Fresh Beef Import Rules for Brazil and Argentina

Fresh Beef Import Rules for Brazil and Argentina

March 2, 2016
Fresh Beef Import Rules for Brazil and Argentina
On July 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
A 2011 study from Iowa State University estimated that the
(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
losses of revenue for the beef and pork industry due to an
(APHIS) issued final rules allowing import of fresh beef
FMD outbreak could be as high as $13 billion per year for
(chilled or frozen) from Brazil (80 Fed. Reg. 37923) and
ten years. The extent of the economic damage caused by an
Argentina (80 Fed. Reg. 37935). U.S. beef imports from
FMD outbreak would largely depend on several factors: (1)
Brazil have been restricted to processed/cooked products
the location of the outbreak, and how close it was to a
because of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). From 1997 to
livestock-dense area; (2) the length of time of the outbreak;
2001, fresh beef imports from Argentina were allowed until
(3) the extent to which the United States would be shut out
being suspended in 2001 after an outbreak of FMD. Under
of export markets; (4) whether regionalization agreements
the final rules, APHIS determined that Brazil and Argentina
could be reached with trading partners; and (5) how
have controlled FMD and that fresh beef can be safely
consumers would react to an outbreak.
imported from certain regions in Brazil and from Argentina.
OIE Regions or Zones
Before the United States removes these import restrictions,
FMD is a global animal disease problem. World
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) must
Organization of Animal Health (OIE) member countries
determine if the countries’ food safety systems provide the
must report any outbreak, re-occurrence, or new FMD
same level of food safety as the U.S. system. As of March
strain within their borders to the OIE. In 2014 there were
1, 2016, FSIS had not determined if the slaughter systems
779 FMD outbreaks reported by 18 OIE member countries
in Brazil and Argentina are equivalent.
in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Of the 180 OIE
member countries, 67 are recognized as FMD free. One
Stakeholder groups, including the National Cattlemen’s
country, Uruguay, is recognized as FMD free with
Beef Association (NCBA), Ranchers-Cattlemen Action
vaccination. Some member countries have specified
Legal Fund (R-CALF), and the National Farmers Union
regions, or zones that are recognized by OIE as FMD free,
have strongly opposed the APHIS ruling. They are
or FMD free with vaccination.
primarily concerned that fresh beef imports from Brazil and
Argentina could become a source of FMD infection in the
The OIE has established guidelines for how trade in
United States. Opponents have raised questions about the
livestock and products should be conducted when there is
APHIS risk assessment and whether or not it was rigorous
an FMD outbreak and how to recover FMD-free status. The
enough. Other groups, such as the North American Meat
OIE recognizes that trade may take place from FMD-free
Institute (NAMI, or Meat Institute), support the rules.
regions within a country that is not recognized as FMD
Supporters argue that because the United States is a major
free. The guidelines are defined in Chapter 8.8 of the OIE
exporter of meat and poultry, it is important that
Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
international guidelines based in science be followed to
protect access to U.S. products in foreign markets.
Animal Health Status Determinations
When foreign countries request U.S. recognition of a
Consequences of FMD
particular animal disease status, according to APHIS
FMD is a highly contagious viral disease that infects
regulations (9 C.F.R. 92.2) they must submit detailed
cloven-hoofed animals. FMD is not a public health or food
information on the following eight areas:
safety threat but its introduction into the United States
could be devastating to the cattle industry. The United
 the scope of the evaluation of health status being
States has had nine recorded FMD outbreaks dating back to
requested;
the late 1800s. The last FMD outbreak in the United States
 veterinary control and oversight;
occurred in 1929.
 disease history and vaccination practices;
If there were an FMD outbreak, infected animals would be
 livestock demographics and traceability;
euthanized and movement of animals and people would be
 epidemiological separation from potential sources of
restricted to the area around an outbreak. U.S. exports of
infection;
livestock and products would be halted and it could take
 surveillance practices;
considerable time to regain entry into those lost markets. In
 diagnostic laboratory capabilities; and
2015, according to USDA data, the U.S. beef industry

exported more than $6 billion in beef and offal products,
emergency preparedness and response.
and about $2 billion more in cattle related products. Total

exports of animals, meat, dairy and related products
exceeded $18 billion in 2015, all of which could be at risk
After APHIS reviews the submitted information, a team is
in the event of an FMD outbreak.
to conduct site visits to review a foreign country’s
procedures, policies, surveillance, and control measures.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 2
Fresh Beef Import Rules for Brazil and Argentina
Following the site visit, APHS is to write a risk analysis
Figure 1. U.S. Processed/Cooked Beef Imports
that includes a qualitative assessment of the eight factors
1,000 Tons
listed above. Once the risk analysis is completed, APHIS is
to begin the rulemaking process with a proposed rule,
followed by a final rule that incorporates public comments.
The process for APHIS to determine animal health status
usually takes several years.
Rules Applying to Brazil and Argentina
In December 2013, APHIS issued a proposed rule (78 Fed.
Reg. 77370) that would allow 14 regions in Brazil (Bahia,
Distrito Federal, Espírito Santo, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato
Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul,
Rio de Janeiro, Rondônia, São Paulo, Sergipe, and
Tocantins) to export fresh beef to the United States. The
APHIS risk analysis accompanying the proposed rule
determined that Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock

and Food Supply (MAPA) has the means to control, detect,
Source: USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service.
report, and respond to FMD. Brazil's active and passive
surveillance system would allow for rapid detection if FMD
APHIS estimated that under the new import rules, fresh
were to appear again in these export regions.
beef imports from Brazil and Argentina would average
40,000 tons and 20,000 tons per year, respectively. APHIS
APHIS concluded that fresh beef could be safely imported
expects a portion of fresh imports from Brazil and
from Brazil if: (1) FMD has not been diagnosed in the
Argentina would be offset by lower imports from other
region within the past 12 months; (2) cattle and beef is not
countries. Increased imports would result in slightly lower
commingled with animals or beef from other regions prior
prices for wholesale beef, retail beef, and cattle. U.S. beef
to export; (3) bones and certain tissue are removed; and (4)
production would also be fractionally lower. Domestic U.S.
carcasses are chilled until they reach a pH level of under
beef consumption and U.S. beef exports would be
6.0. Altogether, 11 conditions that must be met, including
fractionally higher. APHIS expects these effects to be
the requirement that APHIS have access to facilities that are
slightly greater for Brazil compared with Argentina.
shipping beef to the United States for onsite evaluations and
inspections. Detailed requirements are in 9 C.F.R. 94.29.
Congressional Response
In response to congressional concerns about fresh beef
In August 2014, APHIS proposed a rule (79 Fed. Reg.
imports from Brazil and Argentina, Section 749 of the
51508) that would allow fresh beef imports from Argentina.
House-reported FY2016 agricultural appropriations bill
APHIS designated the Patagonia region of Argentina as free
(H.R. 3049) and Section 743 of the Senate-reported bill (S.
of FMD. Although the area designated as Northern
1800) contained language that prohibited USDA from using
Argentina was not recognized as FMD free because FMD
funds to implement, administer, or enforce the final beef
vaccinations are still used in the region, APHIS rules would
import rules. The provisions would have required that
allow beef imports from this region under the conditions
USDA conduct further risk analysis with a quantitative risk
defined in 9 C.F.R 94.29. The country’s animal health
assessment and make additional site visits to beef
infrastructure, movement and border controls, diagnostic
slaughtering and processing facilities in Brazil and
capabilities, surveillance programs and emergency response
Argentina, and then submit reports to Congress.
systems are adequate to detect and control any future FMD
outbreaks.
Ultimately, the proposed House and Senate provisions that
prohibited funding to implement the rules were altered in
The rules for Brazil and Argentina are essentially the same
the final act. Section 752 of the omnibus appropriations act
as those for fresh beef imports from Uruguay. APHIS
(P.L. 114-113) directs APHIS to establish a prioritization
issued rules (68 Fed. Reg. 31940; 9 C.F.R. 94.22) allowing
process for audits and reviews for countries that have been
imports from Uruguay in in 2003.
granted animal health recognition status, without explicitly
addressing Brazil and Argentina. APHIS is to provide the
Beef Imports from Brazil and Argentina
Appropriations and Agriculture committees in both
In 2015, according to USDA, the United States imported
chambers a description of its process by April 2016. APHIS
1.1 million tons of fresh and processed/cooked beef. U.S.
is required to conduct audits based on factors defined in
imports of cooked/processed beef, which usually account
regulations for determinations of animal health status (see
for about 5% of total beef imports, were 51,600 tons in
above; 9 C.F.R. 92.2) and to promptly make audit reports
2015 (Figure 1). Brazil usually supplies the majority of
publicly available. Section 752 also requires that the audits
U.S. imports of cooked/processed beef, and has not
be conducted in a manner consistent with U.S. international
exported fresh beef to the United States. From 1997 to
trade agreements.
2001, Argentina exported fresh beef to the United States.
These imports were suspended in 2001 following an
Joel L. Greene, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
outbreak of FMD.
IF10373
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Fresh Beef Import Rules for Brazil and Argentina

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10373 · VERSION 2 · NEW