|
| Author |
Message |
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24330
Location: Northeast Montana
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:48 am Post subject: Senators Support USDA's new GIPSA Rules |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Aug. 16, 2010 Phone: 406-672-8969; sdodson@r-calfusa.com
Cattle Producers, Farm Advocates Laud Senate Support
of USDA’s Proposed Livestock Competition Rule
Washington, D.C. – Twenty-one Senators have signed a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in support of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s (GIPSA’s) proposed livestock and poultry competition rule released in late June. Cattle producers and farm advocates who have long pressed for increased oversight of the meatpacking, hog processing and poultry integrator industries expressed support for the letter from the Senators.
“Independent livestock producers welcome the support for the rule by these Senators,” said Mabel Dobbs, a rancher from Weiser, Idaho, with the Western Organization of Resource Councils. “These rules are the first step toward leveling the playing field between producers and the packers.”
The Senators’ ‘Dear Colleague’ letter to USDA comes on the heels of increasingly vehement opposition to the proposed rule by the meatpacking and processing companies. The proposed rule would restore necessary balance between cattle and hog producers and the packers that buy their livestock, and would also prohibit some of the most egregious practices that are now common in the contract poultry industry.
“We are pleased that so many Senators are helping to demonstrate the importance of this proposed rule,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “If we are to restore a fair and just market that will provide economic opportunities for all livestock producers, we must embrace this rule that will not only hold the dominant meatpackers accountable for their market practices and impart transparency to the market, but also prohibit certain practices that clearly are anticompetitive.”
“The letter from Senators demonstrates the popular support for these sensible rules from poultry producers everywhere,” said Mike Weaver, President of the Contract Poultry Growers Association of the Virginias. “These proposed rules must be swiftly implemented to protect contract poultry growers from unfair contracts that are all too common today.”
The release of the proposed rule coincides with a yearlong series of joint workshops on concentration and competition in the agriculture sector hosted by the U.S. Department of Justice (Justice) and USDA. The next workshop is scheduled for 8 a.m. MDT on Friday, Aug. 27, in Fort Collins, Colo., on the campus of Colorado State University. This particular event will examine concentration in the livestock sector, especially beef cattle and hogs. Livestock producers should attend this workshop and also submit comments to USDA in support of the proposed competition rule.
“Now is the time for action,” said Rhonda Perry, livestock and grain farmer from Howard County, Mo., and Program Director of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. “Family farmers and livestock producers need to make their voices heard over the well-heeled lobbyists of the meatpackers. Independent hog and cattle producers in Missouri commend Senator McCaskill for signing on to the letter and standing up for Missouri's family farmers in support of the rules.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 16442
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
|
| Back to top |
|
hypocritexposer
Rancher
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 16326
Location: real world
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure their "support" will result in additional costs to the all meatpackers. the smaller ones will not be able to absorb the costs as well as the larger ones.
Look at any other industry and let me know if that's not the way it has and is going.
When new regulations and standards are legislated, the larger operations are all for it, because it gives them a competitive advantage.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18076
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They're not looking for anything new. They're looking for what was written 4 generations ago to be enforced as intended.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Beefman
Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 244
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| They're not looking for anything new. They're looking for what was written 4 generations ago to be enforced as intended. |
Not looking for anything new? How did you arrive at this conclusion? You would be well served to educate yourself further. Consider the facts:
copy of proposed rules http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/rulemaking/fr10/06-22-10.pdf
talking points http://www.beefusa.org/goveGIPSAProposal.aspx
Comments of Neb Cattlemans Assn President Bill Rishel of North Platte. www.cattlementocattlemen.org. (click on GIPSA 8-17-10) He indicates these proposed rules "will destroy the creative programs that've increased profit margins for those that've spent time and money to develop alternative marketing arrangements that benefit themselves and their customers."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18076
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aren't those the same folks who were supporting the USDA's ban on private BSE testing? Didn't they also speak up against Pickett?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Beefman
Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 244
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Aren't those the same folks who were supporting the USDA's ban on private BSE testing? Didn't they also speak up against Pickett? |
Nice try. Read the proposed rule.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 18076
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beefman wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Aren't those the same folks who were supporting the USDA's ban on private BSE testing? Didn't they also speak up against Pickett? |
Nice try. Read the proposed rule. |
Aren't they? I mean, shouldn't a person know the source of the opinions they are reading so that credibilty can be measured properly?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Beefman
Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 244
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Beefman wrote: |
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Aren't those the same folks who were supporting the USDA's ban on private BSE testing? Didn't they also speak up against Pickett? |
Nice try. Read the proposed rule. |
Aren't they? I mean, shouldn't a person know the source of the opinions they are reading so that credibilty can be measured properly? |
Source? NCBA on one, and one of the most respected Angus producers in Neb on point 2. Now - your big chance to reveal how you know the 21 senators / Rcalf USCA bunch are not looking for anything new with the proposed GIPSA rule.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bill
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2067
Location: GWN
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bill
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2067
Location: GWN
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24330
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill wrote: |
Sandhusker I am disappointed that a person in your profession would not show more knowledge for the impact this will have on your clients.
|
I doubt if he has any of the Big Four Packers as his clients- and if things keep going the way they are they will be the feeding industry before long....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
