Aussie Feeder Cattle In Mexico
Prompt Flurry Of U.S. Activity

AUSTIN — U.S. cattlemen are not having a "G-day, Mate." They are hopping like kangaroos to head off what some fear is a potential onslaught of Australian cattle destined for the U.S. via Mexico.

What has set them off is a shipment of Aussie feeder cattle currently sitting outside Juarez, Mexico, awaiting permits to cross the border at Santa Teresa, N.M.

Actual numbers vary according to the report: the Texas Department of Agriculture pegs the figure at "approximately 2200 head," whereas a "call to action" from the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association cites "some 5000 head." NMCGA further charges that the current shipment is just the first wave in "some 30,000 to 50,000 head" destined to be shipped the same way.

Whatever the head count, the situation has triggered alarm bells from TDA to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The most commonly expressed fear is that the trans-shipment may be an effort to circumvent trade laws by exploiting as-yet unclear loopholes in the NAFTA agreement. Also at issue, and prominently featured, is concern that such an arrangement might compromise animal health safeguards.

The fact that the matter arises at an especially tense moment in regard to beef imports and their impact on the struggling U.S. beef industry only heightens anxieties.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Rick Perry is on record this week as urging U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to conduct a "thorough investigation" of the situation before his agency issues any entry permits.

"With Texas cattle producers currently facing tough economic times as a result of drouth and low prices," Perry says, "we cannot afford the risk of exposing our herd to any adverse health risks. Our producers should also be confident that international trade rules are followed."

Perry notes that health requirements for Australian cattle entering the United States are different than those for Mexican cattle entering the U.S. Some diseases that exist in Australia do not exist in either the U.S. or Mexico, hence Mexican cattle are not screened for them, whereas Australian cattle must be.

The New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn. is urging its members to raise the same points with both USDA and their own congressmen.

"To import directly from Australia there are some six diseases that must be tested for in Australia and retested for in the U.S.," NMCGA points out. The group wants its members to ask: "Are Mexico’s testing procedures equal to this? If not, how can we let these animals into the U.S.?"

Another point raised by the New Mexico group involves a painstaking process that has gradually liberalized bovine tuberculosis test requirements for Mexican cattle entering this country. The lengthy — and costly — program has improved the TB status of various Mexican states and recognized them, one at a time, as having standards equal to those here.

As a result, cattle originating in certain recognized Mexican states are allowed entry into the U.S. with few TB-related restrictions. The New Mexico cattlemen want assurances that Australian cattle are still held to rigid TB standards, particularly if they enter through or are held in one of the Mexican states which has not yet received "clean" certification.

The animal health issue is part and parcel of broader U.S. industry concerns about how the trans-shipment of Aussie cattle figures into existing trade laws.

"Any move by Australia to circumvent international trade rules," warns NCBA president Clark Willingham, Dallas, "would compound the extreme financial duress that the U.S. cattlemen are facing and undercut the future of international trade agreements that will benefit U.S. producers."

Willingham says NCBA has asked USDA to "analyze whether the Australian cattle shipment meets international trade rules."

He notes that USDA has assured NCBA the Australian cattle will be subject to a combination of all health restrictions applicable to shipments from either Australia or Mexico, which he then delicately uses to raise the issue that has been the first to arise in most private discussions of the matter:

"It seems there would be little economic incentive for Australian exporters to pay costs for freight, shrink, health testing, tariffs, quarantine, transportation and border crossing on these cattle, so the shipment raises certain unanswered questions."

In less delicate terms, the question is why Australian exporters would opt for a roundabout shipment that incurs so many extra costs and delays, instead of shipping directly to the United States and eliminating the middlemen. That makes no sense unless trans-shipment allows them to cut some serious legal, economic or health-related corners.

Perry’s TDA has broached the same question, asking Glickman for "an economic study to evaluate transportation, health testing, tariffs, quarantine and feed costs of moving livestock from Australia to Mexico and then into the U.S. ... to ensure no hidden subsidies are involved."

Willingham’s statement concludes with what might be a silver lining to the story. He notes that Australian product already makes up a fourth of all U.S. beef imports, whereas U.S. beef marketed in Australia "is met with consumer boycotts that often seem to be aided and abetted by the Australian beef industry."

Willingham thus urges the government to "gain full, unfettered access to the Australian beef market," — a request that might actually attract some attention under the current circumstances.