Statement of Sen. Maria Cantwell on the Nomination of Mike Johanns to be Secretary of Agriculture
WASHINGTON, D.C. – MS. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as the United States Congress begins its 109th session, the Senate is performing its constitutional duty of providing its advice and consent on the President's nominees for cabinet positions.
I take the Senate's responsibility to evaluate Presidential nominations very seriously. The process is important to ensuring strong leadership at the very highest levels of the federal government. It also provides an opportunity for Senators to have focused discussions with nominees on issues of particular importance to their respective constituencies.
Today the Senate will confirm several nominees, including the nomination of Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, the President's selection to succeed Secretary Veneman at the United States Department of Agriculture.
While I am not a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I am confident that the Chairman Chambliss, Ranking Member Harkin and the rest of the committee's members conducted a thorough examination of Governor Johanns' record. I will support the committee's recommendation, and vote in favor of his nomination.
That being said, I have come to the floor today to express my thoughts on two specific agricultural issues that are important to Washington state's renowned beef industry: Mad Cow disease and country of origin labeling.
On December 23, 2003 the first known case of Mad Cow disease ever discovered on U.S. soil was found in Washington state. The discovery sent a ripple effect across the country as U.S. ranchers watched in shock while our trading partners closed their doors to U.S. beef exports.
An investigation was conducted and DNA tests confirmed that this cow likely originated in a herd from Alberta, Canada, but this was little consolation to consumers here and abroad who immediately began to question whether U.S. beef was safe to eat.
While the exact cause of infection could not be confirmed, it is widely accepted by the science community that this cow became infected while eating contaminated feed before Canada had implemented its 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture responded by announcing a number of new rules to strengthen protections over the human food. Most importantly, USDA and FDA banned specified risk materials, such as brain and central nervous system tissues from entering the human food supply. These materials have been shown to present the greatest risk of transmitting Mad Cow disease through cattle herds and to humans.
Unfortunately, FDA failed to stand firm on its stated commitment to close four specific loopholes in feed regulations, measures that Acting FDA Commissioner Crawford made a commitment to do on January 26, 2004 and something that I believe was and is necessary to fully ensure the safety of U.S. beef.
As we know, feeding ruminant parts back to ruminants represents one of the greatest risks of spreading Mad Cow disease and that's why the U.S., like Canada, implemented a rule to ban this practice in 1997. But existing feed loopholes, such as the poultry litter loophole and plate waste loophole allow for the possibility of ruminant materials to find their way into ruminant feed through cross contamination.
To address this possibility, I introduced legislation during the 108th Congress, entitled the Animal Feed Protection Act, which would ban these materials from being used in any animal feed. This is important legislation that will strengthen existing feed rules to help mitigate the chance of cross contamination and ensure that ruminant materials are not accidentally fed to cattle.
Although my legislation did not pass last year, I plan to reintroduce the Animal Feed Protection Act for consideration during the 109th Congress next week.
U.S. beef is arguably the safest in the world, but even so, critical export markets including Japan and South Korea still remain closed to U.S beef exports. It is imperative that we do everything possible to prove to consumers abroad that the measures we have in place to prevent further cases of Mad Cow are robust and comprehensive.
It was reassuring to hear Governor Johanns state, during his nomination hearing, that working to regain exports to Japan's market is priority number one for the U.S. beef industry.
As I know the Governor understands, access to these markets is the key to bringing prosperity back to U.S. cattle producers, feeders, processors and beef packers. No one understands the importance of the Japanese and South Korean markets better than the ranchers in Washington state, who exported nearly $250 million of Washington beef to these markets in 2003. It is hard to overstate the extent to which Washington ranchers and the U.S. beef industry at large continue to suffer from the loss of these exports.
Although progress has been made, recent discoveries of Mad Cow in Canada could present a major setback to our ongoing negotiations with Japan and South Korea if it is determined that the risk of Mad Cow in Canada has not been adequately addressed.
Canada's discoveries of Mad Cow on January 2nd and January 11th came just days after USDA announced a rule recognizing Canada as a "Minimal-Risk Region" with regard to the Mad Cow disease.
The USDA defends this decision by citing the results of a risk analysis that the agency conducted in 2004. That analysis examined the reliability and adequacy of Canada 's Mad Cow firewalls in eradicating this disease in its herds. The agency's analysis determined that Canada had a robust and comprehensive system in place to address all of the necessary risks of transmitting Mad Cow disease and had implemented proper safeguards to ensure the safety of its beef.
Thus, the USDA published a minimal risk rule in the January 4, 2005 Federal Register. That rule will authorize the reopening of our border to the importation of Canadian live cattle under the age of 30 months and other beef products from cattle over the age of 30 months beginning on March 7 of this year.
However, Canada's latest discovery of Mad Cow on January 11 th has raised serious questions regarding the possibility of non-compliance of feed regulations in Canada and questions as to the reliability of Canada's system to enforce its Mad Cow firewalls. Because the cow was determined to be less than seven years of age and thus was born after Canada implemented its 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, many have speculated that non-compliance of feed rules represents the most likely source of this infection.
In responding to this discovery, Administrator Ron DeHaven of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced that the agency would expedite sending a technical team to Canada to investigate the circumstances surrounding these recent discoveries.
Last Friday, I sent a letter to Secretary Veneman and Governor Johanns requesting that this audit being conducted by APHIS inspectors be given time for a full and fair analysis. I think it is prudent for the USDA to provide the time and resources necessary to reach a determination as to the safety of Canadian beef before we reopen our border to its importation.
I believe that USDA must reevaluate reopening the border should serious non-compliance of feed regulations or lapses in Canada 's enforcement of Mad Cow firewalls be uncovered.
Reestablishing the once dominant global market share enjoyed by U.S. beef producers is ultimately about product reliability and consumer confidence.
It is vital that we address Canadian safety issues now, so that we can prevent running the risk of importing potentially unsafe products. While I understand that reopening the border is important to the Canadian beef industry, our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of our food supply here at home.
As world markets continue to converge becoming more and more interdependent, securing our domestic food supply requires much more work that it once did. We have an opportunity to aid our consumers by implementing mandatory country of origin labeling.
I believe such labeling is important for two major reasons – first, the security of our food supply; and second, the American consumer's right-to-know where their food was produced.
In 2002, I joined with my Senate Colleagues in support of the Farm Bill, which, among other things, required that the USDA implement mandatory country of origin labeling standards by 2004. These provisions were supported by a wide margin of members in Congress, receiving nearly two-thirds support in the House. Even so, some who have fought the implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling every step of the way.
Last year, Congress decided to push back the date of implementation of mandatory labeling until September 2006 on all goods except for fish and shellfish. The justification was that we needed to "reconsider" its economic implications.
While I understand that labeling will come with increased costs, I believe that a failure to establish full accountability as to where our food is coming from could end up costing our consumers, businesses and government far more, should tainted beef or other unsafe products enter our food supply.
Whether in the case of an outbreak of Mad Cow or a biological terrorist plot that infects food imported into our country, we need to have a definite and immediate system to target the source of our food and, if necessary, provide the American people a clear way to identify the food and stop consumption.
The expansion of international agricultural trade has exponentially increased the options available to Americans as they peruse the shelves at their local grocery store. Imported foods are grown in widely varying conditions around the world, often in countries with drastically different regulatory contexts that allow the utilization of pesticides and growing practices which are banned here in the U.S.
As I previously stated, I support labeling for the benefits that it will bring to ensuring safety, but also because I believe that American consumers have the right to know where their food comes from. We have no control over the methods utilized by other countries to produce their goods, but we can control whether or not foreign products maintain the information necessary for American consumers to make an informed decision.
American consumers must be able to assess information on imported products to determine whether it is important to them.
Today, consumers are increasingly faced with the daunting task of sifting through vast amounts of packaging and labeling to obtain the information most critical to them. Americans, for too long, have been knowingly exposed to foreign products without being provided with adequate information.
The issue of labeling our agricultural products, including beef, comes down to this:
Do we want consumers to have confidence – and do we want consumers to have choice? Even though public opinion surveys show that U.S. consumers want to "Buy American" products, those consumers don't always have the information necessary to make that choice.
I know that most consumers from my State would much rather buy and consume U.S. beef. This is because it is important to them that they are able to rely on the quality of the product and the safety of methods used in its production.
It is important to Washingtonians that the beef they purchase comes from a cow that was fed under American standards for feed safety -- beef that had to be processed under strong American standards and beef that has met a set of standards that allows consumers to feel confident of its safety and its quality.
Some will argue that we already use USDA labels to indicate whether beef is produced in the U.S. however, the grade label from the USDA, which a lot of consumers might think means that beef was American made, is often stamped on packages that contain imported beef mixed in with just a small percentage of American beef.
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, cattle and other bulk or non-processed products must be clearly labeled as to their country of origin. However, once those products are brought into the U.S. and value-added processing occurs, the law does not mandate that information indicating the country of origin be included on the final products that ultimately reach the consumer.
This is an important issue that Congress must address.
Families sitting at the dinner table should not have to wonder about what went into the food they eat. They should be provided the information to know what they are consuming. To put it simply, consumers deserve better accountability.
Mr. President, cattlemen in Washington state are proud of the beef they raise and are willing to trust their livelihood to the choices made by informed American consumers.
The USDA stamp should represent the quality and safety of American products -- not a mark that in some instances will mislead consumers into just thinking that they are buying American quality. A products country of origin should be information that is included all of the way from the border to the store shelf.
Last fall, Craig Grub, a Medical Lake rancher said: "Consumers deserve to be able to make an educated choice. They should have implemented Mandatory labeling years ago." Producers like Mr. Grub support mandatory county of origin labeling because they understand and appreciate the importance of food safety and consumer choice in America.
Regardless of whether we work through the legislative or rulemaking processes, I believe that the implementation of a greater standard of accountability over imported products is imperative to better ensure food safety for our consumers here at home.
There is a lot of work that remains in order for this country to achieve this goal and I am confident that Governor Johanns is committed to working to this end. I will vote in support of his nomination. I am eager to begin working with him on reopening Asian markets to U.S. beef as well as to collaborate and promote opportunities for all U.S. agricultural products abroad.
# # #
Next Article Previous Article
