. This summer, 

Canada will implement more stringent restrictions on the use of specified risk materials (SRMs) in both ruminant and non-ruminant feed. The success of this prohibition will be inconclusive for several years, because of BSE’s long incubation period. 

Further, the United States does not have these measures in place, nor are they even 

being initiated. 

Minimal Risk Rule 2 (MRR2)—the proposed rule allowing Canadian cattle over 

thirty months of age into the U.S.—acknowledges the risk of the SRMs from older 

Canadian cattle by declaring that the distal ileums of these older age animals cannot enter the U.S. The same rule, however, allows older cattle to be trucked across 

the border with their distal ileums intact and makes no effort to completely remove 

the distal ileums from all U.S. feed supplements, including those to non-ruminants, 

as is the case now in Canada. How can this be explained logically to producers and 

consumers, both here and abroad? 

15

While USDA buries its head in the sand, Canada is taking at least some additional actions to improve their ability to export and decrease the incidence of BSE 

in their national herd over time. USDA’s overall lack of responsible actions with respect to BSE in Canada has already decreased the status of the U.S. cattle herd 

in the eyes of our trading partners. 

Feed Cohorts and Types of BSE 

Canada acknowledges that contaminated feed was the likely source of the infection and that additional feed cohorts are likely to be infected as well. Yet higher 

risk, older feed cohorts, will be allowed to come across the border, if this rule is 

adopted. In addition, five Canadian BSE cases reportedly were born after the implementation of its 1997 feed ban, indicating that either the ban has not been effective 

in preventing BSE or there is a greater prevalence of BSE in their country than 

originally thought. Either scenario increases the probability that infected cows will 

be imported into the U.S. 

Canada is clearly admitting it has a BSE problem. Through regulatory actions, 

USDA appears to want to bring Canada’s problem into the U.S. and make it ours. 

We must remember that Canada’s BSE cases have all been identified as ‘‘typical’’ 

BSE and the U.S. cases have all been identified as an ‘‘atypical’’ form of BSE. The 

pathogenic differences between those two prion forms are still unknown. 

Identification 

I believe that if Canadian cattle over thirty months of age (OTM) are allowed to 

come into the U.S., those animals must be permanently identified with an official 

tag and a CAN brand and must be strictly segregated by USDA through the entire 

slaughtering process. Should positive cases of BSE be found in any Canadian animals that are processed in the U.S., it must not be to the detriment of the U.S. cattle industry or our consumers. 

The recent investigation of seven head of Canadian animals slaughtered in a Nebraska plant dramatically points out the critical need to improve animal identification and tracking capabilities in the U.S., starting first at our ports and borders. 

USDA needs to start leading by example in all matters associated with animal 

health. Its primary concern should be its own current inability to quickly and accurately trace all animals that enter the U.S. and ultimately our food supply. 

USDA should not implement this rule until it can assure domestic and foreign 

markets of the origin of our beef products. Finding another BSE-infected cow from 

Canada in the U.S. could be just as devastating to our domestic market as it has 

been to our export markets. We must have mandatory, country-of-origin labeling 

fully implemented before USDA further weakens our standards on Canadian beef 

imports. 

Age 

Allowing importation of Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999 does not make 

scientific sense in light of the BSE cases diagnosed in Canada after USDA declared 

that Canada’s feed ban was ‘‘effective.’’ It is also unenforceable, since it is nearly 

impossible to verify the true age of older (Canadian) cattle. In many cases, veterinarians will have to accept producers’ statements as the only source of verification 

on the age of their cattle. When dealing with a disease such as BSE, with its serious 

health and economic implications, this is not an effective import requirement. Animals born prior to March 1, 1999, will unknowingly (even to the veterinarians signing certificates of veterinary inspection) be able to move into the U.S. under this 

proposed rule. 

BSE Minimal Risk Status 

BSE is not only an animal health concern, but it is also a public safety concern. 

Congress should demand that USDA adhere to the most conservative policies with 

respect to BSE that the OIE guidelines allow. USDA appears to be establishing a 

much more lenient approach to animal health standards for the U.S. How can producers and consumers be assured that USDA’s ‘‘Minimal Risk Status’’ will not be 

assigned to other countries that have 19, 109 or even a greater number of BSE 

cases? 

Foreign Markets 

I believe this proposed rule will make it more difficult for the U.S. to regain its 

lost export markets. The United States must first restore and maintain the confidence of our foreign trading partners before we allow any additional suspect animals into the U.S. marketplace from a country that has not met international standards of minimal-risk. Japan and Korea have reduced U.S. beef imports and continue 

to put up additional restrictions and roadblocks. I believe this rule would make it 

16

even harder to regain their confidence and may result in the permanent loss of 

these markets. USDA’s inability to fully regain these lost exports makes the case 

that more stringent standards are needed rather than proposing to allow additional 

risks for our domestic and foreign markets. If we are to maintain current export 

markets and regain lost export markets, USDA should make its existing and future 

BSE import policies compliant with OIE international standards. 

Summary 

The science of prion diseases (especially BSE) is still unfolding, and the sensitivity 

of tests and detection limits are continually improving. There must be more certainty and fewer assumptions before rules are promulgated to allow more high risk 

cattle from Canada to enter the U.S., or the results could be devastating. Opening 

the border to OTM age cattle in the manner proposed in the MRR2 cannot be justified at this time and will only serve to increase the risk of BSE being introduced 

into the U.S. cattle herd. 

Senator Dorgan and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

on this important issue. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Johnson, thank you very much. Next, we 

will hear from Mark Huseth, who is the President of the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association. Mr. Huseth, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MARK HUSETH, PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA 

STOCKMEN’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HUSETH. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. My name is 

Mark Huseth. My wife and I, Eileen, ranch in partnership with our 

adult sons on our third-generation family operation near McLeod, 

North Dakota, in the Sheyenne River Valley. 

I have the privilege of representing cattlemen like myself from 

across this great state this year as President of the North Dakota 

Stockmen’s Association. It is on their behalf that I appear before 

you today. 

Our forward-thinking cattlemen and cattlewomen formulated a 

policy back at our 2005 annual convention in anticipation of this 

very proposed rule which would expand allowable Canadian imports to include live animals 30 months and older. The Stockmen’s 

Association member resolution opposes any further expansion of 

Canadian beef trade until the United States receives assurances 

from Canada and its other trading partners that if trade is expanded and a problem is detected in a foreign-born import, that the 

animal’s country-of-origin, not the U.S., will suffer from any resulting trade sanctions. 

The resolution also calls for an orderly market transition plan to 

be put in place before the border is opened further so a sudden supply shock does not cripple the domestic market. 

Nearly 2 years later these stipulations have not been satisfied, 

and so our opposition to the proposed rule holds true today. 

Before I go any further, I want to emphasize that we are not opposed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposed rule because of food safety concerns. That’s because BSE, as you know, is 

not a contagious disease and the mode of infection is through the 

consumption of feed contaminated with abnormal prion protein. 

The United States ruminant feed ban and other harvest measures, like the removal of all specified risk materials, have proven 

effective in identifying sick animals and keeping them out of the 

food supply. We’re confident in this industry and the governmentimplemented firewalls to maintain the level of food safety and consumer confidence that we worked so hard for and are so proud of. 

17

At the same time, the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association 

views the realization of Canadian trade as premature. That’s because we’re still suffering from the consequences of the Canadianborn cow diagnosed with BSE in our country in December of 2003. 

The lone animal, commonly referred to as the ‘‘cow that stole 

Christmas,’’ changed the U.S. beef industry. More than 3 years 

later we are still working to recover import global beef markets and 

the consumer confidence that were snatched away that December 

23rd. 

Before we open the border wider and possibly exaggerate the 

problems we already have, we have to make sure that we protect 

our domestic cattle producers from unintended harm to ensure that 

they have the opportunity to make an honest living without the 

threat of another country’s cattle collapsing their market and driving them out of business. 

Our members ask that USDA’s proposed rule not be adopted 

until the following conditions have been met. Number one, the 

United States receives in writing guarantees from Canada and all 

of its other beef-trading partners that any disease problem identified in a foreign-born imported animal in the United States be considered the problem of its country-of-origin. 

In addition, any trade sanctions those countries impose because 

of the disease situation be on that country-of-origin. The United 

States, on the other hand, would not suffer the kind of trade backlash it still is recovering from since the first case of BSE in 2003. 

Likewise, the World Organization for Animal Health, or OIE, recognizes the United States with the same low-risk health status if 

the disease occurs in an imported animal. 

Number two, USDA develops and implements an orderly market 

transition plan before expanding the scope of cattle and beef imports from Canada. This would involve gradually accepting in such 

imports so as not to overload our country’s supply and crash those 

markets. We think this is especially critical to preserve our already-overloaded slaughter cow and slaughter bull processing facilities, particularly in the northern tier where many Canadian cattle would likely be sent. 

You can imagine the impact when you add the estimated 545,000 

cows and 66,000 cull bulls and stags that would enter this country 

each year over a 5-year period if the proposed rule is adopted. That 

would lead to an annual decrease in beef prices of approximately 

$4 per hundredweight or $50 for a 1,250-pound cow. Multiply that 

by an average of 140,000 cull cows sold by North Dakota producers 

each year, and you arrive at approximately a $7 million impact per 

year to cattlemen and women from our state alone. We can’t afford 

to do that. 

Number three, before entering the United States all Canadian 

cattle are permanently identified with a universal hot-iron brand 

that designates them as Canadian cattle. The brand would preserve the cattle’s identity through slaughter and make it crystal 

clear where they originated. Tattoos, on the other hand, cannot be 

read at a glance and can fade over time. Consequently, we do not 

support tattoos as identification means for these imported animals. 

Number four, a further evaluation of the Canadian feed ban be 

conducted in light of the most recent BSE cases detected there. 

18

While USDA has determined that Canada has a robust inspection 

program, that overall compliance with the feed ban is good and 

that the feed ban is reducing the risk of transmission of BSE in 

the Canadian cattle population, they did identify a possible exemption in the ban with mineral mixes produced with ruminal meat 

and bone meal before the feed ban took effect. Maybe a mandatory 

recall of such mixes would help curtail the number of cases there. 

We empathize with our Canadian neighbors and the situation 

they are in. The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association has always 

supported fair trade and maintained that our producers can compete and win in the global market of beef because of the superior 

cattle and beef we raise in this country. 

We look forward to expanding our trade with Canada in the future. However, now is not yet the time, and in order for our beef 

trade with Canada to be fair, the steps we outline today must be 

taken before the USDA’s rule is implemented. 

We appreciate the chance to share our perspective with you 

today and the fact that you have recognized this issue as an important one to us. I thank you very much, and I will also address 

questions later, and if there are any technical ones, I would also 

defer to Dr. Keller. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huseth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK HUSETH, PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA STOCKMEN’S

ASSOCIATION

Good morning, Senator Byron Dorgan, and Members of the Senate Interstate 

Commerce, Trade, and Tourism Subcommittee. 

My name is Mark Huseth. My wife, Eileen, and I ranch in partnership with our 

adult sons on our third-generation family operation near McLeod, N.D., in the 

Sheyenne River Valley. I have the privilege of representing cattle producers like myself from across this great state this year as the President of the North Dakota 

Stockmen’s Association. It is on their behalf that I appear before you today. 

Those forward-thinking cattlemen and cattlewomen formulated policy back at our 

2005 Annual Convention in anticipation of this very proposed rule, which would expand allowable Canadian imports to include live animals 30 months and older. The 

Stockmen’s Association’s member resolution opposes any further expansion of Canadian beef trade until the United States receives assurances from Canada and its 

other trading partners that, if trade is expanded and a problem is detected in a foreign-born import, that the animal’s country-of-origin, not the U.S., will suffer any 

resulting trade sanctions. 

The resolution also calls for an orderly market transition plan to be put in place 

before the border is opened further, so a sudden supply shock doesn’t cripple the 

domestic market. 

Nearly 2 years later, those stipulations have not been satisfied, and so our opposition to the proposed rule still holds true today. 

Before I go further, I want to emphasize that we are not opposed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) proposed rule because of food safety concerns. 

That’s because bovine spongiform encephalopathy, as you know, is not a contagious 

disease, and the mode of infection is through the consumption of feed contaminated 

with abnormal prion protein. The United States’ ruminant feed ban and other harvest measures, like the removal of all specified risk materials (the only things capable of carrying the disease), have proven effective in identifying sick animals and 

keeping them out of the food supply. We’re confident in these industry- and government-implemented firewalls to maintain the level of food safety and consumer confidence that we work so hard for and are so proud of. 

At the same time, the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association views the liberalization of Canadian trade as premature. That’s because we are still suffering the consequences of the Canadian-born cow diagnosed with BSE in our country in December 2003. That lone animal, commonly referred to as ‘‘the cow that stole Christmas,’’ 

changed the U.S. beef industry. More than 3 years later, we are still working to reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:54 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 035813 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35813.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
19

cover important global beef markets and customer confidence that were snatched 

away that December 23. 

Before we open the border wider and possibly exaggerate the problems we already 

have, we have to make sure that we protect our domestic cattle producers from unintended harm—to ensure that they have the opportunity to make an honest living 

without the threat of another country’s cattle collapsing their market and driving 

them out of business. 

Our members ask that USDA’s proposed rule not be adopted until the following 

conditions have been met:

1. The United States receives, in writing, guarantees from Canada and all its 

other beef trading partners that any disease problem identified in a foreignborn, imported animal in the United States be considered the problem of its 

country-of-origin. In addition, any trade sanctions those countries impose because of the disease situation be on that country-of-origin. The United States, 

on the other hand, would not suffer the kind of trade backlash it still is recovering from since the first case of BSE in 2003. Likewise, the World Organization 

for Animal Health, or OIE, recognizes the United States with its same low-risk 

health status if the disease occurs in an imported animal.

2. USDA develops and implements an orderly market transition plan before expanding the scope of cattle and beef imports from Canada. This would involve 

gradually accepting in such imports so as not to overload our country’s supply 

and crash those markets. We think this is especially critical to preserve our already-overloaded slaughter cow and slaughter bull processing facilities, particularly in the northern tier, where many Canadian cattle would likely be sent. 

You can imagine the impact when you add the estimated 545,000 cull cows and 

66,000 cull bulls and stags that would enter this country each year over a fiveyear period if the proposed rule is adopted. That would lead to an annual decrease in beef prices of $4 per hundredweight, or $50 per 1,250-pound cow. Multiply that by an average of 140,000 cull cows sold by North Dakota producers 

each year and you arrive at a $7 million impact per year to cattlemen and 

women from our state alone. We can’t afford to do that.

3. Before entering the United States, all Canadian cattle are permanently identified with a universal hot-iron brand that designates them as Canadian cattle. 

The brand would preserve the cattle’s identify through slaughter and make it 

crystal clear where they originated. Tattoos, on the other hand, cannot be read 

at a glance and can fade over time. Consequently, we do not support tattoos as 

an identification means for these imported animals.

4. A further evaluation of the Canadian feed ban be conducted in light of the 

most recent BSE cases detected there. While USDA has determined that Canada has a robust inspection program, that overall compliance with the feed ban 

is good and that the feed ban is reducing the risk of transmission of BSE in 

the Canadian cattle population, they did identify a ‘‘possible exception’’ in the 

ban with mineral mixes produced with ruminal meat and bone meal before the 

feed ban took effect. Maybe a mandatory recall of such mixes could help curtail 

the number of cases there.

We empathize with our Canadian neighbors and the situation they are in. We 

know what they are going through, because we’re in a similar situation ourselves. 

The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association has always supported fair trade and 

maintained that our producers can compete and win in the global beef market, because of the superior cattle and beef we raise in this country. We look forward to 

expanding our trade with Canada in the future. However, now is not yet the time, 

and, in order for our beef trade with Canada to be fair, the steps we outlined today 

must be taken before USDA’s rule is implemented. 

We appreciate the chance to share our perspective with you today and the fact 

that you have recognized this issue as the important one it is. Thank you. 

I would be happy to address any questions that you may have.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Huseth, thank you very much. Next, we 

will hear from Mr. Leo McDonnell, on behalf of R–CALF USA. I 

understand you’re from Columbus, Montana and ranch in Rhame, 

North Dakota; is that correct? 

20

STATEMENT OF LEO R. MCDONNELL, JR., FORMER

PRESIDENT/CO-FOUNDER, RANCHERS–CATTLEMEN ACTION 

LEGAL FUND, UNITED STOCKGROWERS OF AMERICA

(R–CALF USA) 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan, for 

holding this hearing. It’s very important to U.S. cattle producers. 

Today USDA is considering allowing in over-30-month beef and 

cattle from Canada, a product that is banned for health concerns 

from nearly every international market, products that the United 

States cannot even export to our primary market. That is, USDA’s 

actions will make the United States a dumping ground for beef and 

cattle banned from major international markets, and at the same 

time U.S. producers are being lobbied against by major importers 

here in the United States from being able to differentiate their 

product with country-of-origin labeling. Makes no sense. I think we 

have to ask ourselves who benefits from these actions? Not U.S. 

producers, not U.S. consumers. 

It’s been said that this is a North American problem. This is not 

a North American problem. Canada has tested around 140,000 

head since 2004 and has found eight cases with typical prions. The 

United States has tested 800,000 head and found only two cases in 

our native herd with atypical prions. Completely different prions. 

The Canadian and the European prions with BSE are very aggressive, and really there’s very little known about the atypical prions. 

Make no doubt if USDA is allowed to proceed in allowing over30-month beef and cattle, then the full weight of the Canadian 

problem is going to be put squarely on U.S. ranchers’ shoulders, 

and Canada would be relieved of those problems, the economic 

problems. 

You don’t manage risk by increasing exposure. Sound science 

tells you you do not eradicate a disease by increasing exposure. 

United States should be pursuing sound science that is practiced 

by major importing countries, and we should strive to upward harmonize those import practices surrounding health and safety 

issues, not pursuing some of the lowest standards in the world. 

U.S. beef exports remain at less than half of the 2003 levels, and 

yet we’ve had no assurances from USDA if they find additional 

cases in Canada or even the United States that we’re going to be 

able to maintain what new export markets we’ve opened. I believe 

you pointed that out. 

Last year we opened up to under-30-month cattle, and in 6 

months our losses on cattle went from $49 to $150 per head as reported by USDA. The OTM rule on the relaxation of the delayed 

rule on beef will worsen its present situation. 

Just last October three major packing plants said that they were 

going to cut their kill because of weakening demand and oversupplies of cattle. Why are we letting more in? And by the way, 

over three-quarters of the increase in the supply of those cattle 

were coming from Canada in the under-30-months. 

The proposed OTM rule did not require Canada to implement the 

applied practices of other BSE-infected countries that have successfully reduced the incidence of BSE. Canada has a weaker feed ban. 

It only bans ruminant feed to ruminant animals, not ruminant feed 

to all animals. 

21

Canada has an inferior BSE testing program. It does not test all 

high-risk cattle like other countries in the European Union and 

Japan does. Canada practices the least restrictive SRM removal 

policy. Other countries remove the vertebrae and all other highrisk tissues in much younger cattle. Given if the U.S. commingles 

Canadian cattle and beef with U.S. cattle and beef, it’s not logical 

to expect that Canada’s weaker feed ban, inferior testing program, 

and least restrictive SRM policies would help the U.S. to restore 

lost beef markets and gain new ones. You don’t gain consumer confidence by lowering your standards. 

The proposed OTM rule, like the existing BSE import policy, 

does not comply with international scientific standards. And I won’t 

go through that. Roger Johnson went through it very well. I believe 

Dr. Keller will. 

But I do want to point out that the OIE recommends that cattle 

not be exported from a BSE-affected country unless the cattle were 

born 2 years after the feed ban was effectively enforced, and that’s 

the key word, ‘‘effectively.’’ We’ve seen an increase in young cattle 

in Canada born after the feed ban and a decrease in the number 

of cattle that were born prior to the feed ban. That tells you they 

have not had an effective feed ban. 

The OTM rule is inconsistent with OIE testing requirements, I 

believe. Based on OIE testing recommendations, Canada needs to 

test 187,000 consecutively targeted cattle with a BSE risk equal to 

that in the casualty slaughter age between four and seven years. 

They haven’t done that. 

As reflected by the OTM rule, the U.S. does not have a coherent 

comprehensive strategy for resuming beef exports, building new export markets, fully protecting animal health, and supporting consumer confidence in the safety of U.S. beef. 

I think some of the things we need to look at before we even consider allowing in over-30-month beef or cattle is the U.S. should 

not give additional access to the U.S. market until the U.S. fully 

regains the share of the global market that we lost since 2003. 

Don’t make a dumping ground out of the U.S. market for product 

other countries don’t want. 

The U.S. should not further relax its already lenient import 

standards until it can be scientifically documented that BSE is no 

longer in Canadian feed. I don’t know if you all know this, but this 

summer Canada already has plans to tighten their feed ban. They 

recognize they’re having problems, so they’re going to make it more 

stringent. So why are we letting these cattle in here? We need to 

wait a while and let their feed ban work. 

The U.S. should not allow the importation of over-30-month cattle or beef, which are known to be of higher risk for transmitting 

BSE, particularly now that the disease is known to have been circulating in animals born years after the Canadian feed ban. 

The U.S. should not allow over-30-month cattle or beef from Canada in until both the U.S. and Canada has significantly strengthened their respective feed bans. The U.S. should not allow over-30-

month Canadian cattle or beef into the United States until it additionally obtains firm assurances from all our U.S. beef export partners that if Canada or the U.S. has another case, they’re not going 

to shut us down. 

22

I believe I’ve probably gone over my time so I’ll stop there, and 

thank you for holding this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonnell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEO R. MCDONNELL, JR., FORMER PRESIDENT/CO-FOUND- ER, RANCHERS-CATTLEMEN ACTION LEGAL FUND, UNITED STOCKGROWERS OF

AMERICA (R–CALF USA) 

Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Members of the Committee, I am Leo 

McDonnell. My wife and I own and operate Midland Bull Test, which is a bull genetic evaluation center in Columbus, Montana, and we ranch in both Montana and 

North Dakota. Bulls from our test center have been sold in both the domestic and 

international market and we are cow/calf producers as well as seed stock producers. 

I am also proud to be a member of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund—

United Stockgrowers of America (R–CALF USA), an organization that I co-founded 

in the late 1990s. Our organization has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American 

cattle producer. Our focus has been on protecting and promoting the interests of 

independent cattle producers, and it is from that perspective that I speak to you 

today. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this issue as it is very 

important to the cow/calf operators, backgrounders, stockers and feeders that constitute the heart of this country’s cattle and beef industry. 

Background 

After the December 2003 detection in Washington State of a Canadian-born cow 

infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), over 50 export markets 

closed their borders to U.S. beef and in 2004, U.S. beef exports fell to a 19-year 

low. 1 While the U.S. has since struggled to negotiate even limited access for U.S. 

cattle and beef exports to foreign markets, the domestic market has been thrown 

open to a much broader range of imports from abroad, including imports from Canada where 10 native cases of BSE have so far been detected. As a result, the U.S. 

cattle industry experienced its third consecutive year of substantially reduced exports in 2006, with the U.S. running a significant trade deficit in cattle and beef 

estimated at $2.7 billion. At the conclusion of 2006, U.S. beef exports remained at 

less than half their 2003 volume. 2

Since late 2003, the U.S. border was closed to all but boneless Canadian beef derived from cattle less than 30 months of age—a product the World Organization for 

Animal Health (OIE) considers suitable for trade regardless of a country’s disease 

status. 3 However, in mid-2005, the USDA further opened the Canadian border to 

both imports of live cattle less than 30 months of age and an expanded scope of beef 

products from cattle less than 30 months of age. 4

Within 6 months of the border’s reopening to live cattle, domestic live cattle prices 

began to plummet. Fed cattle prices in the U.S. fell from $96.50 per cwt. in December 2005 to $79.10 per cwt. in May 2006, a decline of $17.40 per cwt. 5 Cattle producers who sold their fed cattle during this period suffered losses conservatively estimated by USDA within the range from $4.08 per cwt. to $12.93 per cwt., or $49 

to $155 per head. 6

R–CALF USA believes that USDA’s existing BSE policies are contributing greatly 

to the ongoing losses experienced by U.S. cattle producers, and we seek the assistance of Congress to correct these existing policies. Notwithstanding the dire need 

to reverse existing BSE policies, the USDA’s recently proposed OTM rule assures 

that current problems will be made far worse for U.S. cattle producers. 7 The OTM 

rule would allow the importation of live Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, 

certain Canadian beef products immediately, and the full scope of Canadian beef 

products from cattle over 30 months of age at some point thereafter. 

USDA’s inability to fully restore lost export markets during the past 3 years, 

which has caused substantial harm to the U.S. cattle industry, is directly attributable to inappropriate BSE policies now in effect, and the proposed OTM Rule will 

only worsen the current situation for the following reasons: 

A. The Proposed OTM Rule Does Not Require Canada To Implement the 

Practices That Other BSE-Affected Countries Are Using to Successfully 

Reduce the Incidence of BSE and Protect Consumers 

Canada Has a Weaker Feed Ban 

Canada has a weaker feed ban than other BSE-affected countries, and, because 

the U.S. imports Canadian beef and cattle nonetheless, the United States continues 

to experience difficulty in both restoring lost markets and gaining new ones. Under 

current U.S. policies, Canada is required to maintain only the most basic of feed 

23

bans—a feed ban determined by other BSE-affected countries to be insufficient to 

control the disease. The feed bans of the European Union (EU) and Japan, for example, are much more restrictive as they ban all ruminant material, including blood, 

from all animal feed. Canada bans only ruminant material, with the exception of 

blood, from only ruminant animal feed. While Canada has announced intentions to 

begin strengthening its feed ban in July 2007, the long incubation period of BSE 

(approximately 5 years) 8 necessitates a lengthy period of disease surveillance following implementation just to determine if the improvement is successful. 

Canada Has an Inferior BSE Testing Program 

In addition, Canada has an inferior BSE surveillance program when compared to 

other BSE-affected countries, and, because the U.S. imports Canadian beef and cattle nonetheless, the United States continues to experience difficulty in both restoring lost markets and gaining new ones. Under current USDA policies, Canada is not 

required to test all high-risk cattle for purposes of determining the prevalence of the 

disease and to ensure that all symptomatic cattle are removed from both the human 

food chain and animal feed chain. In contrast, Japan tests all high-risk cattle and 

all cattle entering the human food chain. The EU tests all high-risk cattle over 24 

months of age and all OTM cattle entering the human food chain. 9

Canada, however, has only a voluntary BSE testing program and is testing fewer 

cattle than many BSE-affected countries with much smaller herd sizes. 10 Despite 

Canada’s detection of BSE in younger cattle, including a 50-month old cow, Canada 

does not recognize the value of testing healthy cattle at slaughter. This stands in 

sharp contrast to the EU’s experience, which caused the EU to begin testing all 

healthy slaughtered OTM cattle since 2001. 11 The EU detected 113 positive BSE 

cases in healthy slaughtered cattle in 2005. 12

Canada Practices the Least Restrictive SRM Removal Policies 

Canada practices the least restrictive specified risk material (SRM) removal policies when compared to other BSE-affected countries, and, because the U.S. imports 

Canadian cattle and beef nonetheless, the U.S. is experiencing difficulty in both restoring lost markets and gaining new ones. The proposed OTM Rule would subject 

Canadian cattle less than 8 years of age (cattle born after March 1, 1999) only to 

the same SRM removal policies adopted in the United States—a country unlike 

Canada that has detected only two atypical cases of BSE in cattle over 10 years of 

age. Thus, Canadian cattle less than 30 months of age will have only their tonsils 

and distal ileum removed, while only OTM cattle will be subject to the broader SRM 

removal requirements. However, the EU removes the broader list of SRMs from all 

cattle over 12 months of age and Japan removes the broader list of SRMs from cattle of all ages. 

It is counterintuitive to expect that Canada’s weaker feed ban, its inferior testing 

regime, and its less restrictive SRM removal policy are helping to restore consumer 

confidence in Canadian beef sold directly from Canada or Canadian beef sold from 

the United States. Current trade challenges clearly demonstrate this concern: South 

Korea, for example, which was the third largest U.S. beef importer in 2003, 13 continues to demand that U.S. slaughter plants segregate U.S. cattle from Canadian 

cattle in their production lines to ensure that no Canadian beef is included in their 

U.S. beef imports; 14 and, recent headlines from the ChinaDaily/Xinhua News Service stating ‘‘Beijing Confiscates Canadian Beef on Fear of Mad Cow Disease,’’ further exemplifies the trade challenges associated with Canadian beef. 15 Because 

Canada’s feed ban is weaker, its BSE testing regime inferior, and its SRM removal 

policy less restrictive than those of other BSE-affected countries, which includes 

countries that import U.S. beef, the proposed OTM Rule will only worsen the unfavorable situation that already exists and should be withdrawn. 

B. The Proposed OTM Rule, Like the USDA’s Existing BSE Import Policy, 

Does Not Comply With International BSE Import Standards Established 

by the OIE 

The OTM Rule Does Not Comply With the OIE’s SRM Standards 

The OIE has in the past and continues today to recommend that SRMs from cattle originating in a BSE-affected country not be imported for the preparation of animal feed or for the preparation of fertilizer. 16 Current U.S. BSE policies ignore this 

recommendation and SRMs removed from live Canadian cattle currently entering 

the U.S. are free to enter the U.S. non-ruminant animal feed system as well as fertilizer production. 17 While this failure to follow OIE recommendations is most likely 

already contributing to the ongoing difficulty in restoring lost beef markets and 

gaining new ones, the proposed OTM Rule would significantly aggravate this failure. 

24

The proposed OTM Rule, because it would allow the importation of animals from 

a BSE-affected country with an unknown prevalence of BSE, would necessarily 

allow the importation of the entire list of SRM’s contained in each animal. Until and 

unless the U.S. begins to follow international standards by expressly banning SRMs 

originating in Canadian cattle from the preparation of all animal feed and fertilizer, 

the USDA is not in compliance with OIE standards, and its demands to the international community to follow international standards will not be taken seriously. 

The OTM Rule Does Not Comply With the OIE’s Feed Ban Standards 

Canada has so far confirmed four BSE cases born after the implementation of its 

1997 feed ban, with three cases born years after (one in 1998, two in 2000, and one 

in 2002). 18 A recent Dow Jones Newswires report regarding Canada’s 10th case of 

BSE in a native animal, which was confirmed on February 7, 2007, suggests that 

this latest case was also born after the feed ban (in the year 2000). 19 This would 

make a total of five positive BSE cases, or half of all native Canadian cases, born 

after the implementation of the Canadian feed ban. Whether there are 4 or 5 positive cases among Canada’s 10 native cases that were born after the implementation 

of the Canadian feed ban, it is clear that the empirical evidence available to this 

Committee shows several truths:

1. Canada’s known BSE prevalence has increased since 2003.

2. Canada’s 1997 feed ban was not effective in preventing the spread of BSE.

3. Canada’s system of BSE control measures and ‘‘interlocking safeguards’’ have 

not succeeded in preventing or eliminating its BSE problem. This shows that 

USDA’s reliance on such systems to protect the United States against imported 

BSE is unwise: they simply do not work well enough to accomplish this goal.

4. Canada’s BSE problem is ongoing. It is not confined to a few old cattle infected before the control measures were implemented (one of USDA’s optimistic 

assumptions in re-opening the border in 2005). The data show that Canada’s 

BSE problem persists and shows no immediate signs of diminishing.

5. Canada’s prevalence rate of BSE is large enough so that there is close to 100 

percent probability that continuing to import cattle from Canada will result in 

some BSE-infected cattle being imported into the United States.

These facts show that the USDA’s proposal to allow OTM cattle, replete with the 

entire list of SRMs and the entire scope of bovine products from animals up to 8 

years of age, into the United States is inconsistent with the OIE’s international BSE 

import standards. The OIE makes clear that beef from cattle originating in a BSEaffected country that does not have an effectively enforced feed ban, i.e., a feed ban 

that does not reduce the prevalence of the disease, is to be derived only from cattle 

that have the entire, expanded list of SRMs removed if the cattle are over 12 

months of age. Because the proposed OTM Rule would require the removal of the 

entire, expanded list of SRMs only in animals over twice this 12-month age limit, 

i.e., at 30 months of age, the OTM Rule does not comply with OIE standards. 20

Moreover, the OIE specifically states that cattle selected for export from a BSEaffected country should be born at least 2 years after the country’s feed ban was 

effectively enforced (for a country like Canada with an undetermined BSE risk), 21

or at least born after the date that the feed ban was effectively enforced (for a country unlike Canada with a controlled BSE risk). 22 The USDA’s proposed OTM Rule 

that would allow the importation of Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999, despite multiple cases of BSE detected in cattle born long after that date, clearly violates this OIE standard, regardless of whether Canada is considered a controlled or 

undetermined risk. 

The OTM Rule Is Inconsistent With OIE Testing Requirements 

The USDA proposed OTM Rule is further inconsistent with OIE testing standards. Canada does not perform, and the OTM Rule would not require, sufficient 

testing of Canadian cattle to meet even minimal OIE testing standards. As a minimum, the OIE testing standards require a country like Canada to test 187,000 consecutive targeted cattle (with a BSE risk equal to that in the ‘‘Casualty slaughter, 

age between 4 and 7 years’’ subpopulation in Table 2), and be found BSE-free to 

be confident that the BSE prevalence is not more than 1 in 100,000. 23 However, 

Canada has tested only 143,528 total cattle during the combined years of 2004, 

2005, 2006, and including up through February 12, 2007, with 8 positive BSE cases 

detected during this period. 24 While this empirical evidence shows that Canada’s 

BSE prevalence is much greater than 1 in 100,000, Canada must increase its BSE 

testing significantly before any accurate estimation of the true magnitude of Canada’s BSE problem can be made either by the U.S. or by international beef importVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:54 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 035813 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35813.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
25

ers. Until this is done, the U.S. should not consider any relaxation of current BSE 

import restrictions, and the proposed OTM Rule should be withdrawn. 

Standing in stark contrast to Canada, the U.S. has tested approximately 800,000 

cattle since June 1, 2004, and has detected only two atypical cases of BSE, both in 

cattle over 10 years of age. 25 Given the distinct difference between the BSE risk 

profile of Canada, when compared to the United States, the effect of existing BSE 

policies, which would be further aggravated by the OTM Rule, is to unjustly burden 

the U.S. cattle industry with the stigma of Canada’s more serious BSE problem. 

It is counterintuitive to expect that the OTM Rule that violates the OIE’s SRM 

standards, that does not comply with the OIE’s feed ban standards, and that is inconsistent with the OIE’s BSE testing standards would help to restore consumer 

confidence in Canadian beef sold directly from Canada or Canadian beef sold from 

the United States. Because the proposed OTM Rule would be inconsistent with the 

OIE’s SRM standards, feed ban standards, and testing standards, the proposed 

OTM Rule would only worsen the unfavorable situation that already exists and 

should be immediately withdrawn. 

C. As Reflected by the OTM Rule, the U.S. Does Not Have a Coherent,

Comprehensive Strategy for Resuming Beef Exports, Building New 

Markets, Fully Protecting Animal Health, and Supporting Consumer 

Confidence in the Safety of U.S. Beef 

R–CALF USA recommends that Congress issue a formal directive to the USDA 

to ensure that the U.S. develops an aggressive, coherent, and comprehensive BSE 

strategy for resuming beef exports, building new markets, fully protecting animal 

health, and supporting consumer confidence in the safety of U.S. beef. The Animal 

Health Protection Act empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to take action to prevent ‘‘the introduction into or dissemination within the United States’’ of animal diseases from other countries. Until recently, USDA policy had recognized that: ‘‘Preventing the introduction of BSE into the United States is critical.’’ 26 But USDA has 

now abandoned the Congressional mandate to prevent the introduction of a devastating disease, BSE, and proposes to rely only on measures to mitigate the dissemination of the disease once it has entered the United States. R–CALF USA believes that Congress must now intervene to ensure this important Congressional 

mandate is followed and offers the following 7 principles for Congress’ consideration:

1. The U.S. should not give additional access to the U.S. market to imports from 

countries known to have BSE until the U.S. fully regains the share of the global 

export market it has lost since 2003. Before opening the border further to Canada or other BSE-affected countries, the U.S. must get assurances from other 

countries that export markets will not be lost if additional BSE cases are found 

in Canada or if the U.S. finds a Canadian case here.

Allowing OTM Canadian cattle and beef into the U.S. will further harm the 

United States’ ability to fully restore lost export markets. After 3 years of allowing 

Canada—a country where BSE is known to have circulated years after implementation of a feed ban—to have access to the U.S. market, the U.S. share of the global 

beef market has fallen from 18 percent in 2003 to an estimated 7 percent in 2006. 27

The export markets that have reopened have imposed stricter conditions on U.S. 

beef exports than what the U.S. requires on Canadian imports, and several export 

markets continue to ban U.S. exports that contain beef from Canadian cattle.

2. The U.S. should not further relax its already lenient import standards until 

it can be scientifically documented that BSE is no longer circulating in Canadian feed or in OTM Canadian cattle and there is international acceptance for 

such a conclusion.

The full magnitude of Canada’s BSE epidemic is still unfolding, but it is already 

much greater than what USDA has asserted and assumed. BSE has now been detected in 10 Canadian-born cattle. If media reports that indicate the latest case was 

born in 2000 are correct, then half of Canada’s known cases were born after Canada 

implemented its feed ban. This evidence demonstrates that Canada’s feed ban was 

not effective in preventing the spread of BSE in either its feed system or cattle herd.

3. The U.S. should not allow the importation of OTM cattle or beef, which are 

known to be of higher risk for transmitting BSE, particularly now that the disease is known to have been circulating in animals born years after the Canadian feed ban.

Cattle over 30 months of age that originate in a BSE-affected country have an 

inherently higher risk for transmitting BSE. As recently as January 2005, the 

USDA stated that the two most important factors in determining risk were the age 

26

of the cattle and the effect of the feed ban. Now that the feed ban is known to be 

ineffective, the 30-month age limit remains as the most important factor in minimizing the risk of introducing BSE into the U.S. from Canada.

4. The U.S. should not allow imports of OTM cattle or beef from Canada until 

both the U.S. and Canada have significantly strengthened their respective feed 

bans and sufficient time has lapsed to ascertain the effectiveness of any feed 

ban improvements. Given the known breeches in Canada’s feed ban, Canada 

must significantly ramp-up its BSE testing so that the effectiveness of its feed 

ban can be more accurately monitored.

As previously recognized by the Food and Drug Administration, and as recognized 

by international BSE experts, current BSE mitigation measures are inadequate to 

address the increased risk associated with OTM cattle and beef from Canada. The 

Food and Drug Administration, the Canadian Food Inspection Service, and international BSE experts all have acknowledged the need to strengthen the feed bans 

implemented in both the U.S. and Canada to prevent the spread of BSE. However, 

neither country has yet implemented improvements to their respective feed bans.

5. The U.S. should not allow OTM Canadian cattle or beef into the U.S. until 

it additionally obtains firm assurances from all U.S. beef export markets and 

the OIE that the United States’ BSE risk profile would not be downgraded to 

Canada’s level if Canadian OTM cattle and beef are allowed into the U.S. market and available for export.

Allowing OTM Canadian cattle and beef into the United States will immediately 

harm the United States’ international disease risk profile. The United States has 

a more favorable BSE risk profile than Canada. Canada cannot possibly meet the 

OIE standard for a country with a negligible BSE risk, which requires that the 

youngest BSE case must be born more than 11 years ago. 28 However, because the 

U.S. has only detected BSE in two native animals, both born well before the feed 

ban and the youngest of which was estimated to be 10 years of age on February 

28, 2006, the U.S. will likely meet the international standard to be considered a 

negligible BSE risk country if it does not mix Canadian cattle and beef with U.S. 

cattle and beef.

6. The U.S. should not allow OTM Canadian cattle or beef into the U.S. until 

the U.S. additionally implements country-of-origin labeling to mitigate the financial harm that will inevitably befall U.S. cattle producers and that will likely be more severe than what USDA will predict.

The financial losses to U.S. cattle producers will likely be severe if the United 

States allows OTM Canadian cattle and beef into the U.S. market while most export 

markets remain closed. The USDA grossly underestimated the negative financial 

impact that actually occurred to U.S. cattle producers following the 2005 resumption 

of Canadian cattle imports. The USDA underestimated the price decline that U.S. 

producers experienced in the domestic fed cattle market by a factor of nearly three. 

Domestic fed cattle prices, which USDA predicted would fall by as much as $6.05 

per cwt., 29 actually fell by $17.40 per cwt. during the 5-month period from December 2005 through May 2006. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling must be implemented in the United States so both domestic and international consumers can differentiate beef produced exclusively from U.S. cattle from beef produced from Canadian cattle, before any further relaxation of current U.S. import standards is even 

considered.

7. The U.S. should not relax its standards on imports from Canada without an 

evaluation of the health and safety risks and economic impact of OTM beef and 

without evaluations that combine OTM cattle and beef imports.

The risks from OTM beef imports were not properly evaluated in either the 2003 

or 2004 risk analyses, and the 2005 delay on OTM beef imports posted in the Federal Register does not include a risk analysis based on the new findings of multiple 

cattle with BSE born after Canada’s ban on meat and bone meal. Also, there is concern that the risk analysis of OTM beef and OTM cattle, when combined, will be 

much higher than separate analyses. That would also be the case if OTM beef and 

cattle are combined in an economic impact analysis. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons described above, the USDA’s proposed OTM Rule is premature 

and should be immediately withdrawn. It is inconsistent with the applied practices 

in other BSE-affected countries; it is inconsistent with OIE standards; and it does 

not contribute to any cohesive, comprehensive U.S. strategy to restore lost markets, 

27

build new markets, fully protect animal health, and support consumer confidence 

in the safety of U.S. beef. 

R–CALF USA respectfully requests that Congress take steps to cause the immediate withdrawal of the OTM Rule as well as steps to ensure the immediate development of a comprehensive BSE protection strategy and enforcement of the Congressional mandate to prevent the introduction of BSE into the United States. 

I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to share R–CALF USA’s views with you on 

this important issue and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

ENDNOTES 1Table 5, Total U.S. Beef and Veal Exports, Red Meat Yearbook (94006), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, available at http://

usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1354. 2See Cumulative U.S. Meat and Livestock Trade, Livestock and Meat Trade Data, 

Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook Tables, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/MeatTrade/

Data/AnnualLivestockTable.xls; see also Table 5, Total U.S. Beef and Veal Exports, 

Red Meat Yearbook (94006), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/

viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1354. 3Terrestrial Animal Health Code—2006, World Organization for Animal Health 

(OIE), at Article 2.3.13.1. (1)(g). 4See Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation 

of Commodities; Final Rule and Notice, Federal Register, Vol. 70, January 4, 2005, 

at 460–553. 5 Choice Beef Values and Spreads and the All-Fresh Retail Value, USDA, Economic Research Service, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/

meatpricespreads/Data/beef.xls, downloaded on December 19, 2006. 6 High Plains Cattle Feeding Simulator, United States Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/

LDP/xlstables/High %20Plains %20Cattle %20Feeding %20simulator %20Nov06 

%20R.xls. 7See Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions; Importation of 

Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines; Proposed Rule, Federal Register, 

Vol. 72, No. 5, at 1102–1129, hereafter OTM Rule. 8Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 2, Final Rule, January 4, 2005, at 475. 9See Report on the Monitoring and Testing of Ruminants for the Presence of 

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) in the EU in 2005, European Commission, ISSN–583X, at 5. 10Table B5, Total Positive Cases Per Number of Cattle Tested or Present in the 

Adult Cattle Population (>24 months of age), Report on the Monitoring and Testing 

of Ruminants for the Presence of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) 

in the EU in 2005, European Commission, ISSN: 1725–583X, June 20, 2006, at 17. 

(France, with an adult cattle population of over 10 million cattle tested over 2.5 million head and detected 31 positive BSE cases in 2005; the Netherlands, with an 

adult cattle population of only 1.7 million cattle tested over 517,000 cattle and detected 3 positive BSE cases in 2005. In contrast, Canada with an adult cattle population of approximately 6 million cattle tested fewer than 60,000 cattle and detected 

2 positive BSE cases in 2005; in 2006, after again testing fewer than 60,000 cattle, 

Canada detected 5 positive BSE cases.) 11The TSE Roadmap, European Commission, Brussels, COM(2005 322 Final, July 

15, 2005, at 7, 8: ‘‘The detection of BSE in healthy slaughtered cattle in 2000 indicated the need for active monitoring which was introduced in the whole community 

in the beginning of 2001. The active monitoring programme became fully operation 

in July 2001 and still includes: The testing of all risk animals over 24 months of 

age (fallen stock, emergency slaughtered animals and animals with clinical signs at 

ante-mortem inspection); The testing of all healthy slaughtered bovine animals 

above 30 months of age (a total of 10 million cattle per year).’’ 12Table B12, Testing on Healthy Slaughtered Bovine Animals, Report on the 

Monitoring and Testing of Ruminants for the Presence of Transmissible Spongiform 

Encephalopathy (TSE) in the EU in 2005, European Commission, ISSN: 1725–583X, 

June 20, 2006, at 26. 13See Cumulative U.S. Livestock and Meat Trade, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry 

Outlook Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, March 

23, 2004, available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/LDP-M//2000s/

2004/LDP-M-03-23-2004.pdf. 

28

14 Use of Cattle Legally Imported from Canada Within the EV Program for the 

Republic of Korea, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 

August 29, 2006, available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/

KoreaCanadianCattle.pdf. 15 Beijing Confiscates Canadian Beef on Fear of Mad Cow Disease, ChinaDaily/

Xinhua News Service, Sunday—February 18, 2007. 16Terrestrial Animal Health Code—2006, Article 2.3.13.13 (1), (2), (3). 17See Importation of Certain Commodities from BSE Minimal-Risk Regions (Canada), Environmental Assessment, October 27, 2006, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, at 7. (Both FSIS and FDA have implemented regulations that prohibit the use of SRMs in human food and other products, including dietary supplements and cosmetics.) 18See Completed Investigations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, available at 

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/

comenqe.shtml. 19 CFIA: Latest Canadian BSE Case Likely Born in 2000, Dow Jones Newswires, 

CattleNetwork Today, February 8, 2007. 20Terrestrial Animal Health Code—2006, OIE, Article 2.3.13.11. (2)(a). 21See Terrestrial Animal Health Code—2006, OIE, at Article 2.3.13.8. 22See Id. at Article 2.3.13.7. 23See Surveillance for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Terrestrial Animal 

Health Code—OIE—2006, Appendix 3.8.4.1, Tables 1 and 2. 24See BSE Enhanced Surveillance Program, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 

available at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/

surv/surve.shtml#num. 25 BSE Testing Results, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, September 1, 2006, available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

lpa/issues/bseltesting/testlresults.html; See also BSE Ongoing Surveillance Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hotlissues/bse/surveillance/

ongoinglsurvlresults.shtml. 26See, e.g., Federal Register, Vol. 62, December 16, 1997, at 65747, 65748. 27Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Circular Series, DL&P 2–06, October 2006, 

available at http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2006/2006 %20Annual/

Livestock&Poultry.pdf. 28Terrestrial Animal Health Code—2006, OIE, Article 2.3.13.3. (3)(b). 29 Economic Analysis Final Rule, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: MinimalRisk Regions and Importation of Commodities, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, December 20, 2004, at 24.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. McDonnell, thank you very much. And, finally, we will hear from Mr. Elwood ‘‘Woody’’ Barth, who is here 

representing the North Dakota Farmers Union, and we appreciate 

you being here. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ELWOOD ‘‘WOODY’’ BARTH, STATE 

SECRETARY, NORTH DAKOTA FARMERS UNION 

Mr. BARTH. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. It is good to be here. 

For the record, my name is Woody Barth. I am a livestock producer 

from Solen, North Dakota, and also serve as State Secretary of the 

North Dakota Farmers Union, the state’s largest general farm organization. 

Today I am here representing the members of the North Dakota 

Farmers Union, and I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and focusing on the United States Department of Agriculture’s proposed rules. 

USDA proposed rules that allow for liberalized importation of 

Canadian beef and cattle do not address the issues of safety of our 

Nation’s producers. The United States cattle producers continue to 

have no assurances that Canada has its BSE problem under control. 

29

The rules will call for allowed importation of beef and cattle of 

all ages, including animals born after March 1, 1999. Live animals 

must have an ID plus a permanent tattoo that will allow Canadian 

officials to certify the age of animals. These rules have no clarification as to what will happen if another BSE case is found as relates 

to our trading partners, and no explanation of how USDA plans to 

separate Canadian beef from U.S. beef for export. 

Just 2 weeks ago, Canada confirmed its ninth case, possibly the 

tenth case if you count the animal in Washington State, for BSE 

positive. The recent animal was six-and-a-half years old, which 

falls within USDA’s proposed age limit to expand beef and cattle 

trade with Canada. 

Just recently, Canadian cattle entered the United States without 

government-required health papers or identification tags in Washington State. Because of these events, we believe American producers and consumers deserve better than what USDA is proposing. 

North Dakota Farmers Union believes livestock health is critical 

to production agriculture and our Nation’s ability to provide a safe 

food supply. We believe the following items need to be addressed 

prior to expanding beef and cattle trade with Canada: 

First of all, Canadian cattle need to be proved and verified that 

their cattle herd and beef products are BSE-free. 

Canada must prove and verify 100 percent compliance with the 

ruminant feed ban. 

The U.S. international beef export markets are firmly reestablished first, and we also call for mandatory country-of-origin labeling to be fully implemented before this rule takes effect. 

We call for increased level of surveillance, quarantine, and inspection and testing at all U.S.-Canadian border locations. 

Impose similar guarantees concerning livestock feed production 

from all trading partners and require Canada to allow the U.S. to 

perform random investigations and testing of their production facilities as a condition of market access. 

Rapid-test technology is provided to all domestic slaughtering facilities to provide stability to the cattle market and another layer 

of confidence to the American consuming public. 

We also call for a guaranteed economic safety net for American 

producers if this importation of cattle and beef products from BSEpositive countries negatively impacts domestic profitability here in 

America. 

In the interest of U.S. producers and consumers, USDA should 

withdraw the proposed rule to expand Canadian beef and cattle imports. The Department should also move to immediately implement 

mandatory country-of-origin labeling, which would allow consumers 

to make an informed choice of where their food comes from. 

With that, Senator, I would thank you for being here, and I 

would answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELWOOD ‘‘WOODY’’ BARTH, STATE SECRETARY, NORTH

DAKOTA FARMERS UNION

My name is Elwood ‘‘Woody’’ Barth. I am a livestock producer from Solen, North 

Dakota, and also serve as the State Secretary of the North Dakota Farmers Union, 

30

the state’s largest general farm organization. Today I am here representing the 

members of North Dakota Farmers Union. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you and for focusing on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

proposed rules. 

The USDA’s proposed rules that allow for liberalized importation of Canadian 

beef/cattle do not address the issues of safety for our Nation’s producers. United 

States cattle producers continue to have no assurance that Canada has its BSE 

problem under control. 

The rules will call for allowed importation of beef/cattle of all ages, including animals born after March 1, 1999. Live animals must have an ID plus a permanent 

tattoo that will allow Canadian officials to certify age of animals. These rules have 

no clarification as to what will happen if another BSE case is found as it relates 

to our trading partners, and no explanation of how USDA plans to separate Canadian beef from U.S. beef for export. 

Just 2 weeks ago, Canada confirmed its ninth BSE-positive case. The recent animal was 6.5 years old, which falls within USDA’s proposed age limit to expand beef/

cattle trade with Canada. Just recently, Canadian cattle entered the United States 

without government-required health papers or identification tags in Washington 

State. Because of these events, we believe American producers and consumers deserve better than what USDA is proposing. 

North Dakota Farmers Union believes livestock health is critical to production agriculture and our Nation’s ability to provide a safe food supply. We believe the following should be addressed prior to expanding beef/cattle trade with Canada:

• Canada can prove/verify their cattle herd and beef products are BSE-free;

• Canada can prove/verify 100 percent compliance with the ruminant feed ban;

• U.S. international beef export markets are firmly reestablished;

• Mandatory country-of-origin labeling is fully implemented;

• Increased level of surveillance, quarantine, inspection and testing at all U.S.-

Canadian border locations;

• Impose similar guarantees concerning livestock feed production from all trading 

partners and require Canada to allow the U.S. to perform random investigations and testing of their production facilities as a condition of market access;

• Rapid-test technology is provided to all domestic slaughtering facilities to provide stability to the cattle market, and another layer of confidence for the American consuming public; and

• A guaranteed economic safety net for American producers if the importation of 

cattle and beef products from BSE-positive countries negatively impacts domestic profitability.

In the interest of U.S. producers and consumers, USDA should withdraw the proposed rule to expand Canadian beef and cattle imports. The department should also 

move to immediately implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling which would 

allow consumers to make an informed choice of where their food comes from.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Barth, thank you very much. Let me ask 

questions first of Dr. DeHaven and then perhaps others, as well. 

Dr. DeHaven, it has seemed to me that the Secretary of Agriculture has been more than anxious to open this market up, almost 

like a cattle drive from Canada. You know, ‘‘I’m ready to go and, 

Katie, bar the door.’’ And I don’t understand that. I would expect 

an approach that has the USDA saying, ‘‘look, we’re going to be 

cautious, careful. First and foremost we’re going to protect our domestic industry to make certain that we’re not inheriting risks that 

we don’t now have.’’

Mr. McDonnell said you don’t minimize risks by increasing exposure, which I agree with. So I’m trying to understand this, and let 

me ask a number of questions. Under the proposed rule, USDA will 

allow in Canadian cattle as long as they were born after March 1, 

1999. They implemented their feed ban in August 1997, so you 

allow 6 months after the feed ban and give it a chance to work 

31

through the system. Then you add an additional year for good 

measure, and so that becomes the date. 

However, looking at the timeline of the BSE cases, four of Canada’s cases have been found in animals born after the feed ban. 

Three of them were in animals born after March 1, 1999. So why 

does the USDA think it’s appropriate and safe to import cattle born 

after March 1, 1999, given that one-third of the BSE cases were 

born after that date? Does that not give USDA some pause? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Thank you, Senator. Let me first reflect on your 

initial comment about Secretary Johanns and his interest. The Secretary has been very clear from the beginning that our trade policies need to be based on sound science and consistency with the 

international standards. So we believe that, in fact, our initial minimum-risk rule and this proposal, in fact, are in keeping with the 

science as we know it today, and it is evolving rapidly, and, second, 

will get much more consistency with the international standards 

than what we currently have. 

With regard to the March 1, 1999, feed ban, let me just clarify 

slightly from what you indicated in terms of how we came to that 

date. The United States and Canada both implemented almost 

identical feed bans at the same time, August 1997. 

In the risk assessment that we did to support this rule, we estimated that it would take approximately 6 months for the Canadians to really implement that rule and then an additional year for 

feed that might be in their system to clear the system, and so came 

up with a date some 18 months after their initial feed ban was implemented. 

It’s important when discussing the potential risk pathway, the 

way that BSE might find its way into the United States—excuse 

me, into the United States from Canada, that we not take any single-risk mitigation factor and consider it by itself, but rather consider the entire risk pathway and all of the mitigations along that 

pathway that would mitigate any risk that would be posed to the 

United States from Canada from their cattle or from cattle products. 

Senator DORGAN. I’ll let you continue, but let me ask a question 

about this issue of risk. The Department provided the minimal-risk 

status to Canada based on what you say were international guidelines; is that correct? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Consistent with the international standards, yes. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask you a question. What if before May 

of this year we find an 11th case of BSE in Canadian herds? Is the 

Department at that point going to withdraw the minimum-risk assessment? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Senator Dorgan, I assume that you’re referring to 

the quote on the chart that you referred me to, and I would just 

go back in history. That quote is from January 3, 2005, and it was 

consistent with what was at the time——

Senator DORGAN. Let’s put that quote up, if we can. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. That quote was—at the time it was stated was 

consistent with the OIE standards as they existed. The OIE at the 

time categorized countries in one of five categories. Free, provisionally free, minimum risk—minimal-risk, as would indicate on that 

32

chart, moderate risk, or high risk. A five-category scheme, if you 

will. 

In May of 2005, some 5 months after that quote, the OIE 

changed their country categorization system, got away from comparing cattle populations and the number of positive cases based 

on that population, and went to a three-categorization scheme 

where the country is designated as either negligible risk, controlled 

risk, or undetermined risk, and instead of looking at just prevalence, looking again at that entire risk pathway. What are all of 

the measures that a country has in place to mitigate the animal 

health and public health risk of BSE? 

Senator DORGAN. I want to know whether the USDA has evaluated the difference between your evaluation of sound science and 

our trading partners’ determination of what sound science means 

to them. It seems to me that our continued trade gap somehow represents a difference in judgment of our trading partners’ evaluation 

of sound science and health risk versus USDA’s evaluation. 

I’m wondering whether this plays any role in your consideration, 

or is it irrelevant? Because this gets at the root of what this issue 

means to our industry and our domestic producers, and it has everything to do with what our trading partners are interested in 

purchasing. You can only sell what people are willing to buy. You 

might say that’s an irrational gap, but you can’t say it doesn’t 

exist. 

My question is: What role does USDA play in evaluating whether 

that gap means anything to the USDA or to this country? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Senator, I don’t mean to suggest that the Department is ignoring the economics and the chart as you’ve presented, 

but looking at a longer-term picture, if you’ll recall, if we go back 

to May of 2003, there were really two standards: Countries that 

were affected by BSE and the rest of the world cut off all beef and 

beef products and animals from those countries, and then countries 

that were not affected and there were no restrictions. And we were 

part of that problem, not consistent with the international standards. 

Since May of 2003 we have worked to make our trade policies, 

our regulations consistent with the science and consistent with 

international standards. If, in fact, we are successful in doing so 

both domestically, then we are in a better position of convincing 

trading partners to likewise use the science and use the OIE standards as a basis for determining their trade policies. 

I have not been directly involved in the trade discussions, but I 

have had discussions with a number of countries on BSE and their 

ongoing restrictions of beef and beef products, and as we hammer 

those countries to accept our beef and beef products based on international standards, their first response is yes, but you need to get 

your policies in the United States consistent with the science and 

then come talk to us, because, in fact, our regulations have not 

been. This rule will go a long way toward making our standards 

consistent with——

Senator DORGAN. I don’t think we need any lectures from any of 

our trading partners about our standards. The fact is we have the 

best supply of beef in the world, the safest supply of beef in the 

world, and we don’t need anybody lecturing us about that. 

33

But my question here is about a gap. It seems to me the market 

has made a judgment. 

You say this is sound science and this gap seems to play no role. 

I’m just saying, Dr. DeHaven, if this plays no role, then we’re in 

big trouble because this has to play a significant role in the decisions we’re making. 

Perception is everything. Others around the world perceive that 

there is a problem. Let me refer you to the Chicago Tribune the 

day before yesterday, which you’re probably familiar with. The Chicago Tribune headline, ‘‘Canadian cattle slip past USDA safeguards. Critics fear problems could lead to mad cow,’’ and it’s a 

story about cattle coming in without identification, without papers, 

and so on, slipping through the system, or as one of my friends 

called it, holes in the dike. 

So, you know, my concern here is we’re ignoring the obvious, and 

I’m trying to understand the urgency the Secretary sees in rushing 

to make this decision. 

We have a comment period that is still open, but when you look 

at the statements of the Secretary of Agriculture, I’m hard pressed 

to see that any comments are going to do anything to change a 

mind that’s already closed on this issue. Disabuse me of that, if you 

can. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Thank you, Senator. And let me first make it very 

evident and clear that the Secretary is acutely aware of the economic impact of the current situation indeed. We have sent countless trade teams around the world to reopen the markets, to push 

the science, and, in fact, we have been largely successful in terms 

of reopening those markets with——

Senator DORGAN. That’s not true. Look at that chart. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Indeed. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m sorry to interrupt you, but this is not true. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. I’m not suggesting that we don’t have a ways to 

go. In fact, it’s work in progress. My point being the economics of 

this situation are certainly not lost on the Secretary or anyone in 

the Administration. 

Senator DORGAN. But they don’t play a role in this judgment of 

whether to open the market; is that correct? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. In fact they do, and an economic impact analysis 

was part of the rule as it was published as a proposal. You know, 

I suspect that economists are much like lawyers. If you have six 

of them in the room, you’ll have six different opinions. We value 

and respect the opinion of Dr. Keith Collins, our Chief Economist, 

and his staff, who have done a thorough economic analysis of this 

rule. Here again, that’s part of this process where we would welcome comments on the economic impact analysis. 

Dr. Collins and his staff would suggest that this rule taken by 

itself, not ignoring the situation, but in fact putting into context 

what this rule would do, the overall economic impact on the United 

States would be favorable. Clearly there would be a reduction——

Senator DORGAN. You said what? Tell me again. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Would be a favorable outcome in the long term, 

recognizing that, in fact, there would be lower prices in cull cattle 

in the United States, but in terms of the impact on fed cattle, feeder cattle and products from those animals, this rule would be—

34

would result in no change or even a slight increase to producers in 

this country. 

Senator DORGAN. You know, I know Keith Collins, and I wish he 

had about a thousand head of cattle that he owned and then give 

his judgment. I used to teach a little economics myself, but I was 

able to overcome that. You know, I understand. You can get whatever you pay for from the economists, but I do think that there are 

several issues here that are important. 

One is the fact that Canada has decided that it’s going to revise 

its feed ban in order to make it more effective. That’s my understanding; right? So Canada’s taking steps to make it more effective. 

What’s the implication of that? They’ve determined that the feed 

ban needs to be made more effective because it is not effective at 

this point, or at least it is not completely effective. If that’s the 

case, again, I don’t understand the urgency and the rush by the 

Secretary to do this. 

I’m going to ask some other questions and then I’ll come back to 

you, Dr. DeHaven, if I might. 

Commissioner Johnson, let me ask your assessment of USDA’s 

evaluation of both the public health side of this and the State Veterinarian’s evaluation of the prospect of additional cases coming in 

and its impact on the U.S. herd. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I don’t know that I can answer the public 

health side of this. I mean, the statement has been made and I believe it to be accurate that we should not be fearful that this is 

going to increase the problem that we have, that it’s going to make 

our beef less safe in this country. I think this is largely—as you 

indicate, it’s about that economic gap and it’s about how folks are 

perceiving this to be, and the result of that is that economic gap. 

If I can——

Senator DORGAN. But the perception—I’m asking about the perception of public health, and I think this is a very fine line. None 

of us want any American consumers to believe that we’ve got a 

problem here because we don’t, but we could import a problem, and 

we don’t want to be importing someone else’s problem. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me answer the question this way, Senator: I 

think USDA made a critical mistake a number of years ago when 

there was a small company by the name of Creekstone that was 

asking for the right to test every animal, and the reason they were 

asking for that right was because in Japan that is exactly what 

they were doing. They have a problem with BSE in Japan and so 

they tested every animal. That was what the consumers wanted, 

and so they wanted the same thing from us. If they were going to 

import beef from the U.S., they said, well, of course, but you need 

to test every animal. We refused to allow them that right. 

And so certainly in the minds of the Japanese consumers there 

is a higher risk associated with importing beef that has not been 

tested where there’s known to have been at least a case or several 

cases of BSE. Now that gets to the question of, you know, is there 

a—does the consumer believe there to be a risk? In America I don’t 

think that’s the case, but certainly in Japan it is. 

Senator DORGAN. Dr. Keller, do you have anything to add to Dr. 

DeHaven’s testimony today with respect to the standpoint of number of cases of BSE we might see and its impact? 

35

Dr. KELLER. The only comment I’d like to add is that if we look 

at the science, we really have to look at where we’re at with OIE 

guidelines, and we still have not been assigned a status by OIE as 

a country nor has Canada. If we would be what—I’ve seen Dr. 

DeHaven quoted recently saying that we might be a controlled-risk 

status country. In the Minimal Risk Rule 2 automatically we would 

not be in compliance or we would not be meeting those guidelines. 

Animals over 30 months of age, the SRMs—there’s a list of them, 

I could read them to you—we should not be allowing those into this 

country. Minimal Risk Rule 2 does not address what would be required as a controlled-risk status country. 

Senator DORGAN. So if we have additional cases of BSE that are 

imported into this country, which USDA says will happen—the 

question isn’t whether, the question is how many—then that puts 

us in a more significant risk category? 

Dr. KELLER. Absolutely. We cannot have it both ways. We’ve either got to do what Canada’s doing or we don’t let those older-age 

cattle in. 

Senator DORGAN. And the consequences of that then are on this 

chart in terms of our trading partners’ perception of our product; 

is that correct? 

Dr. KELLER. Yes. Some of it’s perception, some is reality, though. 

We cannot be at an unequal status. 

Senator DORGAN. I understand that if you import risk, that’s 

real. I understand that. And that has an impact on our trading 

partners’ assessment of our product. 

Dr. KELLER. Correct. 

Senator DORGAN. And that gap is real, and gets back to Mr. 

McDonnell’s statement that he put, I thought, in a very concise 

way. You don’t minimize risk by increasing exposure. Mr. Huseth, 

you know, some economists, would take a look at you and say, you 

know what you are, you’re just a protectionist. You want to keep 

everything out of here and the world has changed, get with it, free 

trade, open the borders, and do a little testing, but you know what, 

you’re just protectionists. That’s what some would argue. Not me, 

but some will argue that. So respond to that. 

Mr. HUSETH. Senator, we probably are protectionists because 

we’re protecting our own producers, protecting the product that we 

think is safe and that we do produce. So in a way we are protectionists, but we still are open minded enough to know about the 

free trade and what goes on in that arena. 

Senator DORGAN. How important is country-of-origin labeling to 

you as a rancher? 

Mr. HUSETH. Country-of-origin labeling to me, is very important. 

I think we need to look at that, and for our situation we can do 

that right now, if we want, start tagging and not wait for the government to go through their bureaucracy, but I think some of that 

has to be done. Seems to be a real holdup at your end of the participation in the government. They always come up with ideas but 

never have the solutions or the ways to get there, and I think 

that’s a problem, and country-of-origin labeling is an important 

thing in our industry. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. McDonnell, you’ve missed the whole—they 

would say you’ve missed the whole world movement of free trade 

36

and you’re just coming here saying I want to protect my own economic interests. Anything wrong with that? 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Well, thank you, first of all, for calling me a 

protectionist. That’s what I would tell them. I’m not an isolationist, 

though. In fact, we have extended members of our family—one 

cousin’s boy is over in Afghanistan today protecting this country. 

So I don’t know if I deserve to be quite in that crowd, but thank 

you. 

We participate in our own business very much in the international market with semen sales across the world. We’re one of 

the largest, if not the largest, sellers of breeding bulls. We have 

more bulls and semen studs than anybody else in the market, so 

we’re very active in it. 

Establishing trade guidelines that are smart, that are fair, in 

this case that are responsible to consumers and producers is—could 

hardly be called protectionist. I call them responsible and fair practices, and, you know, it’s so funny, Senator, every time we get into 

this debate, these folks don’t seem to be able to debate us on the 

issues. It’s like a bunch of little kids on a school ground, the first 

thing they do is go to name calling. 

I’m very proud of what we’ve done. I’m very proud of what you’ve 

done. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Barth, the North 

Dakota Farmers Union has an official position on this issue. Does 

the National Farmers Union have a similar position? 

Mr. BARTH. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Yes, they do. They believe that there needs to be protection for the U.S. beef market; 

that the U.S. beef market needs to be protected; that we have a 

safe supply of food here and that needs to be protected. As you 

stated, we can’t import a problem. 

And also we call for mandatory country-of-origin labeling both on 

the North Dakota level and national level. We want that implemented immediately. As you said, there have been many delays in 

that process of implementing country-of-origin labeling. 

Our history in North Dakota and the National goes back to the 

early Nineties in supporting country-of-origin labeling. We have a 

long history there, and we believed that would be a part of the solution before we do open up the border to Canadian trade of animals over 30 months of age. 

Senator DORGAN. Dr. DeHaven, we just talked a bit about importing risk. Is it USDA’s contention that opening this market will 

not import risk, or is it your understanding that there will be some 

risk imported as a result of this? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Senator, we’re characterizing the risk as negligible, again, looking at having done a thorough science-based risk 

analysis consistent with the OIE standards, looking at the entire 

pathway and looking at the mitigations that are in place along that 

entire pathway. If you’ll permit me, I’ll go through some of those 

steps that we have considered and those risk mitigation measures 

that are in place. 

Senator DORGAN. I certainly will permit that. I’d also like you to 

comment, as well, on Canada’s tightening of their feed standards 

and whether you saw that as evidence that the current feed standVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:54 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 035813 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35813.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
37

ards were inadequate, and if so, did that play a role in your judgment? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Certainly. Our risk assessment of the Canadian 

situation and the risk that it would present to the United States 

begins with a prevalence estimate. The Canadians have implemented an enhanced BSE testing program much like what we carried out for 2 years beginning in June of 2004. 

They have tested a comparable—in fact, based on percentage of—

relative percentage of adult cattle populations, I think they’ve actually exceeded the number of high-risk animals that they tested. We 

used the exact same methodology to determine the prevalence of 

BSE in the Canadian cattle herd that we used domestically based 

on our testing program to determine our prevalence. 

Senator DORGAN. Dr. DeHaven, I’m going to apologize for interrupting you, but I want to try to understand this as you go through 

it, and I think those who have come here would like to understand 

it, as well. You’re talking about prevalence. I want to ask the question: Is BSE more prevalent in Canada than in the U.S.? If prevalence is a standard, based on what we know and based on existing 

cases, is it more prevalent in Canada than the U.S.? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. We estimate the prevalence in Canada in their 

adult cattle population to be 6.8 positive animals per ten million 

adult cattle. That’s somewhere less than one in a million. Looking 

at the assessment that we did and prevalence estimate that we did 

for the United States, we estimated it to be somewhat less than 

one in a million. So they are certainly in the same ballpark based 

on extensive surveillance programs in both countries. 

Senator DORGAN. But the answer is if you start with the first 

point being prevalence, currently what we understand is there’s a 

greater prevalence of BSE cases in Canada than in the U.S.? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. I can’t say that, Senator. 

Senator DORGAN. I thought you just said that. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. No, no. I said that based on the estimate that 

we’ve done, which uses the enhanced testing surveillance programs 

in both countries——

Senator DORGAN. How about based on what we know in terms 

of confirmed cases? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Based on confirmed cases, as well as the population of negative tests that we have, we’re estimating the prevalence in Canada to be 6.8 positive animals, less than seven animals 

per ten million adult cattle. That’s somewhat less than one positive 

animal in a million. When we did the assessment for the U.S. national herd, we estimated the prevalence at somewhat less than 

one in a million. 

Senator DORGAN. OK. We’re just discussing different subjects because I’m trying to ask the question of the documented cases of 

BSE in the two markets. There’s a greater prevalence of documented cases in Canada than in the U.S. You’re describing a testing regime. That’s not what I was asking, but why don’t you proceed to the second point. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Well, I will concede, Senator, that we have found 

two indigenous cases in the United States with all the testing we 

have done. The Canadians have found ten indigenous or ten nativeborn cases there. I’m talking about what you can infer from a staVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:54 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 035813 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35813.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
38

tistical basis from that testing or from the testing programs in both 

countries. 

Senator DORGAN. But if I’m a customer, I look at the United 

States and Canada and what I see is more cases of BSE being disclosed in Canada than the United States; is that correct? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. There has been, yes, sir. But I think for the entire 

picture you need to look at the statistical analysis of all of the data 

rather than drawing conclusions simply on the raw numbers of animals that have tested positive. 

Senator DORGAN. I appreciate USDA’s advice to the Japanese 

and the Koreans and others, but I’m not sure that’s the way they 

will evaluate that. I think they will look at what they know to be 

the case in the United States and Canada based on what we have 

discovered in both countries. But proceed to the second point. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. OK. Again, Senator, I’m discussing the various 

measures and issues that we considered in developing that risk 

analysis and upon which this rule was based. First was the prevalence, and while we can argue about the finite number of cases that 

might be in either country, needless to say 6.8 positive animals out 

of 10 million adult animals is a very low prevalence of the disease. 

Second, we did look at their feed ban, and just to clarify one 

point, our risk assessment was based on the feed ban that currently is in place in Canada, not the enhanced feed ban that they 

plan on imposing. So our determination that there is negligible risk 

is based on their current feed ban, and their enhancement of that 

feed ban can only improve the overall situation, continue to reduce 

whatever risk there might be. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask a question about that, because if 

the Canadians have judged their feed ban needs to be tightened, 

they obviously think something is deficient with respect to what 

they were doing. Or at least that it should and could be improved. 

Did you make that same judgment when you looked at the Canadian feed ban? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. We haven’t looked at the enhanced feed ban. We 

conducted our risk assessment in the context of their existing feed 

ban. I think this goes without saying, though, that the enhancements that they’re talking about will accelerate the time that any 

infectivity in the Canadian feed will be eliminated from the national feed supply. 

Senator DORGAN. But you gave them minimum-risk status at a 

time when they had a feed ban which they now believe needs to 

be strengthened. Did you reach that same judgment as you were 

giving them a minimum status? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Again, we have based that minimum region categorization on the existing feed ban, not the enhancement. 

Senator DORGAN. And you felt the existing feed ban was fine and 

adequate? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Correct. 

Senator DORGAN. And the Canadians apparently think it was inadequate because they now are making changes to strengthen it. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. I think the Canadians are looking at a number of 

factors, not the least of which is a cost benefit analysis. What is 

the cost of enhancing their feed ban compared to the potential return that they might realize in increased export markets by enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:54 Jul 06, 2007 Jkt 035813 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35813.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
39

hancing that feed ban? So I’m not sure that it’s necessarily based 

totally on risk. It’s also looking at the cost benefit and long-term—

what that enhanced feed ban might do in terms of increasing their 

export markets. 

Senator DORGAN. So, therefore, the Canadians might be doing 

this based on the perception of risk rather than risk itself, which 

gets back to the entire point that I’ve been making this morning. 

This is all about perception, isn’t it, in terms of people who are interested in purchasing a product from us who have a perception 

based on the prevalence of cases that have been documented in 

Canada versus the U.S.? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Senator, I don’t think we could have this discussion without considering the biological sciences, the political 

science, and the economic science of the whole situation. We are 

doing so and I’m sure the Canadians are doing likewise. 

It really comes down to a cost benefit analysis on their enhanced 

feed ban. If there is infectivity in the Canadian feed supply, and 

there’s evidence that there is, increasing the removal of SRMs, enhancing that feed ban will accelerate the time period that it takes 

for them to totally eliminate that infectivity from their feed. 

We would estimate that just having the ruminant-to-ruminant 

feed ban in place that they have, like we have in the U.S., will 

eliminate infectivity from either country’s feed supply. Their enhancements will accelerate that process. 

Senator DORGAN. But the point is they didn’t have to improve 

their feed ban or make changes with respect to the feed standard. 

They didn’t have to do that because you would already allow under 

the current system 1.3-million head of Canadian cattle to come into 

the country in 2007. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Well, I would just remind you, Senator, this is a 

proposed rule. I think these are all relevant comments, but your 

premise is accurate. We based the proposed rule on their existing 

feed ban, not the enhancements that they plan putting in place in 

July of this year. 

Senator DORGAN. So the Canadians weren’t worried about our 

perception because USDA’s perception was that their feed ban was 

fine. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Well, in fact, we are not the only market for Canadian exports. 

Senator DORGAN. But 1.3-million head is a pretty substantial 

market. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. It is indeed. It is indeed. Continuing then with 

looking at the entire risk pathway, we first did a prevalence. We 

considered the feed ban that they had in place, which again is consistent with ours and has been in place for a similar period of time. 

Recognize that even if an animal is infected early in life, it does 

not represent a risk to either animal health or public health until 

just a few weeks before it develops clinical signs and then would 

be excluded from the feed supply, which gets to the Creekstone 

testing issue that is an entirely different discussion, but, in fact, an 

animal that is infected will not test positive, will show no clinical 

signs, and represents no animal health or public health risk until 

just a matter of a few weeks before it develops clinical signs and 

then will die. 

40

So part of the analysis is recognizing that there may be infected 

animals in Canada. Most likely they would be imported into the 

United States well before the age that they would develop clinical 

signs, well before they would represent any infectivity to our cattle 

herd or to public health in the United States. 

So, again, you’re taking that prevalence of infected animals and 

further reducing the risk and that there’s a narrow window of time 

when even an infected animal represents risk to animal health or 

public health. 

Second, when the animal comes across the border, we are going 

to remove those specified risk materials, tonsils and that distal 

ileum from animals of all ages, and the other SRMs for animals 

that are over 30 months of age. So we have, in addition to the SRM 

removal, various slaughtering practices in place that will minimize 

that risk, ensuring that practices to recover some of the meat don’t 

include, for example, nervous tissue, ensuring that stunning isn’t 

used or a pneumatic device, which could put nervous tissue into 

the meat, as well. So those practices are in place to protect public 

health. 

On the animal health side it would require—here again, an animal that’s infected that’s in that narrow infected window to get 

into a rendering plant. That rendering plant in the U.S. is going 

to apply procedures, such as heat and pressure, that will reduce 

any infectivity, and then on top of that we have a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. So even if there is infectivity in that feed, it 

shouldn’t be fed to susceptible animals in the United States. 

All of those breaches would have to occur in the United States 

to represent a risk for a positive animal. If all of those safeguards 

were breached and you did end up with an infected animal in the 

United States, I would just remind you that that animal, when it 

goes to slaughter, is going to be subjected to the same SRM removal and slaughtering practices. Its tissues are going to be subjected to the feed ban and shouldn’t end up in animal feed. 

So, again, we are not looking at a single issue, such as the effectiveness of the feed ban, to mitigate risk. We’re looking at the entire risk pathway and in doing so have determined that the risk 

to the United States from this rule would be negligible. 

Senator DORGAN. But, again, that ignores that risk, which is perception. And the other thing I don’t understand is we’re talking 

about all these dates and your scientific analysis. One-third of the 

BSE cases that have now been discovered are cases in cattle that 

were born after March 1, 1999, long after the feed ban went into 

effect. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Mr. Chairman, excuse me for interrupting. No one 

is ignoring that trade gap. It is real. The Secretary understands it 

acutely. Everyone in the Department understands that trade gap, 

and we are working mightily to overcome that. What we are saying—and this is subject to your comments and we would welcome 

them—is that the impact of this rule will be negligible on that gap. 

It’s not going to make that gap worse. 

Senator DORGAN. Dr. DeHaven, the Secretary is ignoring that 

gap. That’s not speculation. He is ignoring that gap by trotting out 

this rule. He’s ignored that gap, and the fact is there is no economist in the world that will convince me that this rule and what you 

41

intend to do with respect to the import of these cattle is inconsequential to that gap. I mean, that represents a very substantial 

economic injury, and I understand what’s happening there. That 

has to be a part of the evaluation, and again I come back to the 

point, I don’t understand the Secretary’s urgency here. He has 

seemed so anxious to get this done. Well, for whom? Why? I don’t 

understand it. 

And I do think with due respect you’ve come here to make the 

case of why you have done what you’ve done leading up to the end 

of the comment period, but frankly, I don’t think the explanation 

holds water. I just do not. 

I described the size of this industry to our country. I described 

what we have done over a long period of time to try to make certain the world knows that we have the safest beef supply in the 

world, and I do not understand why we would increase our exposure, and I think the evidence is quite clear. We’ll increase our exposure by rushing in this circumstance. 

The country-of-origin labeling is very important, and I’m going to 

find a way to introduce something here very soon in the Senate 

that will try to prevent USDA from implementing this new rule 

prior to implementation of country-of-origin labeling in this country. At the very minimum—that ought to be the first step. There 

ought to be country-of-origin labeling before we even whisper about 

this sort of move, and yet the Secretary has been so anxious to 

move so quickly. 

So, Dr. DeHaven, you are someone with a scientific background, 

you’re a public servant. I appreciate your being here. We have very 

strong disagreements, and I think you and the Secretary know 

there’s great anxiety out here in the country where people are trying to make a living about what has happened, and this chart 

shows it in a very dramatic way. What has happened is very consequential. 

Let me thank our witnesses for being here and for your entire 

statements. I know you’ve summarized. Your entire statements will 

be a part of the permanent records of the Commerce Subcommittee 

hearing. Let me ask you to go ahead and depart from the table, 

and I’m going to ask others who may wish to make a comment to 

come to the open mike so that they can contribute, as well, and I 

thank all six of you for being here. 

State Rep. Rod Froelich had asked to speak, and I believe he has 

introduced some legislation in the—is that right, in the state legislature, Rod? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROD FROELICH, REPRESENTATIVE 

(DISTRICT 31), STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE 

Representative FROELICH. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Dorgan, I’d like to conclude this by just giving a little 

history. Senator Dorgan and guests, for the record, my name is Rod 

Froelich. My family has been ranching in Sioux County for over 80 

years. I have a 15-year-old grandson who will be the fifth-generation rancher. 

Senator, as you well know, I represent District 31, which includes all of Sioux County, all of Grant County, one-half of 

42

Hettinger County, and a large portion of Morton County, which is 

comprised of 3,710,000 acres and approximately 130,000 beef cows. 

My constituents have been through blizzards, floods, tornadoes, 

droughts, and fire. To say that they have been tested would be a 

huge understatement—not tested. Senator, as you know, we raise 

some of the finest crops, hardiest cattle, and some of the toughest 

people in the world. Of course, Senator, you are living testament 

to my words. 

Senator, all it takes is a little common sense to understand that 

opening the border to Canadian cattle over 30 months of age at 

this time is not a very wise option. Canada is still experiencing 

cases of BSE. It is not in the best interest of the consumers or the 

producers of livestock to contemplate such actions until Canada 

has installed preventive measures to stop the prevalence of BSE in 

their country. 

Our Far East trading partners have seriously restricted the importation of our livestock products, when, in fact, that cause of 

their concern is created by our Canadian trading partners. 

Senator, until we have assurances by our trading partners that 

our commerce will not be hindered, the United States is obligated 

to protect its consumers and its producers. 

Senator, there’s been a resolution introduced in the House of 

Representatives, State of North Dakota, that has passed the House 

Agriculture Committee, it has passed the full House in a unanimous vote, and if I may, can I read it? 

Senator DORGAN. How long is it? 

Mr. FROELICH. Very short, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. Proceed. 

Mr. FROELICH. A Concurrent Resolution urging Congress not to 

allow the importation of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age. 

Whereas, in 2003 the United States border was closed to Canadian cattle in response to findings of bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy, BSE, in cattle; and 

Whereas, after the implementation of corrective measures, the 

border was reopened in 2005 to Canadian cattle less than 30 

months of age; and 

Whereas, many fear that consideration is now being given to the 

removal of the age restriction on Canadian cattle; and 

Whereas, cattle over 30 months of age which originate in a BSEaffected country have an inherently higher risk of being infected 

with BSE; and 

Whereas, there has been insufficient time since Canada’s last 

case of BSE to determine whether the corrective measures implemented by Canada have been successful in preventing the spread 

of BSE; and 

Whereas, the United States cannot afford any further reduction 

in its share of the global beef market stemming from the American 

products that contain beef from Canadian cattle; and 

Whereas, the United States should not further relax its already 

lenient import standards until it is scientifically documented that 

BSE is no longer a risk in Canadian cattle and there is international acceptance of that conclusion, as demonstrated by a restoration of international markets—like you said, Senator—for 

American beef and beef products; 

43

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives of 

North Dakota, the Senate Concurring Therein: 

That the Sixtieth Legislative Assembly urges the Congress of the 

United States not to allow the importation of Canadian cattle over 

30 months of age until there is scientific evidence, coupled with a 

sufficient time lapse, to ensure that any corrective measures implemented to counter the incidences of BSE in Canada have been successful; and 

Be it further resolved, that the Secretary of State forward copies 

of this resolution to the United States Secretary of Agriculture and 

to each member of the North Dakota Congressional Delegation. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator DORGAN. Rod, thank you very much. We appreciate your 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN LUND, SECRETARY, INDEPENDENT 

BEEF ASSOCIATION OF NORTH DAKOTA (I–BAND); COW/CALF 

PRODUCER 

Mr. LUND. Senator Dorgan, thanks for coming up. Thanks for 

giving us this opportunity. My name is Allen Lund. I’m a cow/calf 

producer from south central North Dakota. I’m also Secretary of 

the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota, and I’m speaking on behalf of our member policy. 

I stand before you to voice my opposition of opening the Canadian border to live cattle and beef over the age of 30 months. If this 

is allowed to happen at this time, we are further lowering the 

United States livestock standards in an attempt to allow more foreign beef into this country. 

Most of the countries that we exported beef to now have their 

borders closed to us because of a cow from the State of Washington 

that tested positive for BSE. It didn’t seem to matter to our trading 

partners that this cow originated from Canada. Some of these countries would accept our beef again if we could guarantee sending 

them U.S. product. 

The following safeguards need to be put in place before allowing 

over-30-month-age Canadian cattle and beef to enter this country. 

Number one, we need the assurance that Canada is taking every 

possible precaution in eradicating BSE from their country. Some of 

the Canadian cattle that contracted BSE were born after Canada’s 

feed ban was to have gone into effect. We have recently heard of 

more contaminated feed entering Canada’s feed supply. 

Number two, we need to regain the foreign markets that closed 

their doors to us before allowing further imports of cattle to enter 

this country. Failure to do so will result in a glut of beef causing 

price devastation to our domestic livestock industry. 

Number three, mandatory country-of-origin labeling must be implemented. We will need this law to maintain and build confidence 

in U.S. beef for the domestic consumer, as well as the foreign consumer. It will also act as a marketing tool for the U.S. cattle producer. 

To put it in a nutshell, it is too early to swing the doors wide 

open to the Canadian border. We need to put common sense ahead 

of politics and just say no at this time to Canadian cattle and beef 

over 30 months old. 

44

Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF HERMAN SCHUMACHER, CO-FOUNDER, 

RANCHERS-CATTLEMEN ACTION LEGAL FUND, UNITED 

STOCKGROWERS OF AMERICA (R–CALF USA); CO-OWNER, 

HERREID LIVESTOCK MARKET 

Mr. SCHUMACHER. Senator Dorgan, Herman Schumacher from 

Herreid, South Dakota, but I grew up in Zeeland, North Dakota, 

so I’m a local. 

Just a few short comments and maybe a question, but Dr. 

DeHaven mentioned that—in his statement that it would only affect the markets when opening the border to older-than-30-months, 

that it would only kind of affect the markets of the cull cows. Well, 

right now today I think cull cows in Canada, using U.S. dollars, are 

somewhere around 25 cents, and here they’re in the low 40s. So 

that devastation—but, you know, there might be another chart you 

could use, Senator Dorgan, and that would be one that would take 

you back 20 years, the dairy buyout. 

And at that time a million cows were slaughtered in the United 

States, and in the first week in running an auction we saw a decline in the feeder market of up to $15 to $20 a hundred. It took 

almost 2 years to get out of that deal. So that would be another 

economic model. 

And going back to Keith Collins, who I know pretty well, I think 

he was appointed by the Reagan Administration, and he could 

surely come up with an economic model there that could probably 

serve you both. 

Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES SCHMIDT, COW/CALF PRODUCER 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, Senator. James Schmidt. I’m a cow/calf producer from southeast of Bismarck. In the last week since the last 

cow that was tested—or last bull that was found with BSE in Canada, Mexico has dropped their rules now for opening their border 

to Canadian cattle. Beijing, China, is another one that has absolutely dropped their rules now for opening China. 

My question is: USDA people, when they’re there writing these 

rules for us, this affects us. If this market drops, there are a lot 

of them with the drought this year that are actually going to be 

out of business. But are they going to be out of a job if it backfires? 

No. They’ll still have a job. And yet we’re the ones that are going 

to suffer for their decisions. So that’s all I have to say. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. KRUEGER, COW/CALF PRODUCER 

Mr. KRUEGER. May I speak, Senator? I’m a little wobbly nowadays. You asked why. I can tell you why Secretary Johanns is so 

anxious to pass this. I was connected with Creekstone. We promised them several thousand cattle a year, a month. Ryan Meier 

called Johanns, wanted to do the BSE deal. He said, No. You guys 

are just a drop in the bucket. We’ve got to leave this to Tyson and 

Swift and the big boys. So right away I said that guy’s no good. 

45

And this whole American deal, since the Democrats woke up 

when we got some power back there, they’re so determined to get 

this NAFTA, CAFTA and SHAFTA, I mean, they’re going to do 

their best. So you fellows down there, the Democrats, got to be on 

their toes, because they’re going to be pushing midnight legislation 

through. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DWIGHT KELLER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN SIMMENTAL ASSOCIATION; COW/CALF PRODUCER 

Mr. KELLER. Senator Dorgan, thank you for holding this hearing 

and giving us an opportunity to speak here. I’m Dwight Keller from 

south central North Dakota, cow/calf producer. 

There’s one issue, I guess, that I’d like to bring up to Dr. 

DeHaven that he did not address, and it’s the pharmaceutical use 

of blood, and I know there’s a big concern with the safety of the 

blood that is put in the medicine that is not—if we commingle the 

Canadian cattle with ours, the only really safe place left to get 

blood for the pharmaceutical industry is the United States and 

Australia, and so we are—and that issue has been totally avoided 

by USDA, and, you know, prions are—have been isolated in the 

blood. 

And I’d also challenge you to look at some of the latest research 

that’s been out in Europe that is being done on BSE, and that has 

not been considered in this rule, some of the latest stuff that’s been 

done. 

And the other point I would like to make is with the animal ID, 

they want to identify our animals so we can export them overseas, 

so we can maybe be able to access that market, but we’re going to 

open our border and expect our people to eat all the Canadian beef 

and we’re going to keep that here and expect our people to eat it, 

but Canada and Korea do not want it. So, I mean, what are we telling? That it’s OK for our people to eat it, but they don’t want it? 

So I think there are a lot of concerns and we are way, way rushing into this, and I agree with Senator Dorgan that we need to step 

back and take a long look at this and we’re way premature in making some of these decisions. Once it’s done, it’s too late to back up. 

We need to take some time and maybe it’s 2 years, maybe it’s 5 

years before we make these decisions instead of rushing into them, 

and the economics is self-explanatory. 

Thank you, Senator Dorgan. 

Senator DORGAN. Dwight, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY KINEV, COW/CALF PRODUCER 

Mr. KINEV. I’m compelled to ask a question of Dr. DeHaven. 

He—he made comments back to history, and in 1997 when we 

started our feed ban, USDA said that we’re going to do everything 

to prevent BSE in the United States that we possibly can, and our 

number one issue is going to be not to import beef from countries 

that have known cases of BSE, and somewhere along the line that 

changed. Didn’t they say that? I read everything, and I must have 

read it in 14 different publications. Now we’re opening it up. 

And then you brought it up that somewhere along the line a cow 

is not horribly diseased until she shows signs of clinical symptoms. 

46

If we take the blood sample in the slaughter plant and the cow 

shows the BSE agent in the blood, is she not a BSE cow that we 

have to report? Isn’t that like saying your girlfriend’s a little bit 

pregnant? A BSE cow is a BSE cow, and we’re going to have to report them to the world. 

Senator DORGAN. Dr. DeHaven, would you want to answer that 

point? Your name, sir? 

Mr. KINEV. Larry Kinev, cow/calf operator from Dawson, North 

Dakota. And if we want to get any history before you start on this, 

I’d like to go back to December of 2003. When our Secretary of Agriculture announced that we had our first case of BSE in the 

United States, it was a Canadian cow and the Canadians were 

bragging about their tagging program that they have traced back. 

Did she have that Canadian tag in her hand when she reported the 

case of BSE in the United States? It never came out that it was 

a Canadian cow until it was leaked to the press. There was a gag 

order out in Washington. They didn’t talk to anybody. Comment on 

that, too. 

Senator DORGAN. Dr. DeHaven. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Could you clarify that last point? I’m not sure I 

understand it. 

Mr. KINEV. Well, my point was that it seems like our USDA—

and I have a little bit of mistrust in them—seemed like they were 

at that time protecting the Canadian industry more so than the 

United States industry. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Dr. DeHaven. 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. I believe there are 

about four issues to address in all of that. First going back to the 

historical perspective. First case of BSE was identified in the 

United Kingdom in 1986. We knew very little about the disease 

back at that point in time. So in 1989 we, in fact, started imposing 

import restrictions on any country that diagnosed a case of BSE. 

That was appropriate at the time because we knew very little 

about the disease, how it was transmitted, what tissues and what 

parts of an animal’s carcass represents risk. 

Someone indicated that we should be looking at the latest U.K. 

research. In fact, most of the research—because it’s been such a big 

issue in U.K. and other parts of Europe, that’s where most of the 

research is coming from, although we’re adding now considerably 

to that research body of knowledge. 

So, in fact, we have made a change and we’ve made changes to 

our import policy consistent with what we now know about the disease, what tissues represent a risk. We now know that it’s primarily a disease of animals over 5 years of age, even though they 

may be infected in the first few months of life. So, in fact, we have 

made some changes because we know much more about the disease 

today than we did back in 1986 when it was first diagnosed. 

In terms of clinical symptoms, in fact what is happening from a 

disease standpoint is the prion that is believed to cause the disease 

only starts accumulating in the nervous system tissues just a few 

weeks or few months before the animal develops clinical signs and 

dies. 

So if you have an animal that, in fact, was infected in its first 

few months of life, up until that point when it develops clinical 

47

signs, for the most part that animal represents no public health or 

animal health risk. The prion isn’t in that carcass in any quantity 

to represent any risk. It’s only in that latter part just before the 

animal develops clinical signs and then dies. That’s when it represents a risk. 

Senator DORGAN. Doctor, on that point, though, can I ask a question that was asked previously? That, nonetheless, if tested and 

discovered, is it an infected animal? 

Dr. DEHAVEN. Indeed. That’s the third point. I want to clarify, 

though, we are not testing blood tissue. We are testing brain tissue, 

and that infected animal that, in fact, was infected early in life will 

not test positive until just a few months before it develops clinical 

signs and dies. We think in most cases about 3 months before. 

So that animal—there’s about a 3-month window when that animal may, in fact, test positive but be clinically normal. 

If we do get one of those that tests positive, indeed it is a case, 

it’s reportable just like the animal that’s exhibiting severe clinical 

nervous system disorder, and we would report that. It’s not a blood 

test. It’s a test on the brain tissue. I wish we had a blood test, and 

there’s a lot of research being done to develop that so that we 

wouldn’t have to wait for an animal to die before we test it. 

You know, my job is to protect and promote American agriculture. I take that very seriously, and it’s both on the animal side 

and the plant side. We deal with wildlife issues, as well, but I also 

recognize that we have to import to export, and both our import 

policies and our export policies need to be based in science. We 

can’t expect those that we are trying to get to accept our products 

to accept them on any basis other than science, but in doing so we 

also need to be willing to accept their products based on science. 

No one’s ignoring the economic gap there. We are working mightily to overcome that. We can argue probably all day long until 

we’re blue in the face, and even then we get another economist in 

the room and we’ll probably have a different opinion in terms of 

what will be the impact, if any, on that trade gap from this room. 

No one’s denying that that trade gap exists. I think what is at 

issue here is—how will it impact that trade gap? 

Senator DORGAN. I have to be at the Capitol in about 5 minutes, 

so if there are a couple of last comments, I’d be happy to take 

them. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK BECKER, PRESIDENT,

INDEPENDENT BEEF ASSOCIATION OF NORTH DAKOTA

(I–BAND); COW/CALF PRODUCER 

Mr. BECKER. Senator Dorgan, I’m Patrick Becker. I’m a rancher 

in Sioux County, and I guess I just want to make a comment. 

When I think of the United States of America, the term gold 

standard was used, and to me I interpret that as the rest of the 

world—they view the United States as the best. They buy the best. 

This is lowering our standard. You know, I don’t know how you—

what kind of standard you want to name it, but I think I stepped 

in some this morning when I was checking heifers. 

48

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY ORTS, PRESIDENT, GALLOWAY

ASSOCIATION OF THE NORTH DAKOTA STOCKMEN’S

ASSOCIATION; COW/CALF PRODUCER 

Ms. ORTS. I want to make just one quick comment. Dorothy Orts, 

Oriska, and I think I figured out that trade gap. When Dr. 

DeHaven said we are—we are hammering our trade partners, I’m 

a salesman and I have never sold anything by hammering my prospects. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY FROELICH, DIRECTOR, INDEPENDENT 

BEEF ASSOCIATION OF NORTH DAKOTA (I–BAND); COW/CALF 

PRODUCER 

Mr. FROELICH. Senator Dorgan, for the record, my name is Kelly 

Froelich, and I’m a rancher in Selfridge, North Dakota, in Sioux 

County, and also I’d like to clarify for the record that North Dakota 

Stockmen’s Association does not represent me and thousands of 

other cattle producers in this state, but I’d like to—back in the late 

Eighties I was attending college down at NDSU, and my instructor 

said to us, imagine sitting in the confines of your own house and 

a red light goes off on your computer telling you that, oh, your old 

number favorite seven cow is calving, and we thought this guy is 

crazy. What is he talking about? And it’s just around the corner. 

That technology is just around the corner, and now the red light 

is blinking on them cows up in Canada, and it’s time that we implement COOL. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of 

you who come here today. I’ll recognize Mr. Gaebe in the back of 

the room here from Governor Hoeven’s office. We welcome you. 

We will keep the record of this Subcommittee hearing open for 

2 weeks. Anyone wishing to submit testimony to become a part of 

the permanent record may do so, and we would invite you to send 

it to my office or the Senate Commerce Committee within 2 weeks 

from today. 

I thank all of you very much for being here. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ