• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Cheap Food Imports at the Cost of Safety!!!

A

Anonymous

Guest
Lou Dobbs has really been hammering the FDA/USDA/Bush Administration on this...In the days to come he's going to show trade agreements that totally give up our sovereignty in that they do not even allow us to do further safety testing on the imports (considered a barrier in the agreement)...
He's been hammering what he calls "the no beef-all bull" crew of the NCBA/AMI/USDA/Whitehouse-- and flat out accusing them of putting the Corporate traders interests ahead of the US consumers/public.....




--------------------------------------------------


7/26/2007 8:13:00 AM


R-CALF: Report Reveals How Pending Free Trade Agreements Fuel Unsafe Food Imports


Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA has endorsed the beef section of a Public Citizen report on four pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea, which reveals that these specific agreements, as written, will increase U.S. food imports, but limit the influence on food-safety requirements the United States should be able to require from these countries. These FTAs undermine Congress’ plans to counter any possible imported food-safety emergency.



“The way these trade agreements are written, U.S. farmers and ranchers will be locked into a competitive disadvantage,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard, during a joint news conference with Public Citizen and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, today. “As a result, we will continue to see an erosion of our rural communities that are dependent on the U.S. cattle industry because we will be systematically replacing domestic production with larger volumes of imported product.”



R-CALF USA believes that at the most fundamental level, the effect of the trade agreements with Panama and Peru would be that the United States would change its position so that the default becomes open borders, or what Bullard called ‘a borderless America.’



“And then, if there’s a problem with food safety, the burden would shift,” Bullard explained. “The burden would be placed upon the shoulders of the importing country to prove that any food safety problems need to be corrected by restrictions or sanctions. That’s very different than how we currently trade with other countries, where they must first prove that they are meeting the standards of the United States.



“This is what we’ve dealt with, with regard to Canada’s BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) problems,” Bullard pointed out. “USDA considers the default position with Canada as an open border, and R-CALF is concerned that the United States has chosen to favor trade over food safety.”



Brown said he, along with Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., will soon be rolling out model trade legislation that will include food and product safety standards.



“Food safety and trade issues are so linked, and I think there are a number of people that have come to the fair trade movement, if you will, because of food safety issues,” Brown said. “They understand, as many of us do, that when you look at the gains we’ve made in this country on food safety, starting with the book The Jungle, and all that we have done with our regulatory structure for food safety, all of that is jeopardized by free trade agreements that pay little or no attention to food safety, and that’s really what we’re seeing.



“We know that imports of food have gone up dramatically…and that’s generally a good thing because it means people have choices and can have better diets,” he continued. “But it’s less of a good thing if we’re not inspecting those imports, and we haven’t been. We know as food imports have gone up, the number of FDA inspectors has gone down. In 2003, there were almost 3,200 FDA food inspectors – now there are 2,800.

The problem, in part, is that this Administration believes you can do free trade on the cheap, and you can’t do free trade on the cheap,” Brown emphasized. “If we’re going to pass trade agreements, they need to reflect the regulatory structure we have in this country, and then we need to do inspections – both at the border, and at the point of process. We do neither of those very well. If we’re going to trade on the cheap, the way this Administration wants to do – and has done – then food-safety problems are inevitable.”



Brown said the U.S. needs to handle trade in the right way by hiring the number of food inspectors we need and giving the appropriate federal agencies authority to approve or disapprove countries eligible to export.



“The U.S. has seen our food surplus shrink down to almost nothing,” Brown pointed out. “We shouldn’t be buying food from countries that don’t have that regulatory structure in place.

“We also need to make country-of-origin labeling (COOL) mandatory, and we need to require importers to have insurance for a recall, so that when there is a problem, companies don’t go out of business when a recall is issued,”
he added.



Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach said the bottom line of the report’s findings is there is no way to fix our imported food safety problems without fixing our trade policies and trade agreements, as well as improving our domestic food safety laws.



“The current U.S. trade model prioritizes the systematic increase of traded food over safety, and these trade agreements lead U.S. consumers to purchase more and more imported food,” Wallach said. “However, at the same time, these agreements require that the U.S. rely on foreign regulatory structures and inspectors to make sure that our food is safe. Sadly, many of the foreign countries’ systems aren’t up to the task.”
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Bill Bullard, during a joint news conference with Public Citizen and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, today"

Guess you can add Sen. Brown to the "anti-beef" list. :roll: :lol: :lol:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
"Bill Bullard, during a joint news conference with Public Citizen and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, today"

Guess you can add Sen. Brown to the "anti-beef" list. :roll: :lol: :lol:

Everyone at the NFU must have been busy if they had to get Bullard to join them for a news conference!

:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
According to this news article, 83 percent feel that ALL china food is uneatable: http://www.newsbull.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48646

July 12, 2007
92% of Americans want "country of origin" listed on packages of imported foods.

America is beginning to rebel against goods made in China—starting with camouflaged food products that do not alert consumers that the products—or that some of the ingredients in that food—came from the People's Republic of China. A survey conducted by the Consumer Union (the nonprofit foundation which publishes Consumer Reports) indicated that 92% of the consumers want "country of origin" labels [COOL] on the food they buy at their local supermarkets. Consumers want refusal rights. If the stores they shop buy from countries they don't think have the safety controls needed to protect them, they want to know—they are convinced they have the right to know. Congress apparently agrees since they attached an amendment to the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act which President George W. Bush signed into law on May 13, 2003.

The amendment requires country of origin labeling for beef, lamb, pork, fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural commodities (fruits and vegetables) and peanuts. The law was required because voluntary COOL guidelines were arbitrarily rejected by food importers and by agri-giant Archer Daniel Midland and the Grocery Manufacturers of America that has more lobbying clout in Washington, DC than Ma Bell. The argument of the food importers is that since the buying of vegetables and fruits is not only seasonal but for short durations, creating labels identifying the country of origin would be extremely expensive. The USDA countered that number codes could be assigned and each piece of fruit or vegetable tagged with a COOL number that would be charted in the store, letting consumers know precisely which country each piece of fruit or vegetable in the supermarket came from. Simple enough.

However, lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturers of America successfully convinced the White House and Congress to suspend the implementation of COOL. On January 27, 2004, Bush signed Public Law 108-199, delaying COOL for everything except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006.

On November 10, 2005, Bush signed Public Law 109-97, which delays implementation again until September 30, 2008. Except, of course, for fish and shellfish which everyone already knew that almost 20% of it was coming from unsanitary facilities in China. (On June 15, 2007, the USDA reopened the comment period on fish and shellfish until Aug. 15 to determine the final rules on mandatory labeling on fish and shellfish since the food importers are trying hard to keep this regulation from being implemented since they know Chinese food products will not move from store shelves once those products comply with COOL regulations are are identified for the consumers who then have the option whether or not to feed those foodstuffs to their children.)

Eighty-three percent of the American consumers believe food products from the People's Republic of China are unsafe for human consumption. There is also concern about food products from Indonesia and Mexico. People want to know precisely where every product they consume originated—and, after the pet food scare—where the soy protein or wheat gluten in the products they eat came from.

Clearly, when it comes to food commodities, over-the-counter pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs, the American people have now drawn a line in the sand. Consumers may buy cheap Chinese electronic gadgets, household appliances and clothing from the unregulated slave labor factories of China (many of which are actually penal institutions), but when it comes to their health, consumers want to know exactly where the food items—and the ingredients in those foodstuffs—or pharmaceuticals come from. They want assurances that the countries who are exporting foodstuffs to the United States have the same quality control and health safety regulations as the United States.

Country-of-origin rules go into affect on Sept. 30, 2008—unless the legislators in Congress who have climbed into bed with the lobbyists for Archer Daniel Midland and the Grocery Manufacturers of America postpone the implementation of the regulations again. Remember, this law was enacted four years ago, but the Republican-controlled Congress gave the White House the delays it sought largely to protect the trade deals the US had with China.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
"Bill Bullard, during a joint news conference with Public Citizen and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, today"

Guess you can add Sen. Brown to the "anti-beef" list. :roll: :lol: :lol:

Everyone at the NFU must have been busy if they had to get Bullard to join them for a news conference!

:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So is the NFU protectionist, anti-trade, anti-beef too? :roll: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill Calls for Meat to be Labeled by Origin



By Renae Merle

Washington Post Staff Writer

Washington Post

Thursday, July 26, 2007; Page D01



An ordinary trip to the supermarket meat department could turn into an experience in international comparison-shopping under House legislation scheduled to be debated today that for the first time would require meat products to be labeled by their country of origin.



The farm bill House members will consider includes a provision mandating that meat -- including beef, pork and lamb -- include a label stating where it came from. Only meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the United States would be eligible for a domestic label.



The measure aims to enforce a five-year-old law that has already been implemented for seafood but was delayed after meat packers, pork producers and grocery chains claimed it would create a costly bureaucratic and record-keeping nightmare. The issue reemerged this year after reports of safety problems with food and products from China spurred American consumers to seek more information about what they eat.



"We think consumers have a right to know, so they can make informed buying decisions," said Sally Greenberg, senior product safety counsel at Consumers Union. "Some consumers won't care, but many others do. It is time to put that law into practice."

Last week, the White House established a working group to review the safety of food. But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the farm bill -- and, with it, the meat-labeling measure -- because of a separate dispute with Democrats over farm subsidies.



Yesterday, Public Citizen issued a report questioning proposed free-trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea that the group says would make it easier for those countries to export food to the United States.


Under the agreements, the United States would rely on those countries' regulatory systems to ensure the food is safe, the report said. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already rejected seafood from Peru and Panama for filth and the presence of food-borne pathogens, according to Public Citizen, a public-interest nonprofit group. "The gains we have made in food safety -- all of that is jeopardized by these free-trade agreements," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).



Hurt by an influx of imports, U.S. farmers and cattle ranchers have championed country-of-origin labeling, known as COOL, hoping that consumers would choose a domestic product when labeling gives them a choice. About 14 percent of beef consumed in the United States is imported, and 80 percent of that goes into ground-beef products, said Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union.



"We have this flood of these competitive imports," Buis said. "We don't mind competing, but let's all put our name on it."



Research by Swift & Co., a Colorado meat packer, shows that a country-of-origin label will probably not be a deciding factor for most consumers, who more often take into consideration whether meat is organic or grass-fed, said company lobbyist Chandler Keys. But, he said, "I think the China issue has been a tipping point on this issue as of late."


China does not export meat to the United States but can export cooked poultry from birds raised and slaughtered here or in another country eligible to export raw poultry, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.



The legislation calls for the USDA to establish rules for the use of three types of labels by the end of 2008. Purely U.S. products would be eligible for a domestic label, but those with mixed origin would be more complicated. For example, a cow born in Mexico and then brought to the United States for slaughter would be labeled as a product of both countries. A third type of label, supporters say, would be used mostly for ground beef or pork and would list all countries the meat could be from.



Negotiations on some parts of the legislation lasted until early Tuesday morning, with 19 groups, including Tyson Foods and Hormel, signing a letter to Congress in support of the provision and pledging to oppose amending the labeling language.



Keys said an essential reason for the support from his company and other meat packers was that the law would no longer require meat that spent any time overseas to be labeled as exclusively a foreign product. "We wanted a label that better reflected the product," he said. "It just gives us more flexibility . . . to give the consumer a better understanding of what this product actually is."



But not all interest groups are ready to sign off. The Food Marketing Institute, which represents large retailers and wholesalers, is withholding support until it has more time to review the provision, said Tim Hammonds, president of the organization.



Hammonds acknowledged significant improvements in the current measure, including lowering the possible fine to $1,000 from $10,000 per violation, he said. "But we're not ready to give up the right to seek additional improvements," Hammonds said.



Staff writer Dan Morgan contributed to this report.



washingtonpost.com
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Dobbs;

DOBBS: There is alarming new evidence tonight that U.S. trade policy is threatening our middle class by putting our food supply at risk and our consumers at risk. The findings come as the U.S. continues to increasingly rely upon foreign food imports. Nearly $65 billion of food is being imported to this country each year.

Kitty Pilgrim has our report. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea will bring a flood of seafood, beef, fruit and vegetables from some 10,000 foreign producers.

A new report by Public Citizen says those free trade agreements limit our sovereign right to inspect food that is imported into this country.

LORI WALLACH, PUBLIC CITIZEN'S GLOBAL TRADE WATCH: These agreements on food literally set limits on inspection, the level of protection, as well as requiring us to accept imports that don't meet our standards, but the country sending it says is good enough.

PILGRIM: Because of the volume of imports, the USDA will now be able to inspect 0.6 percent of the food at our borders and ports. That's down from the 8 percent it could inspect before the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed.

Eighty percent of seafood in the country is imported, but less than 2 percent is inspected. The report cites CDC statistics which show that 5,000 Americans die every year from food-borne illnesses, and viral infection associated with seafood increased 78 percent from 1996 to 2006, a period when seafood imports skyrocketed.

Only 11 percent of beef, pork and chicken imports are inspected at the border, even though those animals are sometimes raised in unsanitary conditions.

And Public Citizen says, Americans are three times more likely to be exposed to dangerous pesticides on imported fruits and vegetables than on domestic produce.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Basically, what we have had is free trade on the cheap. And, when you have free trade on the cheap, you end up with less environmental protection and less food safety.

PILGRIM: Unbelievably, free trade agreements set limits on U.S. safety inspections, because extra inspections on imports would be discriminatory.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: And the problem of how to manage the flood of imported food is a relatively new issue. Up until two years ago, the United States was a net exporter of food. Not anymore -- Lou.

DOBBS: And 80 percent of our seafood is now being imported into this country.

PILGRIM: That's right. It's really skyrocketing. And, with these new agreements, it will increase more.

DOBBS: This administration, its trade policies, my contempt for their level of concern and care for the American people and for the good of this country, in passing these idiotic -- and going through these negotiations, I mean, it's just disgusting. It really is.

(CROSSTALK)

PILGRIM: We give away our sovereignty with these trade deals.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: And we are going to be talking to Senator Sherrod Brown, upon whom you just were reporting, here in just a moment. He's calling for very tough action to protect American consumers from those food imports. Senator Brown will be joining us here shortly.

DOBBS: There is alarming new evidence tonight that U.S. trade policy is threatening our middle class by putting our food supply at risk and our consumers at risk. The findings come as the U.S. continues to increasingly rely upon foreign food imports. Nearly $65 billion of food is being imported to this country each year.

Kitty Pilgrim has our report. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea will bring a flood of seafood, beef, fruit and vegetables from some 10,000 foreign producers.

A new report by Public Citizen says those free trade agreements limit our sovereign right to inspect food that is imported into this country.

LORI WALLACH, PUBLIC CITIZEN'S GLOBAL TRADE WATCH: These agreements on food literally set limits on inspection, the level of protection, as well as requiring us to accept imports that don't meet our standards, but the country sending it says is good enough.

PILGRIM: Because of the volume of imports, the USDA will now be able to inspect 0.6 percent of the food at our borders and ports. That's down from the 8 percent it could inspect before the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed.

Eighty percent of seafood in the country is imported, but less than 2 percent is inspected. The report cites CDC statistics which show that 5,000 Americans die every year from food-borne illnesses, and viral infection associated with seafood increased 78 percent from 1996 to 2006, a period when seafood imports skyrocketed.

Only 11 percent of beef, pork and chicken imports are inspected at the border, even though those animals are sometimes raised in unsanitary conditions.

And Public Citizen says, Americans are three times more likely to be exposed to dangerous pesticides on imported fruits and vegetables than on domestic produce.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Basically, what we have had is free trade on the cheap. And, when you have free trade on the cheap, you end up with less environmental protection and less food safety.

PILGRIM: Unbelievably, free trade agreements set limits on U.S. safety inspections, because extra inspections on imports would be discriminatory.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: And the problem of how to manage the flood of imported food is a relatively new issue. Up until two years ago, the United States was a net exporter of food. Not anymore -- Lou.

DOBBS: And 80 percent of our seafood is now being imported into this country.

PILGRIM: That's right. It's really skyrocketing. And, with these new agreements, it will increase more.

DOBBS: This administration, its trade policies, my contempt for their level of concern and care for the American people and for the good of this country, in passing these idiotic -- and going through these negotiations, I mean, it's just disgusting. It really is.

(CROSSTALK)

PILGRIM: We give away our sovereignty with these trade deals.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: And we are going to be talking to Senator Sherrod Brown, upon whom you just were reporting, here in just a moment. He's calling for very tough action to protect American consumers from those food imports. Senator Brown will be joining us here shortly.


DOBBS: There is alarming new evidence tonight that U.S. trade policy is threatening our middle class by putting our food supply at risk and our consumers at risk. The findings come as the U.S. continues to increasingly rely upon foreign food imports. Nearly $65 billion of food is being imported to this country each year.

Kitty Pilgrim has our report. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea will bring a flood of seafood, beef, fruit and vegetables from some 10,000 foreign producers.

A new report by Public Citizen says those free trade agreements limit our sovereign right to inspect food that is imported into this country.

LORI WALLACH, PUBLIC CITIZEN'S GLOBAL TRADE WATCH: These agreements on food literally set limits on inspection, the level of protection, as well as requiring us to accept imports that don't meet our standards, but the country sending it says is good enough.

PILGRIM: Because of the volume of imports, the USDA will now be able to inspect 0.6 percent of the food at our borders and ports. That's down from the 8 percent it could inspect before the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed.

Eighty percent of seafood in the country is imported, but less than 2 percent is inspected. The report cites CDC statistics which show that 5,000 Americans die every year from food-borne illnesses, and viral infection associated with seafood increased 78 percent from 1996 to 2006, a period when seafood imports skyrocketed.

Only 11 percent of beef, pork and chicken imports are inspected at the border, even though those animals are sometimes raised in unsanitary conditions.

And Public Citizen says, Americans are three times more likely to be exposed to dangerous pesticides on imported fruits and vegetables than on domestic produce.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Basically, what we have had is free trade on the cheap. And, when you have free trade on the cheap, you end up with less environmental protection and less food safety.

PILGRIM: Unbelievably, free trade agreements set limits on U.S. safety inspections, because extra inspections on imports would be discriminatory.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: And the problem of how to manage the flood of imported food is a relatively new issue. Up until two years ago, the United States was a net exporter of food. Not anymore -- Lou.

DOBBS: And 80 percent of our seafood is now being imported into this country.

PILGRIM: That's right. It's really skyrocketing. And, with these new agreements, it will increase more.

DOBBS: This administration, its trade policies, my contempt for their level of concern and care for the American people and for the good of this country, in passing these idiotic -- and going through these negotiations, I mean, it's just disgusting. It really is.

(CROSSTALK)

PILGRIM: We give away our sovereignty with these trade deals.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: And we are going to be talking to Senator Sherrod Brown, upon whom you just were reporting, here in just a moment. He's calling for very tough action to protect American consumers from those food imports. Senator Brown will be joining us here shortly.

DOBBS: as we reported earlier in this broadcast, the country's trade policies are threatening our middle class and our nation's food supply and American consumers.

My guest tonight, Senator Sherrod Brown, is demanding more inspections of these imports.

And he joins us tonight from Capitol Hill.

Senator, good to have you with us.

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Good to be back, Lou.

Thank you.

DOBBS: The numbers here are astonishing -- 80 percent of seafood, $60 billion now of food being imported into this country. And inspections, with every kind of rationalization one can imagine from the bureaucracy, not occurring.

BROWN: Well, we have fewer inspectors. We had 3,200 inspectors just a few years ago and now we only have 2,800 inspectors from the Food and Drug Administration. This is basically free trade on the cheek.

We're -- we're -- what did we expect?

If you open up our borders to China with the kind of huge numbers of food shipments -- 200,000 food shipments last year from China, double the number from four years ago, and China has no real regulatory system of food safety or consumer product safety. So it means in our living rooms and in our kitchens, consumer products, toys for children, food products -- we just can't guarantee the safety the way we should be able to.

DOBBS: Not only not guaranteeing their safety, but at our last check, two-thirds of the recalls were -- originated in China. It is -- it is incredible.

But the idea that FDA inspectors are declining while imports are surging, why is that happening?

BROWN: Well, it's happened because a conservative Congress, a very pro-business Congress, a pro, frankly, these -- a Congress that supports these job killing trade agreements. They don't -- they don't -- they want free trade on the cheek. They want to pass these trade agreements. They don't want to see any kind of food safety or environmental protections. And we end up with a situation like this, where apple juice has something called emulin (ph) in it, which may be a -- it's probably a harmful substance. We see contaminants in Vitamin C.

DOBBS: Right.

BROWN: We see all kinds of various problems in our food supply.

DOBBS: How far are you and Senator Do you believe in, Senator Byron Dorgan and others, going to take your concern for trade agreements to be effective?

BROWN: Well...

DOBBS: I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

BROWN: Yes, well, Senator Dorgan has been a leader on this, as you know, and been on the program with you many times.

DOBBS: Yes.

BROWN: Senator Durbin and I are introducing -- have introduced legislation that would give the FDA the authority to approve or disapprove imports of food from whatever countries they determine. So that basically this bill would say to the Chinese, or any other country, if you build up your food safety regimen and regulatory system that's -- that's level with ours, that's comparable to ours, we'll accept your food shipments. That's what we need to do.

We also need, of course, to increase the number of food safety inspectors. We will do that. But we need to move forward in all of that.

DOBBS: And what about the outrage of country of origin labeling, which has been a law for five years but has been blocked by the Department of Agriculture, by hosts of lobbyists, very powerful lobbyists?

Is this Congress, this Senate, going to be able to break through that?

BROWN: Yes, we're going to break through that. We're, right now, working on the farm bill and one of the big parts of it is not just country of origin labeling, but making sure it goes in effect. Rosa DeLauro in the House has beat back any attempts when they tried to do that other year successfully.

DOBBS: Right.

BROWN: The Republican chairman of that subcommittee got defeated last November -- or December -- in a special election.

DOBBS: Yes.

BROWN: We're going to see a different -- a different rule there. We're going to have country of origin labeling. It will go in effect soon and it will be enforced.

DOBBS: And it won't be voluntary?

BROWN: It will not be voluntary.

DOBBS: Like a lot of the (INAUDIBLE).

BROWN: It shouldn't be voluntary.

Yes, I mean I just say...

DOBBS: So, wait a minute...

BROWN: ...it's...

DOBBS: And good for the House Agriculture Committee for standing up to those folks that I call all bull and no beef.

BROWN: Yes, that's the way to say it.

DOBBS: Senator Sherrod Brown, we thank you for being here.

BROWN: Thank you, Lou. DOBBS: We thank you for taking a look at these issues and doing something about them.

BROWN: Thank you for all you do.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
"Bill Bullard, during a joint news conference with Public Citizen and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, today"

Guess you can add Sen. Brown to the "anti-beef" list. :roll: :lol: :lol:

Everyone at the NFU must have been busy if they had to get Bullard to join them for a news conference!

:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So is the NFU protectionist, anti-trade, anti-beef too? :roll: :lol:

If you say so!
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Director Lori Wallach said the bottom line of the report’s findings is there is no way to fix our imported food safety problems without fixing our trade policies and trade agreements, as well as improving our domestic food safety laws.

FDA needs to be expanded 3x.

150 years ago they would had a short rope in a oak,for exposing everything to germs and poisons.
 
Top