COOL discounting Canadian cattle?

[Shaft]

Well gee, I'm sure glad we cleared all that up. Must be that some evil spirit not involved with R-CALF has possessed Bill Bullard and assorted members of the press throughout North America. I just knew deep down in the bottom of my heart that all the fuss about R-CALF's latest attack on Canada and hence Canadian producers was untrue. Just more of that old whining and paranoia at work, I guess.

After all, we all know that R-CALF has always stood for telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, at all times. Just like their advocates on this thread.

"We believe Canada's subsidies on beef and cattle constitute an artificial propping-up of a Canadian cattle industry that is unsustainable at its present size but for those government subsidies, and further we believe that Canada's subsidies are inconsistent with the very World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that Canada claims the U.S. has violated vis-à-vis COOL," explained R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.

"USTR and USDA should not tolerate the Government of Canada's ongoing practice of using the Canadian treasury to manipulate the U.S. cattle market by subsidizing Canadian cattle supplies and beef production at levels above what a competitive market can support. This practice is particularly appalling given the Government of Canada is trying to undermine the United States' constitutionally passed COOL law – which is widely supported by U.S. cattle producers and consumers – while simultaneously using its treasury to out-compete independent U.S. cattle producers, whose prices are depressed because Canada is unjustly and artificially propping-up its cattle supplies beyond what the available market can bear…" the letter states, in part.

 

[burnt]

rcalf has long proven that it might not be the sharpest tool in the box. The lack of perception of its most ardent followers evidences that.

But it is a most USEFUL tool in the packer's bag since all the legal battles undertaken by rcalf play directly into the packer's plans.

OT said ". . . until foreign food imports from Mexico- China - Thailand- etc. around the world- was found to be adulterated, or diseased- or tainted- and hundreds/thousands were sickened or killed by these imports....That is when US consumers stood up and said they want . . ."

By the way, how many of the food items listed so graciously by porker and flounder (in the "food recalls" thread)originated in the U.S. from products grown entirely in the U.S.?

Beef, pistachios, cheese, spinach, poultry, instant oatmeal breakfast cereals, peanut butter, salsa, salami . . .Wow, a lot of those foods are likely in the fridges and cupboards of most of us who frequent these pages!

And guess what, those items came not from China, Thailand, Hong Kong, Mexico or Canada but were Made in the USA and would be labeled accordingly!! So much for the illusion of a label being an indicator of safe food!

So yeah, you should likely label all the stuff you sell, but it sounds like the consumers would benefit the most from something like COOL with Mandatory I.D. to simplify the sourcing of contamination which seems to pop up with frustrating frequency!!

 

[Anonymous]

Well gee, I'm sure glad we cleared all that up. Must be that some evil spirit not involved with R-CALF has possessed Bill Bullard and assorted members of the press throughout North America. I just knew deep down in the bottom of my heart that all the fuss about R-CALF's latest attack on Canada and hence Canadian producers was untrue. Just more of that old whining and paranoia at work, I guess.

After all, we all know that R-CALF has always stood for telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, at all times. Just like their advocates on this thread.

"We believe Canada's subsidies on beef and cattle constitute an artificial propping-up of a Canadian cattle industry that is unsustainable at its present size but for those government subsidies, and further we believe that Canada's subsidies are inconsistent with the very World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that Canada claims the U.S. has violated vis-à-vis COOL," explained R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.

"USTR and USDA should not tolerate the Government of Canada's ongoing practice of using the Canadian treasury to manipulate the U.S. cattle market by subsidizing Canadian cattle supplies and beef production at levels above what a competitive market can support. This practice is particularly appalling given the Government of Canada is trying to undermine the United States' constitutionally passed COOL law – which is widely supported by U.S. cattle producers and consumers – while simultaneously using its treasury to out-compete independent U.S. cattle producers, whose prices are depressed because Canada is unjustly and artificially propping-up its cattle supplies beyond what the available market can bear…" the letter states, in part.

Shaft- Canada and the imports from- along with the multinationals ability to use captive supply cattle to manipulate prices under NAFTA- was just the wakeup for both US and Canadian producers...
But I think most US producers are intelligent enough to look at the Tyson/Swift/JBS/Cargill feeder/packer investments around the world to know that that is all the use of Canadian cattle is- a wakeup call- and that these multinationals will use borders/FTO's/currency values for a long time to rape and pillage for their advantage....
Its sad to see that you aren't one of the many Canadians I know that can finally see that....

 

[burnt]

Shaft, I've said that R-CALF is not targeting Canadian producers here so many times that I'm getting sick to the gills of it. . .

Hummm, could it be that sandy is misdiagnosing a pang of conscience?

 

[Shaft]

OT, you're telling me that beating your best friend over the head with a baseball bat is an appropriate form of 'wakeup call' to the bad guys that they had better mend their ways. I guess if your intent is that you make the packers laugh themselves to death, you may be on to something.

 

[Sandhusker]

If you really believe RCALF is not targeting Canadian producers, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You can say it all you like, but that doesn't change the facts.

If you want to ignore the facts to justify being a victim in your mind, then I can't help you.

 

[Sandhusker]

Burnt, "But it is a most USEFUL tool in the packer's bag since all the legal battles undertaken by rcalf play directly into the packer's plans."

You've got to be kidding me.

Private BSE testing; Packers against - R-CALF for.
COOL; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Wide open borders; Packers for - R-CALF against.
PSA as written; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Increased competition on fats markets; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Full market disclosure on fat cattle sales; Packers against - R-CALF for.
NAIS; Packers for - R-CALF against.
Relaxing FMD import firewalls; Packers for - R-CALF against.

 

[burnt]

Burnt, "But it is a most USEFUL tool in the packer's bag since all the legal battles undertaken by rcalf play directly into the packer's plans."

You've got to be kidding me.

Private BSE testing; Packers against - R-CALF for.
COOL; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Wide open borders; Packers for - R-CALF against.
PSA as written; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Increased competition on fats markets; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Full market disclosure on fat cattle sales; Packers against - R-CALF for.
NAIS; Packers for - R-CALF against.
Relaxing FMD import firewalls; Packers for - R-CALF against.

Just the kind of reply I have come to expect from an rcalfer. Completely blind to the real issue.

Yanuck, we need an "I can't SEEEE" emoticon . . .

 

[Shaft]

Sandy, I gotta tell you it just makes my head hurt trying to rationalize two diametrically opposed concepts without having resort to the use of the word hypocrite. Ouch!

Wide open borders; Packers for - R-CALF against.

We're all in the same boat, and COOL partnered with an aggressive marketing campaign seems to me the best way to head off the flood of South American beef that the triumvirate of the NCBA/USDA/Packers are intent on bringing to our shores.

 

[burnt]

Burnt, "But it is a most USEFUL tool in the packer's bag since all the legal battles undertaken by rcalf play directly into the packer's plans."

You've got to be kidding me.

Private BSE testing; Packers against - R-CALF for.
COOL; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Wide open borders; Packers for - R-CALF against.
PSA as written; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Increased competition on fats markets; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Full market disclosure on fat cattle sales; Packers against - R-CALF for.
NAIS; Packers for - R-CALF against.
Relaxing FMD import firewalls; Packers for - R-CALF against.

You seem to have gotten stalled on the first part of the above post - would you care to address the rest of it which deals w/ ot's claim that a label will defend the consumer from contaminated foods?? :???:

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandy, I gotta tell you it just makes my head hurt trying to rationalize two diametrically opposed concepts without having resort to the use of the word hypocrite. Ouch!

Wide open borders; Packers for - R-CALF against.

We're all in the same boat, and COOL partnered with an aggressive marketing campaign seems to me the best way to head off the flood of South American beef that the triumvirate of the NCBA/USDA/Packers are intent on bringing to our shores.

There is a contradiction in those statements?

 

[Sandhusker]

Burnt, "But it is a most USEFUL tool in the packer's bag since all the legal battles undertaken by rcalf play directly into the packer's plans."

You've got to be kidding me.

Private BSE testing; Packers against - R-CALF for.
COOL; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Wide open borders; Packers for - R-CALF against.
PSA as written; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Increased competition on fats markets; Packers against - R-CALF for.
Full market disclosure on fat cattle sales; Packers against - R-CALF for.
NAIS; Packers for - R-CALF against.
Relaxing FMD import firewalls; Packers for - R-CALF against.

You seem to have gotten stalled on the first part of the above post - would you care to address the rest of it which deals w/ ot's claim that a label will defend the consumer from contaminated foods?? :???:

I don't see where OT made that claim.

 

[burnt]

. . . I don't see . . .

You are starting to come around! See, it doesn't hurt as much as you thought it might, does it!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[MoGal]

COOL isn't discounting your cattle.......... you're still bombarding us with imported beef. In 2008, Canada exported 300,000 metric tonnes per year while you import back 97,000 metric tonnes............ beef imports are putting the American beef producer at a terrible disadvantage.

But Canada remains the largest supplier of grain-fed beef to the U.S., exporting over 300,000 tonnes per year, BIC said Friday.

I presume that is metric tonnes as well..... here's the link:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/220110/canada___beef_exporters_must_adapt_to_new_rules_on_origin_.aspx

Yet, its okay to market beef as Canadian only here in the US?? and you all are complaining because Americans want USA only products?
--------------------------------------------------
here's the link for this full article: http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/bsecoverage.htm
Total U.S. beef consumption:
2002: 27.9 billion pounds
2003: 27.0 billion pounds
2004: 27.8 billion pounds
2005: 27.8 billion pounds
2006: 28.0 billion pounds
2007: 28.1 billion pounds
2008: 27.3 billion pounds

U.S. beef production (commercial carcass weight):
2002: 27.09 billion pounds
2003: 26.24 billion pounds
2004: 24.55 billion pounds
2005: 24.68 billion pounds
2006: 26.15 billion pounds
2007: 26.42 billion pounds
2008: 26.56 billion pounds

U.S. beef exports (commercial carcass weight and value):
2002: 2.447 billion pounds, $2.629 billion
2003: 2.518 billion pounds, $3.186 billion
2004: 460 million pounds, $631 million
2005: 697 million pounds, $1.031 billion
2006: 1.144 billion pounds, $1.616 billion
2007: 1.431 billion pounds, $2.175 billion
2008: 1.888 billion pounds, $2.978 billion



I think this summed it up well what is happening to the american beef producer (with a graph as well) however its from Mr. Thornsberry
http://www.agweb.com/beeftoday/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?PID=2c9859cd-62e3-4137-9f04-a6667f121f16

There's a lot of nations (and their peoples) who have this "entitlement attitude"............ they're entitled to export everything they want to the USA and the American people are just supposed to shut up and take it. .................. this is one American who will not and I'm not the only one who feels that way about it............ If these congressional leaders don't start protecting the interests of their constituents and the sovereignty of this country, they will be voted out.

 

[burnt]

Uhhmmmm, MoGal, have you looked in the mirror lately? :?

 

[Bill]

COOL isn't discounting your cattle.......... you're still bombarding us with imported beef. In 2008, Canada exported 300,000 metric tonnes per year while you import back 97,000 metric tonnes............ beef imports are putting the American beef producer at a terrible disadvantage.

But Canada remains the largest supplier of grain-fed beef to the U.S., exporting over 300,000 tonnes per year, BIC said Friday.

I presume that is metric tonnes as well..... here's the link:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/220110/canada___beef_exporters_must_adapt_to_new_rules_on_origin_.aspx

Yet, its okay to market beef as Canadian only here in the US?? and you all are complaining because Americans want USA only products?
--------------------------------------------------
here's the link for this full article: http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/bsecoverage.htm
Total U.S. beef consumption:
2002: 27.9 billion pounds
2003: 27.0 billion pounds
2004: 27.8 billion pounds
2005: 27.8 billion pounds
2006: 28.0 billion pounds
2007: 28.1 billion pounds
2008: 27.3 billion pounds

U.S. beef production (commercial carcass weight):
2002: 27.09 billion pounds
2003: 26.24 billion pounds
2004: 24.55 billion pounds
2005: 24.68 billion pounds
2006: 26.15 billion pounds
2007: 26.42 billion pounds
2008: 26.56 billion pounds

U.S. beef exports (commercial carcass weight and value):
2002: 2.447 billion pounds, $2.629 billion
2003: 2.518 billion pounds, $3.186 billion
2004: 460 million pounds, $631 million
2005: 697 million pounds, $1.031 billion
2006: 1.144 billion pounds, $1.616 billion
2007: 1.431 billion pounds, $2.175 billion
2008: 1.888 billion pounds, $2.978 billion



I think this summed it up well what is happening to the american beef producer (with a graph as well) however its from Mr. Thornsberry
http://www.agweb.com/beeftoday/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?PID=2c9859cd-62e3-4137-9f04-a6667f121f16

There's a lot of nations (and their peoples) who have this "entitlement attitude"............ they're entitled to export everything they want to the USA and the American people are just supposed to shut up and take it. .................. this is one American who will not and I'm not the only one who feels that way about it............ If these congressional leaders don't start protecting the interests of their constituents and the sovereignty of this country, they will be voted out.

Is buying US product the reason hundreds of millions beat a path to WalMart? Although some may say otherwise I think the majority of their constituents are already speaking with their wallets.

 

[burnt]

COOL isn't discounting your cattle.......... you're still bombarding us with imported beef. In 2008, Canada exported 300,000 metric tonnes per year while you import back 97,000 metric tonnes............ beef imports are putting the American beef producer at a terrible disadvantage.

But Canada remains the largest supplier of grain-fed beef to the U.S., exporting over 300,000 tonnes per year, BIC said Friday.

I presume that is metric tonnes as well..... here's the link:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/220110/canada___beef_exporters_must_adapt_to_new_rules_on_origin_.aspx

Yet, its okay to market beef as Canadian only here in the US?? and you all are complaining because Americans want USA only products?
--------------------------------------------------
here's the link for this full article: http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/bsecoverage.htm
Total U.S. beef consumption:
2002: 27.9 billion pounds
2003: 27.0 billion pounds
2004: 27.8 billion pounds
2005: 27.8 billion pounds
2006: 28.0 billion pounds
2007: 28.1 billion pounds
2008: 27.3 billion pounds

U.S. beef production (commercial carcass weight):
2002: 27.09 billion pounds
2003: 26.24 billion pounds
2004: 24.55 billion pounds
2005: 24.68 billion pounds
2006: 26.15 billion pounds
2007: 26.42 billion pounds
2008: 26.56 billion pounds

U.S. beef exports (commercial carcass weight and value):
2002: 2.447 billion pounds, $2.629 billion
2003: 2.518 billion pounds, $3.186 billion
2004: 460 million pounds, $631 million
2005: 697 million pounds, $1.031 billion
2006: 1.144 billion pounds, $1.616 billion
2007: 1.431 billion pounds, $2.175 billion
2008: 1.888 billion pounds, $2.978 billion



I think this summed it up well what is happening to the american beef producer (with a graph as well) however its from Mr. Thornsberry
http://www.agweb.com/beeftoday/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?PID=2c9859cd-62e3-4137-9f04-a6667f121f16

There's a lot of nations (and their peoples) who have this "entitlement attitude"............ they're entitled to export everything they want to the USA and the American people are just supposed to shut up and take it. .................. this is one American who will not and I'm not the only one who feels that way about it............ If these congressional leaders don't start protecting the interests of their constituents and the sovereignty of this country, they will be voted out.

Is buying US product the reason hundreds of millions beat a path to WalMart? Although some may say otherwise I think the majority of their constituents are already speaking with their wallets.

Bingo. US shoppers reportedly spend almost 1 billion dollars per day at Walmart. Most of which goes directly to China. Which is directly contributing to the national debt . . .yet she says that Americans want to buy domestic!! :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Shopping at Walmart as opposed to Target, Alco, Gibson's ect... isn't a statement on the acceptance of foreign goods as the very same imported goods are in Walmart's competitor's as well. The reason one buys, say, a Chinese manufactured fishing reel or toaster at Walmart is because there are no American made ones at any other store. For the most part, we don't have the choice to buy the Chinese good at Walmart or the US good at Target - the only choice is where to buy the Chinese product because the US made product doesn't exist any more.

 

[Kato]

And why is that? Did American manufacturers let themselves go broke by not taking charge of their own industries like Canadian cattle producers are accused of?

Brother.............. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

And why is that? Did American manufacturers let themselves go broke by not taking charge of their own industries like Canadian cattle producers are accused of?

Brother.............. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

No, the American manufacturers didn't go broke. They're the same companies just manufacturing in China instead of the US.