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

More environmental limitations?

andybob

Well-known member
Environment
Legislative Roundtable seeks favorable environment for livestock
Thursday, January 11, 2007



Along with existing concerns about rising feed grain prices and environmental regulation, livestock producers face a growing threat of federal policies spurred by animal rights activists and consumer perceptions.

The Illinois Agricultural Legislative Roundtable last week opposed “efforts to limit animal agriculture production and handling practices.” Members opposed a congressional equine slaughter ban and any effort to classify manure as a hazardous material under federal environmental “Superfund” law.

Illinois Pork Producers Association President Gary Asay noted the U.S. House last fall passed a horse slaughter ban, amid emotional debate that forced many farm state lawmakers to set aside concerns about the action’s potential impact on future livestock activity. The lame duck Senate did not act on the equine measure, but it is expected to resurface this session.

“This is a step we don’t like to see,” he told FarmWeek.

Further, Arizona voters in November passed a ballot initiative requiring larger sow gestation stalls, following a similar 2004 Florida ballot measure, and Asay is concerned Illinois could be a “target” for future efforts.

Jim Wiesemeyer, Informa Economics vice president for policy and trade, also predicts a greater thrust toward animal welfare in 2007 farm bill debate similar to socially driven re­ ­ ­ strictions imposed on European livestock producers.

Added consumer-related concerns surfaced in December Illinois Farm Bureau policy debate, where delegates supported allowing slaughter of injured livestock at federally inspected or state-inspected local slaughter plants for human consumption.

Tazewell County delegate David Uhlman urged colleagues to reject the policy “if we care about the image we want to present to the people we market our product to.”

But Chad Bremmer of Stephenson County said the inability to market “an obviously injured” but otherwise healthy animal “doesn’t make any sense.”

The Consumer Federation of America and the National Farmers Union last week urged Congress to step up mandatory country of origin labeling (M-COOL). Major livestock groups instead seek voluntary labeling because of concerns about potential costs under and exemption of poultry and restaurants from M-COOL requirements established by the 2002 farm bill.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association suggests the new Democrat-controlled Congress may move quickly to speed up mandatory labeling, which is set for implementation by Sept. 30, 2008.

Senate Ag Chairman Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) support for M-COOL could pressure lawmakers into creating “a headache and a cost burden for the producer,” Asay warned.

Concerns about livestock concentration and consolidation also could spur proposed reforms to the federal Packers and Stockyards Act. Noting talk of a ban on packer hog ownership, Asay cautioned against “restrictive” measures that could affect business arrangements between packers and producers.

“A lot of people contract finish for packers who would be hurt if (a ban) were passed, and there would be a shake-up in the industry,” he said. “It could limit some forward contracts between individuals and packers.” – Martin Ross
 
Top