AMI Cattle Update: Court Denies Members Of The Meat Industry To Be Heard

 

4/26/2005

 

cattlenetwork.com

 

The Amicus Curiae brief filed by the American Meat Institute and six other organizations was but one of many briefs submitted last week in support of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) effort to expand beef and cattle trade with Canada.  Signing onto AMI’s brief were the North American Meat Processors, Southwestern Meat Association, Eastern Meat Packers Association, American Association of Meat Processors, National Restaurant Association, and United Food and Commercial Workers.  Filing a separate brief to reopen trade were the American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association along with 18 state farm bureaus, 29 state cattle organizations, and the National Pork Producers Council.  

 

The briefs provide further ballast to arguments by the USDA, which is appealing a preliminary injunction granted March 2nd by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Cebull in Billings, Montana at the request of Ranchers-Cattlemen Legal Action Fund (R-CALF). The injunction effectively keeps the Canadian border closed to trade in live cattle and beef less than 30 months of age. 

 

“AMI has argued in and out of court that no scientific justification exists for continuing the ban on Canadian cattle and beef and that the U.S. beef industry is being harmed economically by the ban – harm that will intensify if the protracted ban remains in place,” said AMI President J. Patrick Boyle in a statement released to the press.  

 

“The U.S. District Court denied members of the meat industry to be heard. Instead, the Court accepted facts in R-CALF’s pleadings on faith, when ‘reasonable doubt’ would have been appropriate given the short-term economic benefits R-CALF’s members stand to gain from a closed border. We believe that if the U.S. Court of Appeals fully scrutinizes the facts in this case and USDA's extensive rulemaking record, it will ultimately conclude that the preliminary injunction should be overturned, ” Boyle noted. 

 

AMI and other amici argued that the lower court’s injunction will perpetuate very significant injury suffered by the American beef industry and by beef consumers.  

 

“Judge Cebull issued his injunction after refusing to allow representatives of the American meat industry to be heard. Instead, he heard from the one segment of that industry with an economic interest in keeping the borders closed to Canadian cattle – producers of cattle here in the United States. As a result, the balancing of hardships required by this Circuit could not be and was not done. Instead, the District Court simply assumed that delaying implementation of the rule would be ‘largely harmless.’ Nothing could be further from the truth,” the brief said. American meat packers have seen their business drop off and have laid off workers as American consumers and restaurants pay record high beef prices as a result of the market distortion the closed border has caused.  

 

“While these effects will not be eliminated until the border is reopened to all Canadian imports, the final rule would have gone some distance toward ameliorating the adverse impacts of the original closure. And as USDA found, it would do so with no significant risk of BSE, either to the American herd or to the American consumer. Instead, having heard from R-CALF and believing that continuing the ban would be 'largely harmless,' the district court has perpetuated losses and adverse business impacts that have already gone on far too long,” the brief concluded.

 

 

Farming's latest drought: farmers

By TERRY WEBER

 April 26, 2005

Globe and Mail

Canada's agriculture sector could be facing a new kind of drought – a lack of farmers – if the findings of a new survey hold true.

 

The poll found that nearly one-quarter of farmers and ranchers in Western Canada are doubtful about whether they will still be active in agriculture five years down the road, a new survey says.

 

The findings come as the Canadian agriculture sector battles against widespread difficulties, ranging from weak commodity prices to the impact of mad-cow disease on cattle exports.

 

The survey, conducted by Sensus Research Inc. for The Western Producer magazine, polled 805 active farmers and ranchers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, asking for their opinions on their future prospects in the sector.

 

 The results showed that about 23 per cent of those surveyed said it was to some degree doubtful that they would still be farming by end of the decade.

Of those, 14.3 per cent said it was “very unlikely” they would still be active in farming five years from now. The last time a similar survey was conducted in 2003, about 8.8 per cent said they felt that way.

 

In total, 58 per cent said it was “very likely” that they would persist in their chosen field, down from 62.5 per cent in 2003. Another 19.2 per cent said it was “somewhat likely” that they would remain in farming. That was also down from 2003, when 21.8 per cent said they were likely to remain in agriculture.

 

Over the shorter term, about 80 per cent of those surveyed said they felt strongly that they would still be farming next year, suggesting slightly less optimism from the last time the survey was conducted. In 2003, about 85 per cent said they felt strongly that they would still be active in agriculture the following year.

 

“The greatest challenges may be in store for Saskatchewan farmers, where 77 per cent feel strongly that they will be operating in 2006,” the report said.

“Looking five years ahead, even fewer expect to be active, with Saskatchewan and Alberta being the most affected.”

 

In Alberta, 14 per cent of respondents said it was “very unlikely” they would be farming five years from now, compared with 7.6 per cent in 2003.

About 16.7 per cent of Saskatchewan farmers also said it would be “very unlikely” that they would farm by the end of the decade, compared to 9 per cent who felt the same way in 2003.