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

Damned Brazen Canuckleheads

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
EDMONTON - Canadian beef and pork producers want Ottawa to more vigorously oppose a U.S. plan to place country of origin labels and tracking rules on their meat products - a move they say would cost them $500 million per year.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council say the U.S. law would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization rules.

They are calling on the federal government to lobby American senators in Washington against the proposal well before next September when it is expected to go into effect.

"We believe very strongly that this violates the United States' trade obligations to Canada," said John Masswohl, a Canadian Cattlemen's Association spokesman in Ottawa.

While the federal government can't technically launch such a challenge until after the U.S. law goes into effect, the time for strong lobbying to head off the proposed plan is now, he said.

"We have asked them to signal very strongly and turn up the volume indicating that the government of Canada believes that this is a violation of those agreements.

"All they have said at this point is that they are examining the issue."

Agriculture Canada Department officials were not available for comment.

Country of origin labelling would force American companies that import Canadian cattle and pigs to slaughter them separately from U.S. animals and slap a sticker on the meat package that says "from Canada and the United States."

Meat from animals born, raised and processed in the United States would be labelled "Product of the U.S.A."

American firms would have to keep special records of the Canadian animals and track where the meat is sold.

Canadian producers fear that American slaughter facilities and supermarkets won't want the hassle or the extra cost and will stop buying Canadian animals or start demanding discounts.

Such a situation that would depress prices for pigs and cattle in both countries.

The beef industry estimates it would lose $300 million per year. Pork producers estimate they would take a $200-million per year hit - bad news for agriculture sectors already hit hard by high feed costs and the soaring Canadian dollar.

The labelling requirement is not tied to food safety and has been championed by American trade protectionist groups such as R-CALF, a ranchers' organization that fought hard to keep Canadian beef out of the U.S. after mad cow disease was discovered in an Alberta cow in 2003.

"There is no evidence that U.S. consumers are concerned about the food safety of product coming from Canada," said Martin Rice, executive director of the Canadian Pork Council.

"Many people in the U.S. industry that support this legislation have acknowledged that there is not any food safety reason for this labelling regulation - it is simply to make it harder for people to purchase products from other than U.S. sources."

It makes more sense for Ottawa to head off the labelling issue before it is brought in than to fight it as a trade dispute issue after the fact in a process that could take years, he said.

"They should be doing it over the next couple of weeks," Rice said from Ottawa. "Our embassy will be needing to make appropriate visits with U.S. senators, U.S. lawmakers."

Having a cabinet minister involved in the lobbying wouldn't hurt, he added.

"This is a disaster. We are in a perfect storm of challenging circumstances for our industry."

The Canadian government has formally opposed the mandatory labelling plan in writing.

In a submission to the U.S. government Canada has said that the proposal will undo 18 years of trade benefits the two countries have enjoyed since NAFTA was first signed.

"The current (labelling) law is clearly discriminatory, costly and backwards," says Canada's submission.

"Mandatory labelling is not in the best interests of the U.S. nor of its closest trading partners."

Some Canadian industry officials say they don't understand why Ottawa isn't doing more to thwart the labelling law and its implications.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is from Alberta where cattle producers are still dealing with the economic fallout from the years the U.S. market was closed to Canadian beef because of mad cow disease.

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz is from Saskatchewan, a province which is a major hog exporter.

But for some reason, country of origin labelling isn't getting the attention from the federal government that it deserves, Masswohl said.

"They (federal officials) tell us that this is an important issue, they recognize its importance and they have spoken to their counterparts about it," he said.

"We think they need to do more."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
/4/2007 1:08:00 PM

CFIA Rethinking Chinese Poultry Ban

According to a report in the Ottawa Citizen, The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is looking at changes to a current ban on Chinese poultry.

Fresh poultry from China is banned because of concerns about avian flu and Newcastle disease - the first because it can affect humans, and the latter because it could affect Canada's chickens.

The CFIA has begun studying a Chinese request to re-examine the blanket ban, but any changes would likely be limited to cooked and canned poultry clearly marked as a product of China, the director of the agency's meat program said.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Who the hell is "we"? That is the question that I plan to ask this M asswhole (sp) fellow when he pops in to one of our ABP zone meetings this fall. I think that he thinks that all of the ABP/CCA money that went into his and other negotiators pockets to get that border open was money well spent. Just like the dipshits at Rcalf who spent producers dollars on something that was and is completely out of their hands.

Not that I jump up and down and support cool, but I certainly do not support the scum sucking pirates who don't have the guts to sell true Canadian product and keep the damn label on it from Canadian soil through to the American consumer.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The Canadians say would cost them $500 million per year FOR COOL .

If they talk to me about using ScoringAg to do the US. COOL law,I can save them about $400 million .
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
rkaiser said:
Who the hell is "we"? That is the question that I plan to ask this M asswhole (sp) fellow when he pops in to one of our ABP zone meetings this fall. I think that he thinks that all of the ABP/CCA money that went into his and other negotiators pockets to get that border open was money well spent. Just like the dipshits at Rcalf who spent producers dollars on something that was and is completely out of their hands.

Not that I jump up and down and support cool, but I certainly do not support the scum sucking pirates
who don't have the guts to sell true Canadian product and keep the damn label on it from Canadian soil through to the American consumer.

:clap: .................bring it on Kaiser,that's what I like plain ole honesty,label your product and let the consumer decide..............good luck
 

TimH

Well-known member
Hey Haymaker, What the hell does "brazen" mean??? Isn't that what you used to do to the fenders on your John Deere B's before you got a mig-welder??? :D

Live CDN cattle are hot-iron branded witha CAN. Boxed beef is labelled "Product of Canada".
Please tell me what else I can do to help. I'm selling all my cows,renting out my pasture and selling all my hay from now on. That should cut down on the supply of "diseased Canuck cattle" entering your homeland.
If there is anything else I can do to improve your bottom line,please feel free to let me know. :roll: :wink:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
I saw some Canadian salmon in Sam's...and I bought some! :D
I guess the seafood folks aren't part of the packer's lobby. :roll:
 

Kato

Well-known member
I buy Alaskan salmon all the time. :D

The issue is that under NAFTA, beef is designated a product of whatever country it is processed in. Therefore it only really affects beef from live animal imports. We label U.S. beef as Canadian if it is processed here. I think if you asked consumers, it's the processing that they want to have confidence in more that where the animal grew up.

I wouldn't touch the best quality top of the line steer if it was processed in some dump that had no standards, no matter where it grew up.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
TimH said:
Hey Haymaker, What the hell does "brazen" mean??? Isn't that what you used to do to the fenders on your John Deere B's before you got a mig-welder??? :D

Live CDN cattle are hot-iron branded witha CAN. Boxed beef is labelled "Product of Canada".
Please tell me what else I can do to help. I'm selling all my cows,renting out my pasture and selling all my hay from now on. That should cut down on the supply of "diseased Canuck cattle" entering your homeland.
If there is anything else I can do to improve your bottom line,please feel free to let me know.
:roll: :wink:

For a start you can lobby your law makers,get you some packer laws,get involved in your local cattlemans group,promote fair trade,vote out folks like big dummie and Miss Tam that carry the packers water bucket,this canadian captive supply has got to stop...............good luck
PS it would'nt hurt to get a effective feed ban,and comply.
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Congress writes the laws in this country, not NAFTA.



Sandhusker, you are wrong on this statement! Congress writes the laws they are directed to, by the multi-national corporations, that NAFTA benefits!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker said:
Congress writes the laws in this country, not NAFTA.



Sandhusker, you are wrong on this statement! Congress writes the laws they are directed to, by the multi-national corporations, that NAFTA benefits!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Unfortunately for all of us, I'll have to give you that one, Ben.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker said:
Congress writes the laws in this country, not NAFTA.



Sandhusker, you are wrong on this statement! Congress writes the laws they are directed to, by the multi-national corporations, that NAFTA benefits!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben Roberts,you are wrong,congress writes the laws they are directed to by special interest groups also,this includes a cattlemans group called R Calf................good luck
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker said:
Congress writes the laws in this country, not NAFTA.



Sandhusker, you are wrong on this statement! Congress writes the laws they are directed to, by the multi-national corporations, that NAFTA benefits!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben Roberts,you are wrong,congress writes the laws they are directed to by special interest groups also,this includes a cattlemans group called R Calf................good luck



Hay Maker, give me an example of a law, congress has written, and was passed into law, for the special interest group R-CALF.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ben Roberts said:
HAY MAKER said:
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker, you are wrong on this statement! Congress writes the laws they are directed to, by the multi-national corporations, that NAFTA benefits!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben Roberts,you are wrong,congress writes the laws they are directed to by special interest groups also,this includes a cattlemans group called R Calf................good luck



Hay Maker, give me an example of a law, congress has written, and was passed into law, for the special interest group R-CALF.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

M-COOL-- It is a law-- but hasn't been enforced by a crooked administration...
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
HAY MAKER said:
Ben Roberts said:
Sandhusker, you are wrong on this statement! Congress writes the laws they are directed to, by the multi-national corporations, that NAFTA benefits!


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben Roberts,you are wrong,congress writes the laws they are directed to by special interest groups also,this includes a cattlemans group called R Calf................good luck



Hay Maker, give me an example of a law, congress has written, and was passed into law, for the special interest group R-CALF.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Ben,you sound like the law writing process has ended,R Calf is a young assc.given time R Calf will be very insturmental in getting existing laws changed and new laws passed that will benefit the cattle man...........good luck
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
HAY MAKER Ben Roberts said:
Hay Maker, you are the one that made this statement. I'm sorry R-CALF has had their issues, when they first organized, I was in hopes that they would be the organization cattle producers could get behind and make some needed changes for producers on both sides of the 49th. The founders of R-CALF are friends of mine and always will be, until the organization takes a different position, they will not be an inpact in Washington D.C. Believe what you care to Hay Maker, you still need to give me an example, to back up the statement you made.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
HAY MAKER Ben Roberts said:
Hay Maker, you are the one that made this statement. I'm sorry R-CALF has had their issues, when they first organized, I was in hopes that they would be the organization cattle producers could get behind and make some needed changes for producers on both sides of the 49th. The founders of R-CALF are friends of mine and always will be, until the organization takes a different position, they will not be an inpact in Washington D.C. Believe what you care to Hay Maker, you still need to give me an example, to back up the statement you made.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Maybe I need to explain this slower,congress writes laws for special interests groups,this includes R Calf................good luck
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Ben Roberts said:
HAY MAKER Ben Roberts said:
Hay Maker, you are the one that made this statement. I'm sorry R-CALF has had their issues, when they first organized, I was in hopes that they would be the organization cattle producers could get behind and make some needed changes for producers on both sides of the 49th. The founders of R-CALF are friends of mine and always will be, until the organization takes a different position, they will not be an inpact in Washington D.C. Believe what you care to Hay Maker, you still need to give me an example, to back up the statement you made.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Maybe I need to explain this slower,congress writes laws for special interests groups,this includes R Calf................good luck


Slower, I don't think so! Your two statements are not the same.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
HAY MAKER said:
Ben Roberts said:
HAY MAKER Ben Roberts said:
Hay Maker, you are the one that made this statement. I'm sorry R-CALF has had their issues, when they first organized, I was in hopes that they would be the organization cattle producers could get behind and make some needed changes for producers on both sides of the 49th. The founders of R-CALF are friends of mine and always will be, until the organization takes a different position, they will not be an inpact in Washington D.C. Believe what you care to Hay Maker, you still need to give me an example, to back up the statement you made.


Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Maybe I need to explain this slower,congress writes laws for special interests groups,this includes R Calf................good luck


Slower, I don't think so!
Your two statements are not the same
.


Best Regards

Ben Roberts

Very Good Ben,very Good ! Now give yourself an A for tenacity,give yourself a B for attentiveness and a C for reading comprehension.
I think you are beginning to see my point,and yes there are several ways to word a sentence,with the same meaning.........Very Good Ben,very Good.
good luck

PS shall we proceed with lesson 2 ?
 
Top