More of R-calfs work on behalf of US producers

[Bill]

"N.Y. Times" Already Quoting Cebull's Inaccuracies

Key Beef Industry Issue Further Taken Over By Judicial System
Colorado Springs, CO March 21, 2005



One of the fears we expressed when Judge Richard Cebull issued his horribly sensational injunction opinion was that the mass media would pick up on it and start quoting his opinion.

It didn't take long for this to happen. The New York Times has already published an editorial, quoting Cebull and indicating they have been sucked into Cebull's and R-CALF's misleading science and unpracticed understanding of international trade. The worst of this is that the Times is making proclamations based on ideology, not science or facts, and their wire service is picked up by hundreds of papers across the country.

The Times editorial ridicules USDA's efforts to establish international trade of under-30-month cattle from countries with minimal risk as, "based on a hope and a wish." It quotes Cebull's regurgitations of R-CALF's claims of "catastrophic damages" and "genuine risk of death," just as if these were facts, instead of sensationalist claims made in a legal brief attempting to scare a judge.

The Times also misreads Japan's evaluation of the situation, claiming as R-CALF does, that opening the border to Canadian cattle under 30-months will automatically cause the Japanese to keep our exports out. Instead, as those involved in the negotiations have pointed out, the opposite is true. Any indication by the U.S. that it does not trust young Canadian cattle creates mistrust and confusion among Japanese government officials and consumers. In fact, the negotiations were going along sedately, bolstered by the fact that Canadian boxed beef was flowing nicely through our system, because everyone knows the beef is safe. That is until R-CALF raised unwarranted questions.

So R-CALF's legal gymnastics have succeeded in throwing a monkey wrench into the Canadian border trade and the Japanese export trade. The "bonuses" are that R-CALF is now the godfather of the Canadian packing industry expansion, has damaged U.S. packers large and small and is the catalyst for the largest and most determined effort Canada has ever made to compete with us in the world market.

Thanks to R-CALF, Canada's biggest nightmare has been prolonged far beyond what was necessary. But in the long-term, R-CALF could have helped propel Canada's beef chain development efforts farther and faster than would have happened in decades without their interference.

The Times claims that Japan is requiring the U.S. to prove it is free of mad cow. We haven't heard that and that is not the issue. The issue is that the beef exported to Japan be free of BSE - and that we can guarantee. Specified Risk Material (SRM) removal, tailored to the age of the animal, is internationally recognized as yielding safe beef, even if by some unlikely chance an animal actually had BSE. The OIE has even stated that it does not recommend against importing beef from countries with a high BSE risk. The SRM removal renders the country's BSE status a moot point.

Yet R-CALF continues to ignore that fact. Instead it is trying to get people to believe SRM removal is ineffective. On top of that, R-CALF wants people to believe Canada is really a high-risk country - another U.K. - and that no one else but R-CALF has figured it out yet.

To prove that the Times has bought into R- CALF's furthest stretches for obstacles to throw in the path of imports, the Times said that the only way to resume international trade is to test all cattle.

Even worse, the Times implies that there is no feed ban in place, by calling for an "end to the feeding practices that can spread mad cow disease." The feed ban was instituted in 1997 but the New York Times is unaware of that fact. But ignorance of the facts does not keep the Times from telling everyone how to solve their problems. Add that to the lawyers and judges already in the mix, and it means science and verified facts get buried even deeper under a growing pile of misinformation, hyperbole and short-sighted obstructionism.

Which is just what American consumers or the beef industry does not need.





The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain. The AFF believes it is possible to value the traditions and heritage of the past while embracing the future and the changes it brings. The AFF is a communications and educational initiative striving to preserve the freedom of the agricultural food chain to operate and innovate in order to continue the success of American agriculture.

The AFF - freedom watchdog for American agriculture.



Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
AFF: Promoting free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain.

[Maple Leaf Angus]

....and the band played on....

[Sandhusker]

Before anybody gets too excited about the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation or what "they" may have to say, I'd invite everybody to take a look at "their" site. You'll only find one name anywhere; Steve Ditmer. He is the Ex. V.P., he writes all the articles, and I'm sure he takes out the trash. It looks to me like this is a one-man foundation.

I read everything in his site and I think everybody should read it also - this guy is waaaaay out there. However, don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.

Another example of Mr. Dittmer's journalism;

"But if that is what it takes to get their changes achieved, then R-CALF has indicated their willingness to go along to get to their goals. R-CALF demonstrated that earlier this year, appearing in a joint news conference with long-time industry adversarial activist groups, forming a coalition of Liberal Activist Groups (LAG). Some of these activist groups envision American agriculture like this:

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.

USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.

Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.

Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.

Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.

Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals."

JUDGE THE CREDIBILTY FOR YOURSELVES.

[agman]

[Bill]

[Mitch]

Quoting Sandhusker
"I read everything in his site and I think everybody should read it also - this guy is waaaaay out there. However, don't take my word for it, see for yourselves."

Haven't you seen R-Calf's website? It seems pretty out there.

Have fun R-Calf, you made the nuce, tied it around your neck, built the platform, now please jump.

[Oldtimer]

One answer- Let it go to trial... Let the USDA present their experts and their facts-- let the ranchers present theirs..... I would like to see the Judge make a decision on the expert testimony rather than the biased reporting of every publication out there...Both the USDA and R-CALF have a bias--So does AMI and the packers, the Canadians, and the administration-- Go to trial and let a Federal Judge make the decision.....

Would be so much easier to have mandatory COOL on all beef and leave the health safety issue decision to the consumer- but that would interfer with the packers profiteering plans........

[Moose]

But we know who the judge will be so the trial is a waste of time.

[Oldtimer]

[Manitoba_Rancher]

OT,

I think Judge Cebull had a biassed opinion and is in a conflict of interest with R-calf.

[Big Muddy rancher]

[agman]

[Hat)
I agree, all I want is for the US consumer to be able to walk into a grocery store and be able to buy beef marked born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. We all know which package the consumer will choose.[/quote]

Response... What evidence do you have to support your claim? You and I are not the average consumer. What you and I think consumers will or should do is irrelevant. How they spend their money is their decision and they have clearly demonstrated they do not follow survey results. Can you explain the precipitous decline in per capita beef consumption since 1976 while every survey concludes beef is the preferred meat. We should all learn from that experience. Have a great day.