The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed a rule in early 2007 to allow into the country imports of meat, primarily mutton and lamb, from Argentina’s southern region of Patagonia. But U.S. cattlemen, citing past cases of infection, worry that the South American nation might bring in contaminated meat and spread the dreaded disease to American herds, decimating the industry.

“If we don’t get an answer from USDA, we are going to get Congress to nip this thing in the bud,” said Jess Peterson, director of government affairs for the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA).
A highly contagious airborne disease that can travel in either fresh or frozen meat, FMD produces lesions in the mouths and hooves of livestock, such as sheep and cattle. Animals can be vaccinated in preparation for a potential outbreak, but once infected, they generally have to be killed and their carcasses burned. Entire herds can be taken out by the disease, resulting in billions of dollars of lost revenue.

Argentina has struggled with FMD in the past, and the U.S. government had responded by limiting imports of meat from the country. In its 2007 proposal, however, the USDA noted that the country’s southern region has been FMD-free since 1976, and that Argentina has a robust inspection regime in place to catch infected meat.

“There is no evidence that there are any species currently infected with FMD,” said Karen Eggerton, a media coordinator with the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). “We used the most current scientific knowledge about these diseases to draft the proposed regulation.”

According to the USDA’s proposed rule, Argentina’s government would have to detect and stop FMD if it returns.

Veterinary authorities there can control herd movements and dispose of carcasses if need be.

If the rule is finalized, the USDA expects an average of 13.2 million pounds of sheep meat per year to arrive in the U.S., according to the Argentine government. That would result in a price decline in the U.S. of about 10 cents per pound of lamb and mutton — overall, an annual $17.7 million loss affecting U.S. sheep ranchers.

But industry advocates have questioned those numbers. “We have reviewed the economic impact analysis that is reported in this proposed rule and we strongly urge APHIS to redraft the economic impact analysis,” said Burdell Johnson, president of the American Sheep Industry Association, in a public comment filed with the rule.

A rancher with 50 head of cattle in eastern Montana, Peterson is also not impressed with USDA’s reasoning. The lobbyist cited Argentina’s default on World Bank loans and its past economic instability as factors against importing meat from the country.

“They are not one to be Grade A on the trust level at the moment,” said Peterson.

Peterson believes that the decision to import meat from Patagonia is just “an imaginary line” that FMD could travel easily over.

If the disease spread among livestock, Peterson estimates the cattle industry would suffer in the billions of dollars due to the rapid transport of meat across America. The lobbyist cites a Kansas State University study that said FMD could cost Kansas’s economy alone $945 million if the disease infected animals there.

To fight back against the proposed rule, Peterson and USCA ranchers held a luncheon at the National Press Club Tuesday to kick off a week of lobbying Congress. Over the next three days, ranchers from North Dakota to Texas plan to meet with House and Senate lawmakers as well as with USDA officials.

The trade group has made its opposition known ever since the USDA opened up comments for the rule. In a June 2007 letter to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the USCA said the department’s proposed rule would “enable Argentina to export beef to the United States despite its failures in disease eradication.”

The USCA and a number of other cattlemen organizations also sent a letter Tuesday to Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the panel’s ranking member, calling for hearings about the proposed regulation.

In the end, the USCA’s Peterson hopes Capitol Hill will step in and close off the rule via legislation if the USDA does not backtrack on its proposal.

It is not known if and when the rule will take effect. According to Eggerton, the final regulation is in the clearance process, but she could not provide a timeframe on when it will be published.