Mandatory country-of-origin labeling

[rancher]

If they could make more money by segregating foreign beef and advertising U.S. beef THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT. They don't need some wanna be steer jock banker telling them how to market beef

.


You hit the nail on the head, they can make more with cheap imports than have label the beef . Why do you think they don't want to label? Paper work? M'ID will create more paper work for them, but as long as they don't have to put a label on it they don't care.

 

[Tam]

Tam, "Sorry R-Calfer have said it though"

One person of a group of 18,000 said something, so it applies to everybody in that group? Come on, Tam.
Tam, "If they spent half as much time working with the rest of the industry as they do taking people to court the industry designed M'ID could have been up and running like it is in Canada and you wouldn't have to worry about backroom dealings ."

You're still not hearing me, Tam. The packers are doing all they can to kill COOL, and it would not require near as much documentation (cost) as M-ID. How are we going to get M-ID if we can't even get COOL?

Tam, "Those decrepancies to you are new rules based on the new science to most other."

That doesn't make sense. What did you say? You somehow try to lay blame on R-CALF that the US's ID system lags much of the world's systems, but you don't seem to have a problem with our import requirements of BSE positive countries being lower than much of the world's as well. You're kind of selective, aren't you?

I did apologized but you are not man enough to except it are you?

If it is wrong for me to tie you as a member of Rancher-Cattlemen Legal Fund United Stockergrower of America to what the group has said in the past Why is it prefectly fine for R-CALF to tie every producer in Canada to three cases of BSE in Alberta. We are not UNITED. Are you saying R-CALF isn't the VOICE of their own members let alone Cattle Producers in general.

Sandhusker you are blaming your inablility to get anything done in your industry on the Packers in the US. So I ask you how did our smaller industry get our M"ID" system up and running if we are dealing with TWO of the BIGGEST US PACKERS. Maybe it is not the packers maybe it is those in your industry that don't want to take responibility for the cattle they product.

I have to go but I will get back to you on the other pouint in this post.

 

[Econ101]

Agman brought up the trivia on the value of imports to the U.S. Too bad it is all value that goes to the packers and consumers. The U.S. has had a bad habit of viewing economics as solely consumer and margin operators. That negates the value of the producers. Oh well, we can just buy everything from China. They have all their producers under communism where labor is cheaper. "Lowest cost means most efficient." Communism is efficient, I guess.

I guess Johanns has to keep going out on farm forums asking how to get more people in agriculture. That is the problem with viewing anti-trust as only a consumer issue and not an economic balance of producers and consumers. You start losing producers. Lets keep a cheap food policy and run all the food production out of the country. I wonder what Homeland Security thinks of that. They should have learned their lessons from hurricane Katrina. This short term thinking for corporate gain is hurting us in the long run. Is there an inverse relationship between time elected officials are in D.C. and their long term vs. short term thinking?

 

[STAFF]

Quote:
Scoring Systems: "Our cost factor for the packer to retail averages $0.0025 per labeled packaged product for traceback recordkeeping. It's quite CHEAP."


SH Quote;That's only the cost of your tracking system. That doesn't have a damn thing to do with the costs of segregation of cattle or the costs of enforcement.

Nice deception considering the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in your eyes!

With our meat plant system SH we do not need Segergation of Cattle with our inplant tracking system for each cut of primals and sub-primals as the total data is moved with the animal parts on the fly.Do you need a test in your plant? we are setting up the big Brazilian plants as of now.We built the system for the smallest packer or locker to the big boys in South America.

 

[Tam]

Sandhusker

You never answered me why your concern doesn't extend to the US's BSE importing/exporting discrepancies

Quote from OIE

The Code also draws attention to the obligations under the provisions of the World Trade Organization-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (WTO-SPS), whereby the importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that its measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.
The OIE chapter on BSE currently describes five levels of exporting country status based on their determined risk level (free, provisionally free, minimal risk, moderate risk and high risk). It then addresses trade conditions for various commodities through an increasing degree of restrictions commensurate with the risks presented. For example, fresh meat may be imported safely from a country of any BSE status but with increasing restrictions so that, for countries presenting a high BSE risk, more severe measures are applied to the cattle and to the meat itself. The experts consider that, if these measures are followed, the meat is safe.
For some commodities however, the experts have determined that particular commodities should not be exported even from countries presenting a low BSE risk. For example, meat and bone meal, or any commodity containing such products, which originate from countries with minimal, moderate or high BSE risk should not be traded.
It is apparent that some Member Countries are applying trade bans when an exporting country reports the presence of BSE, without consulting the recommendations in the Code or conducting a risk analysis in accordance with its OIE and WTO obligations. While the Code provides increasingly restrictive recommendations which are commensurate with the level of BSE risk in each of the country status categories, it does not recommend any other ban than the above mentioned on trade of animals or specific animal products.
Regarding the BSE situation in the European Union and more recently in Japan, Canada and the US, the existence of valid up-to-date standards did not prevent major trade disruptions due to a failure by many countries to apply the international standard when establishing or revising their import policies. This has been particularly evident in the case of commodities for which the Code recommends that no restrictions be applied, regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country.
Except for short trade suspensions during investigation period following a new epidemiological event, it is of particular concern to the OIE that many countries apply trade bans when an exporting country reports its first case of BSE, without having conducted a risk analysis as described in the Code. Such situations penalise countries with a good and transparent surveillance system for animal diseases and zoonoses, and which have demonstrated their ability to control the risks identified. This may result in a reluctance to report future cases and an increased likelihood of disease spread internationally.
January 2004

Quote from the OIE report to Canada

The team is impressed with the comprehensive scope, level of analysis and thoroughness of the investigation to date. In a very short time Canadian experts have collected and assessed a level of information that exceeds the investigations done in most other BSE-affected countries. This serves as a testament to the competence, capacity and dedication of effort of Canadian officials.
The investigation has looked at both the circumstances surrounding the index case of BSE and the macro-epidemiological risk factors which have contributed to the expression and detection of the first indigenous case in North America.
It is important to acknowledge that measures previously in place achieved their designed outcome as demonstrated by the identification of the positive animal in a manner which precluded its entry into the human food chain. Furthermore, the various risk management measures implemented by Canada over a number of years have reduced the risks of spread and amplification of the disease.
The team applauds the proactive examination of industry characteristics (rendering industry, feed formulation, feeding and husbandry practices on farm and the surveillance activities) that is essential to a full understanding of the complex interrelationships of factors associated with the disease. The Canadian regulators, veterinary profession and livestock industries have learned in a demonstrable way from the experiences of other countries which have been affected by BSE, and have applied that knowledge beneficially.

Quote from the OIE report to the USDA

Therefore, the subcommittee recommends that the US should demonstrate leadership in trade matters by adopting import/export policy in accordance with international standards, and thus encourage the discontinuation of irrational trade barriers when countries identify their first case of BSE.

Now the USDA did the risk analysis, the OIE even agrees we understand the risk and are doing a good job at controling it. The USDA were encouraged to follow those standards that say lift the BAN. When they do what is RECOMMENDED BY THE OIE you scream about discrepancies. The only discrepancies are the one in the R-CALF story you seem to want to believe not in what the USDA is trying to do under the recommendation of the OIE.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, Egypt has higher import standards standards than we do

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Tam, Egypt has higher import standards standards than we do

Sandhusker did you ever think that maybe Egypt has high domestic standards then the US. You want to put high syandards on imported beef then what you have for your own.

 

[Anonymous]

Elementary: "Agman brought up the trivia on the value of imports to the U.S. Too bad it is all value that goes to the packers and consumers."

Once again, you reveal your complete ignorance of this industry.

If you knew anything about the U.S. cattle industry's quest for "choice" carcasses, you would know that there is a ton of seam fat that goes with it that is basically worthless. It's called 50/50 trim. Know what we do with that 50/50 trim since nobody wants to buy a 50% fat hamburger?

WE IMPORT LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM. THAT IS A PRICE POSITIVE SITUATION FOR U.S. PRODUCERS SINCE SUPPLYING IT DOMESTICALLY WOULD MEAN REDUCING THE VALUE OF OUR CHUCKS AND ROUNDS. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CULL COWS TO COVER THIS NEED!

In other words, for the mentally incompetant such as you, OUR CATTLE WOULD BE WORTH LESS MONEY IF PACKERS DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF IMPORTING LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM.

Go ahead, try to refute that! Once again you don't know what the hell you are talking about.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Yeh Sandman, I have heard of Brazil.

Tell us what percentage of our live cattle and beef imports are currently from Brazil OR DIVERT LIKE YOU USUALLY DO?

Tell us what percentage of Brazil's cattle are cornfed and would compete with us from a quality standpoint OR DIVERT LIKE YOU USUALLY DO?

Tell us about hoof and mouth in Brazil OR DIVERT LIKE YOU USUALLY DO?


Let me know when your sky really does fall, fear mongerer!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Yeh Sandman, I have heard of Brazil.

Tell us what percentage of our live cattle and beef imports are currently from Brazil OR DIVERT LIKE YOU USUALLY DO?

Tell us what percentage of Brazil's cattle are cornfed and would compete with us from a quality standpoint OR DIVERT LIKE YOU USUALLY DO?

Tell us about hoof and mouth in Brazil OR DIVERT LIKE YOU USUALLY DO?


Let me know when your sky really does fall, fear mongerer!

At this time our imports from Brazil don't amount to a whole lot. However, they have said they want to feed the world and have the largest herd in the world. Their exports are rising very fast as their plan is being implemented. US multinational packing companies are positioning themselves down there already. They want more access to our markets.

Tell me, SH, do you wait until you go outside and actually get cold before you put your coat on? Have you ever put your coat while you were still in the house?



~SH~

 

[PORKER]

For example, fresh meat may be imported safely from a country of any BSE status but with increasing restrictions so that, for countries presenting a high BSE risk, more severe measures are applied to the cattle and to the meat itself.
SH, tell us how many American Farmers Moved to Brazil in the last 20 years?

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, Egypt has higher import standards standards than we do

Sandhusker did you ever think that maybe Egypt has high domestic standards then the US. You want to put high syandards on imported beef then what you have for your own.

Egypt has higher domestic standards than the US? Are you serious? Egypt? Come on, BMR, you can't possibly believe that.

No, BMR, you are totally wrong about me wanting having higher standards on imported beef than our own. Right now, we have lower standards, and that makes no sense from a consumer's standpoint or from the standpoint of wanting to be seen as the world's purveyor of the highest quality beef.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Tam, Egypt has higher import standards standards than we do

Sandhusker did you ever think that maybe Egypt has high domestic standards then the US. You want to put high syandards on imported beef then what you have for your own.

Egypt has higher domestic standards than the US? Are you serious? Egypt? Come on, BMR, you can't possibly believe that.

No, BMR, you are totally wrong about me wanting having higher standards on imported beef than our own. Right now, we have lower standards, and that makes no sense from a consumer's standpoint or from the standpoint of wanting to be seen as the world's purveyor of the highest quality beef.

Maybe your a "LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND" you want to be the "PURVEYORS" of the worlds finesnt beef but keep DREAMING. :cowboy:

 

[Econ101]

Elementary: "Agman brought up the trivia on the value of imports to the U.S. Too bad it is all value that goes to the packers and consumers."

Once again, you reveal your complete ignorance of this industry.

If you knew anything about the U.S. cattle industry's quest for "choice" carcasses, you would know that there is a ton of seam fat that goes with it that is basically worthless. It's called 50/50 trim. Know what we do with that 50/50 trim since nobody wants to buy a 50% fat hamburger?

WE IMPORT LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM. THAT IS A PRICE POSITIVE SITUATION FOR U.S. PRODUCERS SINCE SUPPLYING IT DOMESTICALLY WOULD MEAN REDUCING THE VALUE OF OUR CHUCKS AND ROUNDS. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CULL COWS TO COVER THIS NEED!

In other words, for the mentally incompetant such as you, OUR CATTLE WOULD BE WORTH LESS MONEY IF PACKERS DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF IMPORTING LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM.

Go ahead, try to refute that! Once again you don't know what the hell you are talking about.



~SH~

SH, that hamburger meat that used up the fat replaced domestic production for hamburger. To claim that using excess fat with the use of imports helps the domestic producers is ludicrous.

That argument is about as persuasive as your argument that making ofal into MBM to be sold as cattle feed creates "efficiencies" in the cattle industry. Ask any Canadian the answer to that one.
There is a reason Agman did not answer my post.

By the way, when I cook bacon, I usually throw out the fat.

 

[Tam]

Elementary: "Agman brought up the trivia on the value of imports to the U.S. Too bad it is all value that goes to the packers and consumers."

Once again, you reveal your complete ignorance of this industry.

If you knew anything about the U.S. cattle industry's quest for "choice" carcasses, you would know that there is a ton of seam fat that goes with it that is basically worthless. It's called 50/50 trim. Know what we do with that 50/50 trim since nobody wants to buy a 50% fat hamburger?

WE IMPORT LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM. THAT IS A PRICE POSITIVE SITUATION FOR U.S. PRODUCERS SINCE SUPPLYING IT DOMESTICALLY WOULD MEAN REDUCING THE VALUE OF OUR CHUCKS AND ROUNDS. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CULL COWS TO COVER THIS NEED!

In other words, for the mentally incompetant such as you, OUR CATTLE WOULD BE WORTH LESS MONEY IF PACKERS DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF IMPORTING LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM.

Go ahead, try to refute that! Once again you don't know what the hell you are talking about.



~SH~

SH, that hamburger meat that used up the fat replaced domestic production for hamburger. To claim that using excess fat with the use of imports helps the domestic producers is ludicrous.

That argument is about as persuasive as your argument that making ofal into MBM to be sold as cattle feed creates "efficiencies" in the cattle industry. Ask any Canadian the answer to that one.
There is a reason Agman did not answer my post.

By the way, when I cook bacon, I usually throw out the fat.

So Econ you are saying it would be better for the processors to just toss the 50/50 trim from every animal and dock the producers cheque that amount than it would be for them to import some lean trim and add value to the 50/50 and sell it so the producer don't have to be docked. Well this tells us just what kind of an economist you are. Wasteful is all I can think and in a world that have people that can't afford to eat three balanced meals a day. :roll:

 

[Beefman]

Elementary: "Agman brought up the trivia on the value of imports to the U.S. Too bad it is all value that goes to the packers and consumers."

Once again, you reveal your complete ignorance of this industry.

If you knew anything about the U.S. cattle industry's quest for "choice" carcasses, you would know that there is a ton of seam fat that goes with it that is basically worthless. It's called 50/50 trim. Know what we do with that 50/50 trim since nobody wants to buy a 50% fat hamburger?

WE IMPORT LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM. THAT IS A PRICE POSITIVE SITUATION FOR U.S. PRODUCERS SINCE SUPPLYING IT DOMESTICALLY WOULD MEAN REDUCING THE VALUE OF OUR CHUCKS AND ROUNDS. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CULL COWS TO COVER THIS NEED!

In other words, for the mentally incompetant such as you, OUR CATTLE WOULD BE WORTH LESS MONEY IF PACKERS DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF IMPORTING LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM.

Go ahead, try to refute that! Once again you don't know what the hell you are talking about.



~SH~

SH, that hamburger meat that used up the fat replaced domestic production for hamburger. To claim that using excess fat with the use of imports helps the domestic producers is ludicrous.

That argument is about as persuasive as your argument that making ofal into MBM to be sold as cattle feed creates "efficiencies" in the cattle industry. Ask any Canadian the answer to that one.
There is a reason Agman did not answer my post.

By the way, when I cook bacon, I usually throw out the fat.

Lots of innovation, funded by R&D from checkoff funds has yielded new products from both the chuck and round. Flat irons, petite tenders just to name a few. Bottom line, more value from those cuts that used to go in the grinder with the trim. Why would we not want to add more value to the beef carcass?

Much like your reference to bacon. An excellent way to add value to whole muscle cuts that otherwise have little value.

Beefman

 

[STAFF]

SH ,Do you or does your plant need a test of non segregation of cattle tracking system from www.scoringag.com ?
Quote:
ScoringAg Systems: "Our cost factor for the packer to retail averages $0.0025 per labeled packaged product for traceback recordkeeping. It's quite CHEAP."


SH Quote;That's only the cost of your tracking system. That doesn't have a damn thing to do with the costs of segregation of cattle or the costs of enforcement.

Nice deception considering the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in your eyes!

With our meat plant system SH we do not need Segergation of Cattle with our inplant tracking system for each cut of primals and sub-primals as the total data is moved with the animal parts on the fly.Do you need a test in your plant?

 

[Econ101]

Once again, you reveal your complete ignorance of this industry.

If you knew anything about the U.S. cattle industry's quest for "choice" carcasses, you would know that there is a ton of seam fat that goes with it that is basically worthless. It's called 50/50 trim. Know what we do with that 50/50 trim since nobody wants to buy a 50% fat hamburger?

WE IMPORT LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM. THAT IS A PRICE POSITIVE SITUATION FOR U.S. PRODUCERS SINCE SUPPLYING IT DOMESTICALLY WOULD MEAN REDUCING THE VALUE OF OUR CHUCKS AND ROUNDS. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CULL COWS TO COVER THIS NEED!

In other words, for the mentally incompetant such as you, OUR CATTLE WOULD BE WORTH LESS MONEY IF PACKERS DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF IMPORTING LEAN TRIMMINGS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND TO ADD VALUE TO OUR SURPLUS 50/50 TRIM.

Go ahead, try to refute that! Once again you don't know what the hell you are talking about.



~SH~

SH, that hamburger meat that used up the fat replaced domestic production for hamburger. To claim that using excess fat with the use of imports helps the domestic producers is ludicrous.

That argument is about as persuasive as your argument that making ofal into MBM to be sold as cattle feed creates "efficiencies" in the cattle industry. Ask any Canadian the answer to that one.
There is a reason Agman did not answer my post.

By the way, when I cook bacon, I usually throw out the fat.

Lots of innovation, funded by R&D from checkoff funds has yielded new products from both the chuck and round. Flat irons, petite tenders just to name a few. Bottom line, more value from those cuts that used to go in the grinder with the trim. Why would we not want to add more value to the beef carcass?

Much like your reference to bacon. An excellent way to add value to whole muscle cuts that otherwise have little value.

Beefman

Beefman, I have been eating those cuts of meat for a long time. They are nothing new. Just marketing.

I can tell you one thing, those cuts of meat are a lot better from a choice beef than a select beef.

Steak and Shake say they use the whole carcass in their hamburgers and my kids like them. They get a pretty penny for the meat in those hamburgers.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker did you ever think that maybe Egypt has high domestic standards then the US. You want to put high syandards on imported beef then what you have for your own.

Egypt has higher domestic standards than the US? Are you serious? Egypt? Come on, BMR, you can't possibly believe that.

No, BMR, you are totally wrong about me wanting having higher standards on imported beef than our own. Right now, we have lower standards, and that makes no sense from a consumer's standpoint or from the standpoint of wanting to be seen as the world's purveyor of the highest quality beef.

Maybe your a "LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND" you want to be the "PURVEYORS" of the worlds finesnt beef but keep DREAMING. :cowboy:

You know, BMR, I think that statement shows that you really haven't thought out what your problems up there are from, where you want your industry to go, and how to get there. I think you just want to fight R-CALF on whatever stand they take. I'm not trying to poke you in the chest, but that is my honest take and here's why.

COOL - if you truly think your beef and beef infrastructure is superior to ours, it is in your best interest that we have COOL. Right now, the vast majority of your beef is being sold as US. What kind of businessman would be satisfied with their superior product being sold as a lessor? Why would you go to the trouble and expense of any kind of traceback or animal ID if your product is lumped with someone who has no comparable system? You're getting no return on your investment.

You get on R-CALF becasue we reject the notion of a North American industry, and you chide us because we're furious our government has laxer standards that our customers. If you're going to profit from an allied industry and you're to get any benefit from that association, you want your partner to have a solid reputation. How can we have that solid reputation when we accept product nobody else will?

R-CALF is mad as hell that the big packers call the shots at the USDA and our stand is that agency capture has got to be reversed. You chide us for that, when you have the exact same problem up there! You have lost your industry up there to US packers and now you're just a bunch of cats on the US packers steps hoping to get a little milk. For the most part, there is no Canadian packing industry, only US packers in Canada - and you have to go thru them. But, I guess you don't mind being dependant on Americans and having to dance to whatever we fiddle.

Right now, you can't seperate yourself from us, so you'd better hope the world sees us as the supplier of the highest qualtiy product in the world.

 

[Tam]

Egypt has higher domestic standards than the US? Are you serious? Egypt? Come on, BMR, you can't possibly believe that.

No, BMR, you are totally wrong about me wanting having higher standards on imported beef than our own. Right now, we have lower standards, and that makes no sense from a consumer's standpoint or from the standpoint of wanting to be seen as the world's purveyor of the highest quality beef.

Maybe your a "LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND" you want to be the "PURVEYORS" of the worlds finesnt beef but keep DREAMING. :cowboy:

You know, BMR, I think that statement shows that you really haven't thought out what your problems up there are from, where you want your industry to go, and how to get there. I think you just want to fight R-CALF on whatever stand they take. I'm not trying to poke you in the chest, but that is my honest take and here's why.

COOL - if you truly think your beef and beef infrastructure is superior to ours, it is in your best interest that we have COOL. Right now, the vast majority of your beef is being sold as US. What kind of businessman would be satisfied with their superior product being sold as a lessor? Why would you go to the trouble and expense of any kind of traceback or animal ID if your product is lumped with someone who has no comparable system? You're getting no return on your investment.

You get on R-CALF becasue we reject the notion of a North American industry, and you chide us because we're furious our government has laxer standards that our customers. If you're going to profit from an allied industry and you're to get any benefit from that association, you want your partner to have a solid reputation. How can we have that solid reputation when we accept product nobody else will?

R-CALF is mad as hell that the big packers call the shots at the USDA and our stand is that agency capture has got to be reversed. You chide us for that, when you have the exact same problem up there! You have lost your industry up there to US packers and now you're just a bunch of cats on the US packers steps hoping to get a little milk. For the most part, there is no Canadian packing industry, only US packers in Canada - and you have to go thru them. But, I guess you don't mind being dependant on Americans and having to dance to whatever we fiddle.

Right now, you can't seperate yourself from us, so you'd better hope the world sees us as the supplier of the highest qualtiy product in the world.

Just how much of our beef would actually be labeled with you flawed COOL law Sandhusker?

Your reputation is also tied to what your trading partners are seeing you do within the US like BSE TESTING, SRM REMOVAL, COMPLIANCE TO FEED BANS, LACK OF TRACEABILITY and LACK of A AGE VERIFICATION SYSTEM BY BIRTH DATE on your WHOLE HERD. Your problem is that you think they are looking at your import rules but what they are really looking at are the rules or lack of them and the compliance or lack of compliance to those rules you do have. I think you are pretty short sighted if you think otherwise. And as long as we are tied to you because of a hundred plus years of trading cattle and feed your industries shortfalls will drag us all down. That is why most producers are mad. R-CALF is great at making our industry look as if it is the one that has the shortfalls but the truth is it is yours. If you don't think so just look at our record compared to yours.
BSE testing: we test the recommended cattle with the right test, you on the other hand got caught not testing targeted cattle and got caught using the wrong test.
SRM removal: no reports of Canadian plants not removing them but you on the other hand had plant inspectors reporting violations.
Feed Bans: CFIA improved our feed bans and has good records to prove compliance but you on the other hand have a GAO report describing the problemS with the Feed bans and the compliance don't you. And the USDA and the FDA have yet to improve them to cover some possible cross contamination products.
Trace and Age: We have Traceability to birth place on whole herd and a good start on the age vertification but you are still trying to figure out how to get COOL past the packers in the US so you don't have time to work on what your marketplace is actually demanding, Traceability. The funny thing is you don't think you can get M"ID" to fly in the US because of the Packers but you are dealing with the same US Packers as we were when we got it to FLY.

Sandhusker if we have lost the control of our industry to the BIG US PACKERS like you say why is it that we as an industry implimented our National ID program but you on the other hand blame those same US packers that we are dealing with in Canada for your inability to do the same?