AMI Submits Comments to CFIA

[CattleAnnie]

~
AMI Submits Comments to CFIA Regarding Proposed Feed Ban Enhancements:
Additional Measures 'Will Have No Immediate Effect' on BSE Cases

February 23, 2005

The American Meat Institute (AMI) filed comments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) today requesting that the Agency rethink its proposal to remove specified risk material (SRM) from all animal feed as an enhancement to Canada's existing feed ban. AMI maintains that such regulations are not justified.

Changes to the Canadian regulation would also disturb the balance of the North American BSE prevention measures that are in place. AMI writes, "The overriding objective of the North American industry is full and complete harmonization of regulations related to the prevention and control of BSE on the continent."

AMI said changes to the Canadian regulation would have no immediate effect in reducing the number of BSE cases that might occur over the next few years. Even in future years, only minimal potential risk reduction will be achieved at enormous cost. Such actions do not constitute prudent public policy.

Included as an attachment to today's comments, AMI references comments previously submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when a similar feed ban proposal was made in the United States.

Canadian officials are currently conducting a review of their existing feed ban. The new, proposed enhancements are moving through the regulatory process. This comment period closes on Feb. 24.

To read the comments in their entirety, go to http://www.meatami.com/CFIASRMCOmments.pdf
~
Take care.

[rkaiser]

Of course the AMI wants harmonization. No to anything that may cost the packers 1 red cent. No to BSE testing as American packers would have to follow.

AMI runs the show. This whole debacle has nothing to do with Rcalf, NCBA, or any producer group in Canada. They can all talk big but when the bending is done, the packer is always in the back.

OOOOOOOh that was a horrible choice of words.

[Joe-2]

Ya, It was just A-OK with the AMI when, back in Sept/03, the USDA saw fit to allow UTM beef and not UTM cattle.AMI never said a word. But when the USDA proposes allowing OTM meat but NOT OTM cattle, the AMI suddenly calls this "capricious and arbitrary" and files suit against USDA to allow OTM cattle!!! Hahaha!!
Why the inconsistency,I wonder???
Ya, I friggin' wonder,alright!! Pretty clear who has a hold on the puppet strings and what they are afraid of.

[farmers_son]

When you say AMI runs the show doesn't that overlook the NMA and the influence that Tyson would have?

The National Meat Association is a non-profit industry association that has served the meat industry since 1946. The NMA provides a variety of services, from one-on-one regulatory assistance to legislative representation, to its members the most notable of which is Tyson Foods. Cargill, Excel and Swifts are not members.

The American Meat Institute (AMI) is the nation's oldest and largest meat and poultry trade association, founded 1906. AMI is dedicated to increasing the efficiency, profitability and safety of meat and poultry trade worldwide.
Notable members include Cargill, Excel and Swifts but not Tyson Foods.

[rkaiser]

Thanks for that farmer_son. Even makes more sense that AMI would be behind this OTM issue. Tyson (NMA) would be at the greatest advantage should the border open to OTM boxed beef.That whole kill floor could have switched as fast as they could have et up there owned UTM cattle.