• 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 of R-calfs work on behalf of US producers

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
"N.Y. Times" Already Quoting Cebull's Inaccuracies

Key Beef Industry Issue Further Taken Over By Judicial System
Colorado Springs, CO March 21, 2005



One of the fears we expressed when Judge Richard Cebull issued his horribly sensational injunction opinion was that the mass media would pick up on it and start quoting his opinion.

It didn't take long for this to happen. The New York Times has already published an editorial, quoting Cebull and indicating they have been sucked into Cebull's and R-CALF's misleading science and unpracticed understanding of international trade. The worst of this is that the Times is making proclamations based on ideology, not science or facts, and their wire service is picked up by hundreds of papers across the country.

The Times editorial ridicules USDA's efforts to establish international trade of under-30-month cattle from countries with minimal risk as, "based on a hope and a wish." It quotes Cebull's regurgitations of R-CALF's claims of "catastrophic damages" and "genuine risk of death," just as if these were facts, instead of sensationalist claims made in a legal brief attempting to scare a judge.

The Times also misreads Japan's evaluation of the situation, claiming as R-CALF does, that opening the border to Canadian cattle under 30-months will automatically cause the Japanese to keep our exports out. Instead, as those involved in the negotiations have pointed out, the opposite is true. Any indication by the U.S. that it does not trust young Canadian cattle creates mistrust and confusion among Japanese government officials and consumers. In fact, the negotiations were going along sedately, bolstered by the fact that Canadian boxed beef was flowing nicely through our system, because everyone knows the beef is safe. That is until R-CALF raised unwarranted questions.

So R-CALF's legal gymnastics have succeeded in throwing a monkey wrench into the Canadian border trade and the Japanese export trade. The "bonuses" are that R-CALF is now the godfather of the Canadian packing industry expansion, has damaged U.S. packers large and small and is the catalyst for the largest and most determined effort Canada has ever made to compete with us in the world market.

Thanks to R-CALF, Canada's biggest nightmare has been prolonged far beyond what was necessary. But in the long-term, R-CALF could have helped propel Canada's beef chain development efforts farther and faster than would have happened in decades without their interference.

The Times claims that Japan is requiring the U.S. to prove it is free of mad cow. We haven't heard that and that is not the issue. The issue is that the beef exported to Japan be free of BSE - and that we can guarantee. Specified Risk Material (SRM) removal, tailored to the age of the animal, is internationally recognized as yielding safe beef, even if by some unlikely chance an animal actually had BSE. The OIE has even stated that it does not recommend against importing beef from countries with a high BSE risk. The SRM removal renders the country's BSE status a moot point.

Yet R-CALF continues to ignore that fact. Instead it is trying to get people to believe SRM removal is ineffective. On top of that, R-CALF wants people to believe Canada is really a high-risk country - another U.K. - and that no one else but R-CALF has figured it out yet.

To prove that the Times has bought into R- CALF's furthest stretches for obstacles to throw in the path of imports, the Times said that the only way to resume international trade is to test all cattle.

Even worse, the Times implies that there is no feed ban in place, by calling for an "end to the feeding practices that can spread mad cow disease." The feed ban was instituted in 1997 but the New York Times is unaware of that fact. But ignorance of the facts does not keep the Times from telling everyone how to solve their problems. Add that to the lawyers and judges already in the mix, and it means science and verified facts get buried even deeper under a growing pile of misinformation, hyperbole and short-sighted obstructionism.

Which is just what American consumers or the beef industry does not need.





The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain. The AFF believes it is possible to value the traditions and heritage of the past while embracing the future and the changes it brings. The AFF is a communications and educational initiative striving to preserve the freedom of the agricultural food chain to operate and innovate in order to continue the success of American agriculture.

The AFF - freedom watchdog for American agriculture.



Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
AFF: Promoting free market principles throughout the agricultural food chain.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Before anybody gets too excited about the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation or what "they" may have to say, I'd invite everybody to take a look at "their" site. You'll only find one name anywhere; Steve Ditmer. He is the Ex. V.P., he writes all the articles, and I'm sure he takes out the trash. It looks to me like this is a one-man foundation.

I read everything in his site and I think everybody should read it also - this guy is waaaaay out there. However, don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.

Another example of Mr. Dittmer's journalism;

"But if that is what it takes to get their changes achieved, then R-CALF has indicated their willingness to go along to get to their goals. R-CALF demonstrated that earlier this year, appearing in a joint news conference with long-time industry adversarial activist groups, forming a coalition of Liberal Activist Groups (LAG). Some of these activist groups envision American agriculture like this:

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.

USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.

Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.

Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.

Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.

Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals."

JUDGE THE CREDIBILTY FOR YOURSELVES.
:wink: :wink:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Before anybody gets too excited about the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation or what "they" may have to say, I'd invite everybody to take a look at "their" site. You'll only find one name anywhere; Steve Ditmer. He is the Ex. V.P., he writes all the articles, and I'm sure he takes out the trash. It looks to me like this is a one-man foundation.

I read everything in his site and I think everybody should read it also - this guy is waaaaay out there. However, don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.

Response.. I have known Steve Dittmer for many years. He is not a extremest or alarmist. He does pursue the facts and has no qualms about publishing those facts.

R-Calf single handedly may do what no anti-beef group has yet been able to accomplish. That is, tarnish and risk the destruction of the American beef industry. Guess who will be the first to cry wolf? It will be none other than those misguided R-Calf members who are so blinded by bias and misinformation that they fail to realize and acknowledge the foolishness of their so called leadership. They will blame their own demise on the packers, retailers or their successful neighbor who was managing his business while the failing R-Calf member is suffocating in the quicksand of misinformation they choose to embrace. Have a great day.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Before anybody gets too excited about the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation or what "they" may have to say, I'd invite everybody to take a look at "their" site. You'll only find one name anywhere; Steve Ditmer. He is the Ex. V.P., he writes all the articles, and I'm sure he takes out the trash. It looks to me like this is a one-man foundation.

I read everything in his site and I think everybody should read it also - this guy is waaaaay out there. However, don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.

Another example of Mr. Dittmer's journalism;

"But if that is what it takes to get their changes achieved, then R-CALF has indicated their willingness to go along to get to their goals. R-CALF demonstrated that earlier this year, appearing in a joint news conference with long-time industry adversarial activist groups, forming a coalition of Liberal Activist Groups (LAG). Some of these activist groups envision American agriculture like this:

Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods -- no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed.

USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service.

Packing companies and retailers would become union shops.

Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries.

Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops.

Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals."

JUDGE THE CREDIBILTY FOR YOURSELVES.
:wink: :wink:

If it doesn't fit your mandate is simply deemed waaaaay out there or ultra right wing. On this sight the mainstream media has been called left wing many times and the NY times also fits that label.

Agman is right on! R-calf is accomplishing what no other anti-beef group has been able to do. I hope the reap their just rewards. The problem is the fallout will affect you all.
 

Mitch

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
Saskatoon
Quoting Sandhusker
"I read everything in his site and I think everybody should read it also - this guy is waaaaay out there. However, don't take my word for it, see for yourselves."

Haven't you seen R-Calf's website? It seems pretty out there.

Have fun R-Calf, you made the nuce, tied it around your neck, built the platform, now please jump.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One answer- Let it go to trial... Let the USDA present their experts and their facts-- let the ranchers present theirs..... I would like to see the Judge make a decision on the expert testimony rather than the biased reporting of every publication out there...Both the USDA and R-CALF have a bias--So does AMI and the packers, the Canadians, and the administration-- Go to trial and let a Federal Judge make the decision.....

Would be so much easier to have mandatory COOL on all beef and leave the health safety issue decision to the consumer- but that would interfer with the packers profiteering plans........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Moose said:
But we know who the judge will be so the trial is a waste of time.


Moose- I wouldn't care if they put all the Federal Judges in the US names in a hat and drew one-- It should go to trial.... There has been so much inconsistency within and between government agencies, so many BSE theories and risk factors laid out, so many economical risk factors laid out-so much biased and politically oriented material printed--Let it all come out and let a Judge make the decision.....

Better yet on the health issue would be to label all Beef as to country of origin and let the final consumer make their own decision on what they want to eat............But thats too simple......
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,982
Reaction score
81
Location
Big Muddy valley
Oldtimer said:
Moose said:
But we know who the judge will be so the trial is a waste of time.


Moose- I wouldn't care if they put all the Federal Judges in the US names in a hat and drew one-- It should go to trial.... There has been so much inconsistency within and between government agencies, so many BSE theories and risk factors laid out, so many economical risk factors laid out-so much biased and politically oriented material printed--Let it all come out and let a Judge make the decision.....

Better yet on the health issue would be to label all Beef as to country of origin and let the final consumer make their own decision on what they want to eat............But thats too simple......



Oldtimer why don't you propose to R-CALF to start their own branded product.You have the member ranches , you have feedlots and their must be a shut down packing plant you could get cheap. Only process member owned born and raised in the USA cattle and make a fortune.
Oh OH I forgot the LMA, What about the poor destitute sale barn people. O well maybe they could work in the Packing house. :cowboy:

PS.The Brand inspectors would scource verify for you hell they might even calve them out so they would be there to write down the age of each calf, I hear Goggins owns lots of truck so he could get the contract to haul all the cattle and beef. Leo could supply all the bulls so genetics could be the same. You'd have the world by the tail.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
[Hat)
I agree, all I want is for the US consumer to be able to walk into a grocery store and be able to buy beef marked born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. We all know which package the consumer will choose.[/quote]

Response... What evidence do you have to support your claim? You and I are not the average consumer. What you and I think consumers will or should do is irrelevant. How they spend their money is their decision and they have clearly demonstrated they do not follow survey results. Can you explain the precipitous decline in per capita beef consumption since 1976 while every survey concludes beef is the preferred meat. We should all learn from that experience. Have a great day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"DENY, DISCREDIT, DECEIVE, DIVERT"

Which method did Sandblaster choose to address Ditmers editorial???

DISCREDIT AND DIVERTION.

Did anyone see Sandblaster oppose Ditmer's information with opposing facts? Of course not, that's not the way the "factually defenseless" operate.

Once again, Sandblaster uses divertion and a feeble attempt to discredit Ditmer but brings absolutely nothing to the table to contradict anything presented.

Ditmer is a breath of fresh air in the polluted skies of R-CULT's deception and lies.


Hat: "I agree, all I want is for the US consumer to be able to walk into a grocery store and be able to buy beef marked born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. We all know which package the consumer will choose."

THEN WHY THE HECK DID YOU PROHIBIT THE MEANS TO ENFORCE IT BY PROHIBITING "M"ID FROM "M"COOL???

Did you expect processors and retailers to just guess where the beef originated with $10,000 fines for false labeling?? Yup, you r-culters are real wizards.

I would also love to see Canadian beef seperated at the stores so you could see first hand how a high quality foreign novelty item would sell in comparison to 95% of the beef that would be U.S. commodity beef.

You really need to learn that lesson!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Moose said:
But we know who the judge will be so the trial is a waste of time.


Moose- I wouldn't care if they put all the Federal Judges in the US names in a hat and drew one-- It should go to trial.... There has been so much inconsistency within and between government agencies, so many BSE theories and risk factors laid out, so many economical risk factors laid out-so much biased and politically oriented material printed--Let it all come out and let a Judge make the decision.....

Better yet on the health issue would be to label all Beef as to country of origin and let the final consumer make their own decision on what they want to eat............But thats too simple......



Oldtimer why don't you propose to R-CALF to start their own branded product.You have the member ranches , you have feedlots and their must be a shut down packing plant you could get cheap. Only process member owned born and raised in the USA cattle and make a fortune.
Oh OH I forgot the LMA, What about the poor destitute sale barn people. O well maybe they could work in the Packing house. :cowboy:

PS.The Brand inspectors would scource verify for you hell they might even calve them out so they would be there to write down the age of each calf, I hear Goggins owns lots of truck so he could get the contract to haul all the cattle and beef. Leo could supply all the bulls so genetics could be the same. You'd have the world by the tail.

All I have to say is Why is Canada so scared of COOL? Is it because they know they can't sell the product without the USDA stamp on it? Why is Canada not exporting to Japan? or Korea? or Saudia Arabia now? You blame everything on R-CALF, but R-CALF doesn't have a Japanese affiliate- or one in Saudia Arabia...Let it go to trial and let a Judge decide on facts...

Personal opinion--If beef was labeled as to country of origin, the border would be open today.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
Big Muddy rancher said:
[
Oldtimer why don't you propose to R-CALF to start their own branded product.You have the member ranches , you have feedlots and their must be a shut down packing plant you could get cheap. Only process member owned born and raised in the USA cattle and make a fortune.
Oh OH I forgot the LMA, What about the poor destitute sale barn people. O well maybe they could work in the Packing house. :cowboy:

PS.The Brand inspectors would scource verify for you hell they might even calve them out so they would be there to write down the age of each calf, I hear Goggins owns lots of truck so he could get the contract to haul all the cattle and beef. Leo could supply all the bulls so genetics could be the same. You'd have the world by the tail.

...and then, children, in a few simple moves a whole new kingdom was born, and Leo the lion and his loyal subjects lived happily ever after..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,982
Reaction score
81
Location
Big Muddy valley
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
[
Oldtimer why don't you propose to R-CALF to start their own branded product.You have the member ranches , you have feedlots and their must be a shut down packing plant you could get cheap. Only process member owned born and raised in the USA cattle and make a fortune.
Oh OH I forgot the LMA, What about the poor destitute sale barn people. O well maybe they could work in the Packing house. :cowboy:

PS.The Brand inspectors would scource verify for you hell they might even calve them out so they would be there to write down the age of each calf, I hear Goggins owns lots of truck so he could get the contract to haul all the cattle and beef. Leo could supply all the bulls so genetics could be the same. You'd have the world by the tail.

...and then, children, in a few simple moves a whole new kingdom was born, and Leo the lion and his loyal subjects lived happily ever after..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Would Haymaker be the Chief Fairy in that fairy Tale. :wink:
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Ontario
Big Muddy rancher said:
...and then, children, in a few simple moves a whole new kingdom was born, and Leo the lion and his loyal subjects lived happily ever after..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Would Haymaker be the Chief Fairy in that fairy Tale. :wink:[/quote]

Don't know about that, but three guesses and the first two don't count on who the banker would be :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Did anyone see Sandblaster oppose Ditmer's information with opposing facts? Of course not, that's not the way the "factually defenseless" operate. "

I posted more of Ditmer's writing so people could get a bigger picture and decide for themselves whether this guy might have credibility or not. If there is any deception, it is in Dittmer's writing, as that is what I posted.

Maybe you missed the part where he says R-CALF is going along with making packers and retailers union shops? How about where R-CALF is supporting "sustainable agriculture only"? He even links R-CALF with this;
"Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service. "

You think I need to defend R-CALF from this? You've got to be kidding me. Not even you in your wildest hate-filled rantings has ever come up with this kind of halucinations. Agman says this guy is credible? I invite people to read what he wrote. Just read it. Read all of it.

I don't know about you, but a one-man "foundation" eager to accept your donations is a big red flag to me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As I said Sandblaster, you contradicted nothing presented!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
As I said Sandblaster, you contradicted nothing presented!



~SH~

I wasn't trying to contradict anything. I was merely presenting more of this guy's writings so people could see more of what he was about.

I would post a news release from R-CALF that states they are not against non-union packers and retailers, not pressing for faith-based USDA employees, etc.... but for some reason, R-CALF hasn't felt the need to comment on those topics.
 

Latest posts

Top