More Brazilian Beef to US????

[Anonymous]

National & World Ag News Headlines
Brazil Will Push to Open U.S. Borders to Brazilian Beef
USAgNet - 11/01/2005

The Brazzil Magazine is reporting that Brazil will be honoring the visiting United States president with a typical South American barbecue, despite the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in several Brazilian southern states, which prompted over 40 countries to temporarily ban beef imports from the world's largest exporter.
President Bush is scheduled to visit Brazil early next month following the Americas summit in Mar del Plata, Argentina, and President Lula da Silva has already anticipated that the distinguished leader, and Texan, will enjoy a display of "gaucho" culinary barbecue art when in Brasilia.

At least 14 FAM outbreaks have been officially reported in five states, including Sao Paulo, which have dealt a mighty blow to the powerful Brazilian meat industry with exports well over US$ 3 billion annually.

Trade and Industry Minister Luiz Fernando Furlan said Brazilian authorities will take advantage of the occasion to insist on the United States, the world's largest market for beef, to further open to the Brazilian product.

Restrictions on imports of Brazilian beef to the U.S. continue precisely because of the foot-and-mouth issue.

"Our main salesman is Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and he is going to serve President Bush products that are not on the table of U.S. consumers", Furlan is quoted Thursday in the daily Folha de S. Paulo.

At least 45 countries have imposed partial or complete bans on Brazilian beef imports since the outbreaks earlier this month.

Neighboring Argentina, fearing the quick spread of FAM, declared this week a state of sanitary alert and set up a strict network of sanitary controls along the Brazilian frontier with the support from Customs and armed border patrol guards.

 

[Sandhusker]

This is where it starts. We need to seriously look ahead a few years, see where this could end up, and prepare today. As Randy has pointed out, putting our heads where the sun doesn't shine and letting the cards fall as they may is clearly not in our best interests. How many clues do we need to show us Brazilian beef is coming? We won't be the ones profitting, folks.

I still suggest a pointed checkoff advertising campaign promoting US beef only to get our customers in the habit of using our product and viewing our beef as the best and COOL as a means for them to find our product. The current COOL legislation has flaws? Let's fix 'em. It's much easier to fix the gate before the cows get on the meadow than it is to get them off.

 

[mrj]

This is where it starts. We need to seriously look ahead a few years, see where this could end up, and prepare today. As Randy has pointed out, putting our heads where the sun doesn't shine and letting the cards fall as they may is clearly not in our best interests. How many clues do we need to show us Brazilian beef is coming? We won't be the ones profitting, folks.

I still suggest a pointed checkoff advertising campaign promoting US beef only to get our customers in the habit of using our product and viewing our beef as the best and COOL as a means for them to find our product. The current COOL legislation has flaws? Let's fix 'em. It's much easier to fix the gate before the cows get on the meadow than it is to get them off.

The fatal flaws of COOL have been enumerated many times. Once again, trade law/rules prevent labeling only the imported beef. COOL supporters insistence on no trace-back of domestic beef tells consumers we might have something to hide, as well as the very real danger in not being able to track dangerous food borne illness in domestic beef, the majority of the beef sold in the USA.

M-ID will make COOL redundant and give true beef safety while COOL only gives the illusion of safety.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

This is where it starts. We need to seriously look ahead a few years, see where this could end up, and prepare today. As Randy has pointed out, putting our heads where the sun doesn't shine and letting the cards fall as they may is clearly not in our best interests. How many clues do we need to show us Brazilian beef is coming? We won't be the ones profitting, folks.

I still suggest a pointed checkoff advertising campaign promoting US beef only to get our customers in the habit of using our product and viewing our beef as the best and COOL as a means for them to find our product. The current COOL legislation has flaws? Let's fix 'em. It's much easier to fix the gate before the cows get on the meadow than it is to get them off.

The fatal flaws of COOL have been enumerated many times. Once again, trade law/rules prevent labeling only the imported beef. COOL supporters insistence on no trace-back of domestic beef tells consumers we might have something to hide, as well as the very real danger in not being able to track dangerous food borne illness in domestic beef, the majority of the beef sold in the USA.

M-ID will make COOL redundant and give true beef safety while COOL only gives the illusion of safety.

MRJ

Porker says we can have both. Why not? Traceback to the processing plant should also be given. I might have an interest in making sure that the workers processing my food are not pushed to the brink while doing their jobs. Might not be in my best interest.

MRJ, I don't know the details of the Lakeside plant as I am not around there. I do know what the people are saying that work at a local Tyson plant. If the same management or worse is up there, then they need to keep the plant closed. The economic argument of consumer surplus being the only criteria has implications for consumers and society as a whole. They just are not aware of them yet.

 

[Tam]

This is where it starts. We need to seriously look ahead a few years, see where this could end up, and prepare today. As Randy has pointed out, putting our heads where the sun doesn't shine and letting the cards fall as they may is clearly not in our best interests. How many clues do we need to show us Brazilian beef is coming? We won't be the ones profitting, folks.

I still suggest a pointed checkoff advertising campaign promoting US beef only to get our customers in the habit of using our product and viewing our beef as the best and COOL as a means for them to find our product. The current COOL legislation has flaws? Let's fix 'em. It's much easier to fix the gate before the cows get on the meadow than it is to get them off.

The fatal flaws of COOL have been enumerated many times. Once again, trade law/rules prevent labeling only the imported beef. COOL supporters insistence on no trace-back of domestic beef tells consumers we might have something to hide, as well as the very real danger in not being able to track dangerous food borne illness in domestic beef, the majority of the beef sold in the USA.

M-ID will make COOL redundant and give true beef safety while COOL only gives the illusion of safety.

MRJ

Porker says we can have both. Why not? Traceback to the processing plant should also be given. I might have an interest in making sure that the workers processing my food are not pushed to the brink while doing their jobs. Might not be in my best interest.

MRJ, I don't know the details of the Lakeside plant as I am not around there. I do know what the people are saying that work at a local Tyson plant. If the same management or worse is up there, then they need to keep the plant closed. The economic argument of consumer surplus being the only criteria has implications for consumers and society as a whole. They just are not aware of them yet.

The way you like to blame Tyson for the everything I thought you were in personal contact with members of the union up here but I guess this is just another case of you do not know of what you speak. From what I read last night on a site titled Terrible Tyson I think they should have renamed it The Revenge of the Union.

 

[Sandhusker]

Well, then MRJ, what do you think we ought to do? Perhaps you're not concerned with what Brazil can do to us?

 

[RobertMac]

The fatal flaws of COOL have been enumerated many times. Once again, trade law/rules prevent labeling only the imported beef. COOL supporters insistence on no trace-back of domestic beef tells consumers we might have something to hide, as well as the very real danger in not being able to track dangerous food borne illness in domestic beef, the majority of the beef sold in the USA.

M-ID will make COOL redundant and give true beef safety while COOL only gives the illusion of safety.

MRJ

MRJ, you have heard this propaganda for so long, you believe it to be true, but...there is NO trade law preventing the labeling of imported products by country of origin. ALL boxed beef coming into the country is labeled by country of origin...NOW. The only thing stopping the 'labeling' of live cattle by country of origin(and some other products) is a USA law that list exempted products...the J-list. Change the J-list and all imported products can be labeled at the border. Require that labeling to be maintained to the consumer, then all product NOT crossing the border is USA by default. The burden of labeling is with those that want to import product to access our market...as it should be. The fact is we can very easily and relatively inexpensively have it all(imported and USA) labeled and tracked! Why is there a problem? How is it that fish can have COOL, but beef can't? How can states have COOL and it not collapse there economy? Why do packers not want to label Canadian beef as such if it is so good?

 

[PORKER]

That's a Good Statement RobertMac !!

 

[mrj]

This is where it starts. We need to seriously look ahead a few years, see where this could end up, and prepare today. As Randy has pointed out, putting our heads where the sun doesn't shine and letting the cards fall as they may is clearly not in our best interests. How many clues do we need to show us Brazilian beef is coming? We won't be the ones profitting, folks.

I still suggest a pointed checkoff advertising campaign promoting US beef only to get our customers in the habit of using our product and viewing our beef as the best and COOL as a means for them to find our product. The current COOL legislation has flaws? Let's fix 'em. It's much easier to fix the gate before the cows get on the meadow than it is to get them off.

The fatal flaws of COOL have been enumerated many times. Once again, trade law/rules prevent labeling only the imported beef. COOL supporters insistence on no trace-back of domestic beef tells consumers we might have something to hide, as well as the very real danger in not being able to track dangerous food borne illness in domestic beef, the majority of the beef sold in the USA.

M-ID will make COOL redundant and give true beef safety while COOL only gives the illusion of safety.

MRJ

Porker says we can have both. Why not? Traceback to the processing plant should also be given. I might have an interest in making sure that the workers processing my food are not pushed to the brink while doing their jobs. Might not be in my best interest.

MRJ, I don't know the details of the Lakeside plant as I am not around there. I do know what the people are saying that work at a local Tyson plant. If the same management or worse is up there, then they need to keep the plant closed. The economic argument of consumer surplus being the only criteria has implications for consumers and society as a whole. They just are not aware of them yet.[/quot

Econ, how can we have both the proposed M-ID and the COOL law as written? They are mutually exclusive because under COOL, identification of the USA producer of origin is prevented? I can see how we might be able to make rules changes to mandate labeling of meat in food service and processed or packaged beef that is currently exempted under the law, allows labeling ONLY imported beef and NOT domestic beef, AS DEMANDED BY THE R-CALF SUPPORTERS OF THE LAW.

Nor do I know details of the Lakeside plant, but did you read the comments of workers at that plant? They sounded as if they like the management better than they like the Unionizers. BTW, haven't unions been in the forefront of fights against machanizing more of the worst, most dangerous and difficult jobs in packing plants? They sure were against improving safety of the meat via the HACCP system. I'm pretty nearly anti-union. I have seen how they will not allow rewarding excellence in teachers, and have heard about their organizing tacticx from someone who was taken to be an employee when, in fact he is the business owner, and the lies told him by a union person attempting to organize the small family business. I strongly favor Right to Work, and real investigation of all union violence and requirement that NO worker dues be used politically. Why should Unions be allowed to use their huge warchests to influence elections when individuals are severely limited in amount they may contribute? Too many Unions have soiled their own nests with their abuses of workers, racketeering, and political shenanigans and should suffer the consequences of those actions. Workers today are better educated, and not as place bound as in the days when unions may have been needed. It is easier to find a better job if an abusive situation develops in the workplace, IMO.

MRJ

 

[fedup2]

MRJ, you write: "Nor do I know details of the Lakeside plant, but did you read the comments of workers at that plant?"

This is the 3rd time that I've seen this referred too. Tam posted that it was direct from the union site 'Terrible Tyson'. She stated this in two different threads. None of it was on the union site and the reporting site had 'o' connection to the union site.

As far as reading the comments of the workers, there was an anonymous poster who disagreed with the union. How does this constitute union remarks? I've always played fair on this forum MRJ. I post both sides and let those that read decide. The Terrible tyson site has pages of accusations (Yes, I call them accusations as I don't know the truth about this) against tyson. If true, something should be done about it.

Tam credited the anonymous posters remarks to the actual Union site, and the anonymous poster as being union workers! If you had visited both sites, there is no way you would have made that remark! I have not taken sides on any of this but I find Tam's version of this story among the most blatent untruths I seen on this forum. I am dissapointed that you furthered those remarks.

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, How can you say the things you say? In our current political system the little guy is just plain out of luck. Tyson is controlled by one man in one family. He has resources that can be used to influence in ways you will never know about (Delay is indicted on this very issue). How about we just stop all political money to the candidates? The fact is that the wealthy in this country (and I know some of them personally) by and large have the money to get strategic plans and execute them while the people like the cattlemen that want to do something about it have to contend with a bunch of rabbit hunters chasing all the rabbits the big boys throw out there.

I don't know every labor abuse detail and I don't know every abuse of labor. What is troubling to someone like me is that when someone goes to complain, the person making the complaint is retaliated against. This should never, never, never be allowed to happen but it is. While the union goes out on strike to support the little worker people on these issues, you criticize them in every little way that you can. You do the same thing to rkaiser and his efforts. Jason claims that it creates efficiency for the packers and hence cattle producers and more people can buy more meat because of it. What is with these self serving views?

MRJ --

Too many Unions have soiled their own nests with their abuses of workers, racketeering, and political shenanigans and should suffer the consequences of those actions. Workers today are better educated, and not as place bound as in the days when unions may have been needed. It is easier to find a better job if an abusive situation develops in the workplace, IMO.

I don't want to argue the case for the unions, because they know their own case. I do think we should look at every case individually and not bring out the type of generalities that you do in the specific case. Keep them in mind, sure, but do not use them in every case. If you do that, you turn the word Unions into Corporations in your above quote. In the city Lakeside is in, isn't it the packing plant a big empoyer? If so, how do you argue your last sentence? Does Canada have jobs growing out the -----?

With all the posts on this forum we do not have to have generalities about corporations to make the case against Tyson. We can just look at Tyson directly and individually. All of these management problems eminate from the top---in Springdale, AR from one family and one man. If Tyson's Lakeside plant has as many work related injuries and abuses of management as Labor claims, Canadians should take a serious look at what to do about it. The only thing I see that has happened is that Canadians gave Tyson millions of dollars for a problem that they may be responsible for in the first place.

 

[PORKER]

Tyson is controlled by one man in one family. He has resources that can be used to influence in ways you will never know about,like controling all meat species sales.