Lawmakers, beef groups and state agriculture officials are urging the Agriculture Department to reverse its recent decision to lift a long-standing ban on beef imports from Paraguay, citing concerns about the accuracy of the agency’s analysis of foot-and-mouth disease risks posed by the country.
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service last month finalized a rule allowing fresh beef to be imported from Paraguay, removing a barrier previously erected due to concerns about FMD. The rule was preceded by an agency risk analysis that determined fresh, matured and deboned beef could be “safely imported from Paraguay under certain conditions.”
The rule, however, prompted letters from a bipartisan group of 21 members of the House of Representatives and eight state agriculture commissioners urging Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack to step in and halt its implementation. Their concerns centered around the agency’s analysis; APHIS only made site visits in 2008 and 2014, otherwise relying on records from Paraguay’s animal health agency, scientific literature and publicly available information when doing the assessment.
Another concern the leaders expressed: The analysis was drafted in 2018 — though APHIS did say it “periodically reviewed the risk profile of Paraguay to determine whether the conclusions were still valid, with the last such review occurring in 2022.”
“You’ve got a risk assessment that was done now many years ago,” Iowa Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig told Agri-Pulse. “It would be important if we could base this rule or restart trade with them based on a more modern or more up-to-date risk assessment.”
Iowa Ag Secretary Mike NaigAPHIS has stood by its decision to allow Paraguayan imports, noting that foot-and-mouth disease has not been detected in the South American nation in more than 10 years. In the final rule, the agency’s administrator, Michael Watson, pushed back on claims that the agency relied on outdated information in the risk analysis, saying the agency analyzed more recent Paraguayan data on top of the 2008 and 2014 site visits.
“While the risk analysis included data from site visits to Paraguay in 2008 and 2014, it also included a review of more recent data provided by Paraguay, and APHIS periodically reviewed the risk profile of Paraguay after the risk analysis was drafted to determine whether the conclusions were still valid, with the last such review occurring in 2022,” Watson said in the final rule.
Foot-and-mouth disease causes high mortality to young cattle, swine, sheep and goats, though it is “rarely fatal” in adult animals, according to the World Organization for Animal Health. Animals that do recover, however, are often left weakened and debilitated, according to the international agency.
APHIS said in the rule that occurrences of FMD in South America have “decreased steadily over the past 20 years, suggesting a continued decrease in risk of FMD incursion into Paraguay from neighboring countries,” and that Paraguay’s National Service of Quality and Animal Health (SENACSA) has accrued more resources over the years to monitor for FMD.
“Paraguay has successfully eradicated FMD from our national territory, and we have demonstrated our ability to comply with the U.S. standards and regulations to protect against the unlikely event of any spread of the disease; we have an effective animal health surveillance system, and our veterinary services are adequately equipped to respond quickly and efficiently to any potential threat,” Moisés Santiago Bertoni, Paraguay’s minister of agriculture and livestock, said in a public comment.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
The Government of Paraguay requested the rule change, with producers from the country eager for another export market. The country produced an average of 560,000 metric tons annually between 2018 and 2022, according to an economic analysis conducted by USDA.
“[W]e believe Paraguay can establish itself as a dependable provider of quality protein to the United States, without being disadvantageous to the local beef industry,” the Paraguayan Meats Chamber — an association representing Paraguayan beef, chicken and pork exporters — said in a comment.
USDA estimated in the rule that import volumes of 3,250 to 6,500 metric tons of Paraguayan beef could come with “annual net social welfare gains of $1.6 million to $3 million,” based on the combination of consumer gains and producer losses. The agency said it expects some of the Paraguayan-imported beef will “displace beef that would otherwise be imported from other countries.”
But in a letter from Capitol Hill, lawmakers — including House Ag Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee Chair Tracey Mann, R-Kan., and ranking member Jim Costa, D-Calif. — pushed back on USDA’s defense of its analysis, saying that “the data was never verified by in-country site visits, nor was it considered that Paraguay could be delivering dated or even biased information as it works to gain beef access to the U.S. market.”
“Right now, it appears the input that created this decision was faulty. It would seem that way” one of the signatories, former House Ag Chair and Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas, told Agri-Pulse. “Therefore, let’s stop the process. Let’s go back and do it right. And then we’ll talk about the results once we have valid, current information.”
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla.Two members of the Senate, Montana Democrat Jon Tester and South Dakota Republican Mike Rounds, have gone further, introducing a bill to halt all beef product imports from Paraguay until a USDA-created working group conducts its own analysis of import risks. The measure has support from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and R-CALF USA.
Bill Westman, executive director of the Meat Import Council of the United States, spoke to Agri-Pulse in his personal capacity. He said Paraguayan beef imports would be subject to the U.S. beef import quota, which means Paraguay would be competing with other countries like Brazil and Argentina. He also noted that Paraguay already exports around 78% of its beef stocks, which could impact how much beef it would actually be able to ship to the U.S.
“This is a relatively small country,” Westman said. “I don’t know how much they’re going to ship. I don’t think it’ll be a huge volume and it will not affect our market because we need beef imports for products that we make here.”
While meat and milk from infected animals pose no risk to humans, NCBA trade lobbyist Kent Bacus says these products could be vehicles for the disease to spread to other cloven-hoofed animals.
“Our concern is not the volume or the value of the beef that’s coming from Paraguay. It’s really about the safety of their system; we’re concerned about the potential risk that that could pose for our cattle herd,” Bacus told Agri-Pulse.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
