TexEcon, after my little 'vacation', I see you still have you own little spin machine going here.
What is it going to take to convince you that you are not infallible and all knowing? Truly, you need to understand that you simply CANNOT read the minds of packers, corporate managers and all others you insist are deliberately TRYING to harm consumers and cheat their fellow man.
I'm not the one ignorant of the facts concerning e coli and other bacteria, TexEcon!
If it does not enter the plant ON THE HIDE of animals, it is far easier to bcontain it and eliminate the possiblity of contamination of meat. It does not ONLY contaminate meat by escaping the gut due to speed of the chain, nor is speed the ONLY way the process can be compromised!
Cattle shedding the bacteria inside the plant PRIOR to being slaughtered might be stopped by refusal to accept cattle carrying e coli.
Slowing the line and "being careful" might work.......IF workers WANT to be careful, but there IS added cost. IF cost were no object to consumers, GREAT! Unfortunately, cost is a large factor in consumer choices.
TexEcon, you are very choosy about what you believe and what you reject from USDA and others. You choose to believe anything said by those who attack packers, and none of the good news about improving food safety problems due to efforts of packers and others. I'm sorry about that, but it is your choice and such a choice on your part serves no one well.
If your premise about slowing the chain speed is true, the smaller, slower, more costly packers definitely will have the advantage over the big, evil packers. That is, IF consumers truly do choose to pay more for 'slow' beef.
I've NEVER excused lead poisoning, that is simply your fantasy. I've pointed out that there are questions, there is the matter of personal responsibility to use products properly and give only the properly sized and painted toys to children young enough to chew on them, and that swallowing and choking on toys presents a more immediate danger to a small child than paint questions do. BTW, no one has posted that Walmart, among others, is making huge efforts to assure safe products. Saw that in a recent Omaha World Herald story, buried deep inside the paper, with minimal headline.
You ignore the fact that not all whistle blowers are validated. Not all unions are innocent of manipulation of facts to 'prove' the 'need' for more workers doing less work for more money.
The clothing issue, which management lost, is a moot point. Wonder if the workers were given a reasonable time frame, of if they can take their own sweet time on the clock donning protective gear???? There are frequent news stories of studies of office and factory workers showing that in many instances, there is serious slacking which dearly costs the businesses while those workers complain of 'ill treatment'. Are they all fakes???? Realizing this can work both ways, people do not have to remain in jobs where they believe themselves treated unfairly! It is also true that all too often, businesses must retain workers they know cheat them on effort expended, because of union protections of those workers.
Isn't it unreasonable, if you really think about it, to insist that packers would knowing "diminish beef demand"..........when they are more profitable selling more product????
FACT: I believe carbon monoxide packaging is beneficial to keep beef LOOKING as fresh as it IS, rather than OTHER packaging which allows beef to prematurely change color, while it STILL is perfectly fresh. It is my (or any other consumers') responsibility to observe the 'use by' date. It is the responsibility of ALL who handle that package to assure it has been kept at proper temperatures during the journey and time between processor packaging it and my purchasing it. Blaming that packaging for problems it does not cause, and which was an excellent tool developed to put the best possible quality of beef in consumers hands, is short sighted and detrimental to increasing beef demand. And you and others like you earn the blame for losing that tool which was beneficial to consumers as well as to the beef industry.
You are wrong......again......when you claim USDA is a packer led (guess you've got 'lead' on your brain!) agency. You are like a little boy seeing 'bogeymen' behind every door again!
Dang! TexEcon, your crystal ball failed again! My take on housing prices is that government under the Clintons, pushed NEW home ownership, especially to people who could in no way afford it. Those chickens have come home to roost under another administration, which will get the blame. That makes life very difficult for people like young ranching families who cannot qualify for those great government loans to build homes they desperately need, all the while paying the taxes that allow their friends in cities to get the loans to build new, when they could buy existing homes that might need a little work, but still are above available rural housing in quality.
Housing money problems is a big subject, with many angles and has NOTHING to do with my beliefs about cattle or beef prices or inflation or producers making money!
I've stated often my belief that we need beef to sell at a variety of prices based on quality grades. We need (and have) top quality selling for very high prices in excess of $100.00 per pound. We need MORE beef of that quality and selling price! We are NOT producing enough Prime grade beef!
We also have consumers who CANNOT (and some who WOULD not) pay that kind of money for beef, no matter the quality. We need beef of suitable quality and moderate prices for those consumers. We have that in reasonable supply.
We have consumers who have a hard time affording even the lowest quality and cost beef. We probably need more affordable beef they can enjoy, and the big, efficient packing industry provides more of that than the smaller, slower packers can.
We would have far less of that affordable lowest cost beef if your plan to eliminate the largest packers succeeds, therefore a significant number of consumers in this nation, and the largest pool of consumers, worldwide, could not afford ANY beef. THAT is what would REALLY drop beef demand, IMO.
Niche markets and affordable beef products to suit EVERY consumer need are what is happening now......and what we need MORE of,while improving overall quality of all beef, IMO.
TexEcon it is Luddites like YOU working to damage the current beef packing/processing/distribution system of beef without consideration of what we will have left, who are going to wreck the cattle and beef business.
Members of NCBA like myself, and other groups who recognized long ago that people in all segments of the cattle/beef industry can work together to solve our problems. Working from positions of the strengths of each segment does NOT mean that we in production are controlled by packers, nor that USDA only serves industry, nor that everyone but your own 'pure' self is on the take in some way, or taking "money under the table" as some of your cohorts claim. We all want to improve the business, starting with family ranchers and farmers, as we are the base it is all built upon. Surely you can recognize that there are factors outside any segment of the beef/cattle industries affecting profitability of us all. People in each segment of this industry blaming one another for our ills and/or canibalizing one another has not been successful in the past.........so why do you persist in it????
mrj