Anti Beef? You decide

[Big Muddy rancher]

Anti-beef? You decide

Last spring, several "consumer groups" joined forces with R-CALF in condemning USDA's handling of the post-Dec. 23 BSE situation. The groups openly questioned the safety of the U.S. beef supply and accused USDA of systematically excluding both the public and human health experts from any meaningful role in shaping U.S. policy to combat BSE.

R-CALF has been criticized for its association with these groups that have been labeled as "anti-beef." We invite you to research these groups for yourself; then let us know what you think by contacting BEEF at: [email protected].

*

Consumer Federation of America (CFA, www.consumerfed.org). CFA's Food Policy Institute is run by Carol Tucker Foreman, who oversaw food safety and nutrition programs in the Carter administration. Under her leadership, dietary guidelines were designed to decrease consumption of meat, and increase consumption of poultry and fish.

In a 2002 interview, Foreman said: "My concern is that I don't want a system that says you can have fecal matter all over it (meat), and then irradiate it. Irradiated poop won't make you sick, but it's still poop."

Tucker-Foreman and CFA have opposed efforts to allow "state-inspected" beef processors to sell products across state lines or in international markets. CFA also supports proposals to increase the amount of soy and reduce the amount of meat in school lunch programs.
*

Consumers Union (CU, www.consumersunion.org), has an ongoing campaign to promote organic-only eating. When the Canadian BSE story broke in 2003, Michael Hansen of CU's Consumer Policy Institute suggested that American consumers should eat only grass-fed, "organic," and other specialty beef.

Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once singled out Hansen and CU, saying: "Unfortunately, a few fringe groups are using misleading statements and blatant falsehoods as part of a long-running campaign to scare consumers about a perfectly safe food…"
*

Public Citizen (PC, www.citizen.org), was founded by Ralph Nader. PC has a long-standing campaign against irradiation of beef, saying "it does nothing to remove the feces, urine, pus and vomit that often contaminate beef."

PC was quoted in a Reuters report in 2000 saying USDA's decision to give meat packing plants more responsibility for safety (HACCP programs) will unravel public health gains made since author Upton Sinclair documented grisly slaughterhouse conditions in "The Jungle."

In May 2004, PC released a report entitled "Hamburger Hell: The Flip Side of USDA's Salmonella Testing Program" as the industry kicked off the summer grilling season. "Dirty meat from the plants in this report is reaching consumers, killing them and making them sick," the report says.

 

[Faster horses]

And it's all true, BMR. All of it. Pretty amazing who people team up with.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Wouldnt it be better to try and increase meat consumption than to reduce it? R-calf talks about keeping Canadian beef out of the US I think it would be better to take up an aggressive role in promoting beef!!

 

[ocm]

YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TWO ARTICLES ABOUT THE NCBA AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. NOTE THAT R-CALF'S "FRIENDS" WERE ON A PODIUM BRIEFLY WITH THEM FOR A FEW MINUTES, WHILE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY WORKED TOGETHER IN A PARTNERSHIP FOR TWO YEARS TOGETHER WITH THE NCBA. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IS ANTI-PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENJOYING THE SUPPORT OF LIBERAL (SOCIALISTIC) PEOPLE LIKE PAUL NEWMAN.

ARTICLE ONE
Cattlemen and The Nature Conservancy Jointly Hail New Grassland Reserve Program

Program Will Benefit Ranchers and Help Conserve Imperiled Ecosystems

Washington, DC — May 9, 2002 — The Nature Conservancy and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, continuing their ground-breaking partnership, today jointly hailed the creation of the new Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), touting it as an important buffer against the loss of grasslands to suburban sprawl and other incompatible development.

The GRP was included in the 2002 Farm Bill which yesterday was given final approval by the U.S. Senate. The bill now moves on to President Bush's desk for his signature.

The Nature Conservancy and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) have been working together for about two years to conceive, create and build support for a program to conserve native grasslands. The Grassland Reserve Program is the fruit of that partnership.

Both organizations today extended their thanks to the members of Congress who supported this new program and helped ensure its creation.

Under the GRP, ranchers and other private grassland owners who enroll in the program agree to place 10, 15, 20 or 30-year rental contracts or 30-year or permanent easements on their land, prohibiting development and other activities incompatible with conserving grassland ecosystems. In return, landowners receive annual payments for short-term contracts or either a one-time payment for permanent easements or up to 10 annual payments for easements. The Farm Bill authorizes up to 2 million acres to be enrolled in the program, at a cost of up to $254 million. The program also makes additional resources available to assist landowners in restoring enrolled grasslands.

The Cattlemen and the Conservancy share a strong commitment to keeping working landscapes, including ranches, intact. Doing so helps ensure a viable and strong rural economy and helps conserve one of our nation's most threatened ecosystems and the plant and animal species it supports.

"We are pleased that, by partnering with The Nature Conservancy, we were able to develop a constructive program that meets our common goals," said Chandler Keys, Vice President of Public Policy for NCBA. "The GRP will, in this time of uncertainty and change, help continue the ranching tradition by preserving the open spaces for future generations."

"One of the Conservancy's top conservation objectives is to keep large grassland landscapes intact and available to support native plant and animal species," said Karen Berky, Vice President and Director of Government Relations for The Nature Conservancy. "This forward-thinking legislation provides an important incentive-based tool for accomplishing that goal. This new program embodies the notion that through partnership and cooperation we can find conservation solutions that can protect wildlife and a way of life."

The new Grassland Reserve Program imposes no regulation on grazing and allows private entities, such as ranching land trusts, to hold easements under the program.

The ecological status of many existing grassland systems are heavily influenced at the local level by combinations of habitat fragmentation, undesirable habitat changes due to fire exclusion, declining range conditions due to improper grazing management and loss of habitat values due to the spread of invasive and non-native plants. As a result, many species found only in grasslands ecosystems have declined substantially in the recent past. The GRP will help address these disturbing trends by providing grassland owners with financial incentives to conserve and restore important grassland ecosystems.


ARTICLE TWO

PINON CANYON EXPANSION
Plan pits ranchers against Army, Nature Conservancy
By KIMMI CLARK LEWIS

Kimmi Clark Lewis and her family own Muddy Valley Ranch outside Kim in Las Animas County.

It is with great concern that I write, as once again government is planning to take private property and it happens to be in my back yard. The Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site expansion will change Southeastern Colorado forever, and I strongly oppose this new land grab.

I was part of the standing ovation for two young soldiers who had just returned from Iraq at our Southern Colorado Livestock Association meeting on April 1 in Hoehne. My family has always been in favor of a strong military, and I support and pray for our young people who are fighting for our country.

Our country cannot afford to purchase more land from paying taxpayers, as there have been recent reports of the military's inability to keep its bills paid. I am talking about a recent article that showed Fort Sam Houston behind on utility bills by $4 million.

We also cannot stand any more loss of productive agricultural land. Keeping Southeastern Colorado in production is very important.

My family moved to Kim in 1917. Most of the ranches in my area have been family owned since the early 1900s. The customs and cultures of our ranching and farming families are being threatened by this private property takings and cannot be replaced. We stand to lose complete communities and families who have been the cornerstone of this rural land.

The Department of Defense manages 25 million acres nationwide. How much land does it need? Las Animas County is not only the largest landmass county in the state, but it also holds the record for the most cow/calf production in our state.

Severe economic impacts will occur with the expansion.

Businesses, as well as towns, could be partially or completely eliminated. In February, I traveled to Washington, D.C., to visit with our elected officials and voice my opinion on the Fort Carson expansion proposal.

Some important facts need to be brought out.

Fort Carson promised back in 1983 never to increase the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site or use live rounds of ammunition. As we can see, Army officials changed their story and did not keep their word, using live rounds even though the original Environmental Impact Statement told them that the land was too fragile.

On Dec. 14, 2000, the Department of the Army and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nature Conservancy. Nature Conservancy President Steven McCormick has bragged about his organization's partnership with the Pentagon to acquire private land and funding for buffer zones around military bases.

In one of Fort Carson's old planning maps, the first two years after acquisition of the maneuver site expansion would be devoted to the wildlife buffer zones. How will these wildlife buffer zones help our country stay free? How much of the acquisition will be given to the Nature Conservancy in fee title?

I firmly believe that we need to call the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site expansion what it is - an environmental land grab. And it is not just a land grab, but also a water grab. It's always about the water. The Nature Conservancy and their many partners are working furiously to talk people into signing conservation easements in order to preserve, set aside, protect, lock up, sign up, sell or give away as much private property as they can.

Land owners and water rights owners must remain vigilant about their rights and keep their titles and deeds clean. Just say "no" to this green money, which will change our agricultural industry.

As a founding member of the Colorado Independent Cattle Grower's Association, I feel it is time for us to step forward and show the truth about conservation easements and the role of private property in a free society. Conservation easements are power tools being used to transfer your most valuable and critical property rights to land trusts and possibly the government.

In the past 10 years, we have heard many cattlemen's associations boasting about having a seat at the table. Mike Dail of the American Land Foundation said it best: "If you're considering buying yourself a seat at the table, make sure it isn't the Last Supper."

 

[Anonymous]

God forbid if a cattlemans group talks to or works with a consumer group--instead we're supposed to follow the NCBA/Packer mafia lead of lying to, deceiving, and defrauding these consumers by false labeling and refusing to give them the products they request.....

"Eat what we give ya kid, or swim with the fishies" :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Geeeeeeeeeeze, BMR. You bring a whole new meaning to "reaching". :roll:

If you remember, virtually all the dieticians were saying to eat more chicken and fish and less red meat, not just Carol Tucker Foreman. She wasn't making an anti-beef statement, she was just following the herd.

I read the article from Hansen. His point was that grass-fed and organic should be eaten IF one was concerned about BSE. Notice he didn't say to not eat beef as you would think an anti-beef person would say, he simply said to try a different type of beef for peace of mind.

Public Citizen is anti-beef because they are against irradiation of beef? Common sense says that only makes them anti irradiation. I think giving packers more responsibility is a mistake, too.

I have made up my mind. Anti-beef? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Bill]

ocm wrote:

YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TWO ARTICLES ABOUT THE NCBA AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. NOTE THAT R-CALF'S "FRIENDS" WERE ON A PODIUM BRIEFLY WITH THEM FOR A FEW MINUTES, WHILE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY WORKED TOGETHER IN A PARTNERSHIP FOR TWO YEARS TOGETHER WITH THE NCBA. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IS ANTI-PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENJOYING THE SUPPORT OF LIBERAL (SOCIALISTIC) PEOPLE LIKE PAUL NEWMAN.

What does this have to do with R-Klan standing joining hands with anti-beef groups? I wonder if the folks from PETA were simply too busy to join the love-in.

In all the times I have seen R-Calf's ties to the CFA and CU mentioned here, not once have I seen a R-Calf suppoerter even come close to questioning that move. Instead it is usually a followup like this "well look what the NCBA did". :roll: :roll: :roll:

MR says it all:

Wouldnt it be better to try and increase meat consumption than to reduce it?

 

[Sandhusker]

ocm wrote:

YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TWO ARTICLES ABOUT THE NCBA AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. NOTE THAT R-CALF'S "FRIENDS" WERE ON A PODIUM BRIEFLY WITH THEM FOR A FEW MINUTES, WHILE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY WORKED TOGETHER IN A PARTNERSHIP FOR TWO YEARS TOGETHER WITH THE NCBA. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IS ANTI-PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENJOYING THE SUPPORT OF LIBERAL (SOCIALISTIC) PEOPLE LIKE PAUL NEWMAN.

What does this have to do with R-Klan standing joining hands with anti-beef groups? I wonder if the folks from PETA were simply too busy to join the love-in.

In all the times I have seen R-Calf's ties to the CFA and CU mentioned here, not once have I seen a R-Calf suppoerter even come close to questioning that move. Instead it is usually a followup like this "well look what the NCBA did". :roll: :roll: :roll:


MR says it all:

Wouldnt it be better to try and increase meat consumption than to reduce it?

"Anti-beef" groups? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[HAY MAKER]

I dont pay any attention to packer propaganda,or the packer employee's that promote it,waste of time ..............good luck

 

[RobertMac]

MR says it all:

Wouldnt it be better to try and increase meat consumption than to reduce it?

Wouldn't the best way to "increase meat consumption" be to address consumer's concerns rather than alienating 'consumer groups'?

 

[ocm]

ocm wrote:

YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TWO ARTICLES ABOUT THE NCBA AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. NOTE THAT R-CALF'S "FRIENDS" WERE ON A PODIUM BRIEFLY WITH THEM FOR A FEW MINUTES, WHILE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY WORKED TOGETHER IN A PARTNERSHIP FOR TWO YEARS TOGETHER WITH THE NCBA. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IS ANTI-PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENJOYING THE SUPPORT OF LIBERAL (SOCIALISTIC) PEOPLE LIKE PAUL NEWMAN.

What does this have to do with R-Klan standing joining hands with anti-beef groups? I wonder if the folks from PETA were simply too busy to join the love-in.

In all the times I have seen R-Calf's ties to the CFA and CU mentioned here, not once have I seen a R-Calf suppoerter even come close to questioning that move. Instead it is usually a followup like this "well look what the NCBA did". :roll: :roll: :roll:

MR says it all:

Wouldnt it be better to try and increase meat consumption than to reduce it?

The propaganda you are quoting is from a single source hired gun, hired by the anti-R-CALF crowd to point at what R-CALF does and tear them down. Similarly pointing to NCBA shows the hypocrisy of that particular hired gun. I will repeat that some R-CALF leaders shared a platform with some of those groups at a news conference. So what. Jerry Falwell has shared a platform with the ACLU on those rare occasions where they agreed on something. I don't think that means that the ACLU has embraced evangelical Christianity or that Jerry Falwell has given it up.

Twice a day a working clock will agree with a broken one. It happens. It doesn't mean the working clock endorses the brokens ones timekeeping abilities.

I think Shakespeare wrote a play about this:
Much Ado About Nothing