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

NCBA Afraid of Losing Turf/Money/Control ????

A

Anonymous

Guest
Changing the Beef Checkoff a challenge
Feb 10, 2009 11:45 AM, Source: Tri-State Livestock News; By: DTN Chris Clayton

The CBB laid out some recommendations that will go to USDA and potentially to Congress to change the Beef Act.



A push to change the beef checkoff law is going to come down to a combination of a leap of faith and a lack of trust for a cattle industry with a long history of fights over the checkoff.

The vote Thursday by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board seeking congressional changes to the checkoff led to praise by one cattlemen’s group seeking to reform the checkoff, while leaders with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association were more skeptical, even though NCBA’s federation division implements checkoff programs and NCBA members have traditionally been chief defenders of the checkoff.

Members of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association were largely ecstatic by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board action, which would seek a producer referendum to increase the checkoff from a $1-per-head assessment to $2, as well as open up the checkoff contracting to other non-profit, industry groups that currently are not eligible for checkoff dollars.

“This is a change that producers have actively sought in their checkoff program,” said USCA President Jon Wooster, a San Lucas, CA rancher. “A periodic producer referendum is an already existing provision in the law. We are, however, pleased to see that the committee’s proposed increases in the per-head assessment will be subject to a producer referendum.”

The CBB laid out some recommendations that will go to USDA and potentially to Congress to change the Beef Act, as well as industry recommendations that can be changed without amending the law.

Some ranching groups, including the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), have touted promoting U.S.-born-and-raised beef. According to a 2006 Gallup Organization survey of 8,000 cattle producers, 92 percent of those polled either strongly agree or somewhat agree that the checkoff dollars should be used only to promote U.S.-born-and-raised beef.

“We feel like they should have one more point: born, raised and processed in the U.S., with a portion of checkoff dollars going to promote those products,”
Wooster said.

The CBB stated the checkoff already allows cost-share spending to promote branded products, including branded products touting beef born and raised in the U.S. Still, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association wants a portion of the checkoff set aside to promote generic products matching country-of-origin labeling of born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.

“We’re going to support our policy, which is basically to use a portion of the checkoff dollars for the born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. products,” Wooster said.

Despite surviving a legal challenge in 2005, the checkoff has been under duress over the past year as the cattle herd retracts. The USDA cattle inventory report released Friday bore out some of the numbers. All cattle and calves are two percent less than a year ago. The calf crop is two percent smaller and cattle on feed are down seven percent as well. The beef cow herd is the smallest since 1963.

Last September, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and Federation of State Beef Councils Operating Committee cut $6 million from the checkoff budget, then came back later and cut another $1.4 million. This week, the Operating Committee went even further and cut an additional $2.5 million earlier this week as well. The budget for 2009 is now set at $41.7 million.

One of the biggest issues surrounding the checkoff is the role and relationship of the Federation of State Beef Councils, which is effectively known as the NCBA Federation Division. Made up of state beef councils from across the country, the group serves as the checkoff side of NCBA. Despite the defense made that NCBA keeps a “firewall” between the checkoff and policy side, it’s still a source of discord among cattle producers.

That discord led the Cattlemen’s Beef Board to recommend that the Federation of State Beef Councils break away and become an actual separate entity from NCBA.

“There is this perception out there,” Charles Miller, a Cattlemen’s Beef Board member from Kentucky, said at the meeting Thursday. “All of this didn’t come from the ‘fringe groups.’ A lot of this came from our circle of friends.”

Miller noted that NCBA doesn’t have to listen to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board recommendations. However, NCBA has created a new governance committee to look at changes in structure.

That idea of splitting the federation and policy aspects of NCBA has been a sore spot for checkoff critics in the industry, but backers maintain that when the checkoff was created in the 1980s, uniting the federation and policy under NCBA established one plan, one budget and one long-range vision for the industry.

“If we do what they want, we are starting back where we were before 1985,” said Alan Albright, an Iowa producer and chairman of the NCBA Federation Division. “And that’s something we can’t live with.”

To increase the checkoff assessment and open it up to other groups for funding, it’s going to take the entire industry working together, Albright said. He thinks right now there may be too much division within the industry to make the push. It’s also going to require a lot of resources from NCBA’s policy division, which can lobby Congress. The federation and Cattlemen’s Beef Board members are restricted from lobbying.

“CBB has got the right to send recommendations to USDA, but really, if you are going to have a change, the policy side has to carry the water,” Albright said. Right now, NCBA may be reluctant to heavily invest resources into such an effort. “This is going to cost the policy side a lot of money just to get this thing going.”
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Check this out;"Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act of 2009."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-and-the-Schoolmar-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090214-935.html

H.R. 814 reads, in part:

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act to improve the safety of food, meat, and poultry products through enhanced traceability, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 3, 2009

Ms. DEGETTE (for herself, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. NADLER of New York, and Ms. DELAURO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


H.R. 814 called the [Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act of 2009] or, [The Trace Act of 2009] is nothing less than the federal intent to mandate the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and of course "and for other purposes."

SEC. 26. TRACEABILITY OF LIVESTOCK, MEAT, AND MEAT PRODUCTS.
(a) Definition of Traceability- In this section, the term 'traceability' means the ability to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article through a recordkeeping and audit system or registered identification.

(b) Requirements-

(1) IN GENERAL- Cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses, mules, and other equines presented for slaughter for human food purposes, and the carcasses or parts of carcasses and the meat and meat food products of those animals, shipped in interstate commerce shall be identified in a manner that enables the Secretary to trace-

(A) each animal to any premises or other location at which the animal was held at any time before slaughter; and
(B) each carcass or part of a carcass and meat and meat food product of such animals forward from slaughter through processing and distribution to the ultimate consumer.


(2) TRACEABILITY SYSTEM- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a traceability system for all stages of production, processing, and distribution of meat and meat food products that are produced through the slaughter of animals described in paragraph (1).

(c) Prohibition or Restriction on Entry- The Secretary may prohibit or restrict entry into any slaughtering establishment inspected under this Act of any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses, mules, or other equines not identified as prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (b).

Apparently USDA was inefficient in its efforts to forcibly overtake the US food supplies and the federal government has found it necessary to intervene and make mandatory the implementation of NAIS on all levels.

SEC. 26. TRACEABILITY OF LIVESTOCK, MEAT, AND MEAT PRODUCTS.
(g) Relation to Country of Origin Labeling- Nothing contained in this section prevents or interferes with implementation of the country of origin labeling requirements of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.).

Isn't this section a hoot! No mention is made of the labeling law passed in 2005 requiring the country of origin to be listed on the label of foods, or, the listing of cloned, genetically altered or mutated foods. A law which this same government has refused to enforce in deference to corporate donors who know the garbage they are packaging and selling isn't fit for human consumption.

H.R. 814 is clearly nothing less than the federal legislation converting NAIS from a bad a idea to horrendous plan for seizing food production from any source in the US and handing it over to Frankenfood industrialized factory farms on behalf of the bio-pirates who have apparently bought and paid for this legislation.
 
Top