• 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 and COOL

Mike

Well-known member
NCBA Urges Support for Meat Promotion Act
Bill implements long-awaited country-of-origin labeling.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 4, 2005) — America’s cattle ranchers are applauding efforts by the House Agriculture Committee to implement a producer-friendly, market-driven country-of-origin labeling program. The Meat Promotion Act (H.R. 2068) was introduced today by House Ag Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.), along with 32 additional co-sponsors.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), which has long supported the concept of country-of-origin labeling, thanks the committee for its persistent efforts on this issue.

“Many segments of the food industry have wanted country-of-origin labeling for years,” says NCBA President and Texas cattle producer Jim McAdams. “But there continues to be heated debate over how to actually implement such a program so that it works. After all this time, we’re no closer to promoting U.S. products than we were a decade ago. We’re tired of debating and we’re tired of waiting.”

NCBA says the Meat Promotion Act can finally move country-of-origin labeling forward in a commonsense and cost-effective manner that will benefit beef and pork producers across the country by promoting American-grown foods.

* The Meat Promotion Act puts the marketplace in charge
Food producers are in the business of meeting consumer demand. Where that demand is demonstrated, more products labeled with country-of-origin will become available.

* Opportunity for broad participation
This program does not discriminate against any groups in the food production, retail or food service sectors. The program is open to everyone who wants to participate. More participation equals more promotion of U.S. products!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
Voluntary, it is their way out of the deal. Packers will refute it.

They already lost half their membership with their flipflop on mandatory- now they use the voluntary as a neutered excuse....And everybody recognizes that voluntary with the packers/retailers is a joke :roll:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
ranch hand said:
Voluntary, it is their way out of the deal. Packers will refute it.

They already lost half their membership with their flipflop on mandatory- now they use the voluntary as a neutered excuse....And everybody recognizes that voluntary with the packers/retailers is a joke :roll:


Good grief, OT, do you really not know that there are MANY ranchers currently involved in MARKET DRIVEN,successful voluntary labeling programs, many of them including trace-back to the producer?

Of course, you and your group didn't allow trace-back in your COOL law. Why are you so afraid to admit producing the beef that you do?

NCBA membership is increasing daily, especially when producers find out that some anti-NCBA and Beef Checkoff propaganda is not and never did have any factual basis.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
ranch hand said:
Voluntary, it is their way out of the deal. Packers will refute it.

They already lost half their membership with their flipflop on mandatory- now they use the voluntary as a neutered excuse....And everybody recognizes that voluntary with the packers/retailers is a joke :roll:


Good grief, OT, do you really not know that there are MANY ranchers currently involved in MARKET DRIVEN,successful voluntary labeling programs, many of them including trace-back to the producer?


Of course, you and your group didn't allow trace-back in your COOL law. Why are you so afraid to admit producing the beef that you do?

My cattle have had traceback for years- and so have many of the producers that belong to "my group" as you put it...And we have used signed affidavits for verification on age, feed, origin, implants, antibiotics and drugs....

But I think its comical how now some (even cattle buyers) are questioning how someone that belongs to a group like NCBA, that supports defrauding and passing off false products to consumers, can be trusted to not lie about implants, or age, or antibiotics, or whatever- and how if they support removing country labels and relabeling with a false label, how can they be trusted when they sign an all natural affidavit, especially when they stand to profit from these little lies...

MRJ if you're willing to support lying, deception, and fraud on one thing- how far will you go to make a couple more bucks
:???:


NCBA membership is increasing daily, especially when producers find out that some anti-NCBA and Beef Checkoff propaganda is not and never did have any factual basis.
That is not the local trend-- NCBA around here is much more of an endangered species than any spotted owl or sagehen :wink: :lol:

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
They already lost half their membership with their flipflop on mandatory- now they use the voluntary as a neutered excuse....And everybody recognizes that voluntary with the packers/retailers is a joke :roll:


Good grief, OT, do you really not know that there are MANY ranchers currently involved in MARKET DRIVEN,successful voluntary labeling programs, many of them including trace-back to the producer?


Of course, you and your group didn't allow trace-back in your COOL law. Why are you so afraid to admit producing the beef that you do?

My cattle have had traceback for years- and so have many of the producers that belong to "my group" as you put it...And we have used signed affidavits for verification on age, feed, origin, implants, antibiotics and drugs....

But I think its comical how now some (even cattle buyers) are questioning how someone that belongs to a group like NCBA, that supports defrauding and passing off false products to consumers, can be trusted to not lie about implants, or age, or antibiotics, or whatever- and how if they support removing country labels and relabeling with a false label, how can they be trusted when they sign an all natural affidavit, especially when they stand to profit from these little lies...

MRJ if you're willing to support lying, deception, and fraud on one thing- how far will you go to make a couple more bucks
:???:


NCBA membership is increasing daily, especially when producers find out that some anti-NCBA and Beef Checkoff propaganda is not and never did have any factual basis.
That is not the local trend-- NCBA around here is much more of an endangered species than any spotted owl or sagehen :wink: :lol:

MRJ

It sure is surprising (and not just a little bit disgusting!) to see an ex-sheriff write things he has to know are not true!

Your kind of "traceback" is lying to consumers because it ends when the hide comes off. There is no mechanism required to be used that will trace the meat a consumer buys to find the source of any problem that may have come from pre-harvest, and you surely do know that.

Isn't that, after all, why your bunch prevented any trace-back to producers in your COOL law?

That makes COOL a true fraud on consumers because you imply that they are safer eating US produced beef, when there has been no verification.

How are your "signed affidavits" better than a vet Health Certificate on cattle, especially one that is accompanied by verification of vaccinations, etc. from that vet?

You know very well that NCBA does no such thing! Show us where NCBA has policy, or our leaders have made statements supporting your accusations. Why do you persist in those lies. People can easily find the truth, so why embarrass yourself so?

NCBA would not profit from ANY lies about cattle production. Such things as implants, age, antibiotics, etc., and 'natural' are ALL the responsibility of the producer, and most such claims have traditionally been on a handshake. Producers can find themselves in considerable trouble if they get caught in lies about those things. Reputation does mean something in this industry, to those of us who have built good ones, that is. The premiums our ranch has received have been based on our honesty and the quality of our cattle. We are not about to compromise that reputation. I do not rule out making you pay for your lies about me and my family.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
It sure is surprising (and not just a little bit disgusting!) to see an ex-sheriff write things he has to know are not true!

Your kind of "traceback" is lying to consumers because it ends when the hide comes off. There is no mechanism required to be used that will trace the meat a consumer buys to find the source of any problem that may have come from pre-harvest, and you surely do know that.

Isn't that, after all, why your bunch prevented any trace-back to producers in your COOL law?

That makes COOL a true fraud on consumers because you imply that they are safer eating US produced beef, when there has been no verification.
Maxine- You truthfully think that beef slaughtered in a country like Mexico- inspected by Mexican government employees- that have been given free rein with the USDA inspected stamp- and who's government expects and relys on the fact that 1/2 their salary should come from kickbacks and under the table money is as safe as US slaughtered beef?

Where do you think they make up the 50% kickback and payoff salary from? What do these meat and health inspectors have to look away from to get those payoffs that make up their salary?

How are your "signed affidavits" better than a vet Health Certificate on cattle, especially one that is accompanied by verification of vaccinations, etc. from that vet?

A visual health inspection tells you nothing on feed, implants or vaccinations- or do you hire a vet to do all your vaccinations and feeding.......

You know very well that NCBA does no such thing! Show us where NCBA has policy, or our leaders have made statements supporting your accusations. Why do you persist in those lies. People can easily find the truth, so why embarrass yourself so?

NCBA would not profit from ANY lies about cattle production. Such things as implants, age, antibiotics, etc., and 'natural' are ALL the responsibility of the producer, and most such claims have traditionally been on a handshake. Producers can find themselves in considerable trouble if they get caught in lies about those things. Reputation does mean something in this industry, to those of us who have built good ones, that is. The premiums our ranch has received have been based on our honesty and the quality of our cattle. We are not about to compromise that reputation. I do not rule out making you pay for your lies about me and my family.

Maxine- and it was not me that brought up the question of being able to trust people that support defrauding consumers -- It was a cattle buyer I was sitting next to at one of the many cattle sales I usually attend monthly- that was questioning when an NCBA leaders bulls were being sold with a Lauras Lean All Natural signed affidavit -- As he said- "if they can support lying to and defrauding consumers about what country their beef comes from- why wouldn't they sign a fraudulent statement to defraud buyers, packers, and consumers- to make an extra couple of bucks a pound :???:" If your willing to belong to and support an organization that will promote and lobby for lying to, deception of, and passing off foreign beef to US consumers as a US product-- what else will you do for personal profit?

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MRJ said:
It sure is surprising (and not just a little bit disgusting!) to see an ex-sheriff write things he has to know are not true!

Your kind of "traceback" is lying to consumers because it ends when the hide comes off. There is no mechanism required to be used that will trace the meat a consumer buys to find the source of any problem that may have come from pre-harvest, and you surely do know that.

Isn't that, after all, why your bunch prevented any trace-back to producers in your COOL law?

That makes COOL a true fraud on consumers because you imply that they are safer eating US produced beef, when there has been no verification.
Maxine- You truthfully think that beef slaughtered in a country like Mexico- inspected by Mexican government employees- that have been given free rein with the USDA inspected stamp- and who's government expects and relys on the fact that 1/2 their salary should come from kickbacks and under the table money is as safe as US slaughtered beef?

Where do you think they make up the 50% kickback and payoff salary from? What do these meat and health inspectors have to look away from to get those payoffs that make up their salary?

How are your "signed affidavits" better than a vet Health Certificate on cattle, especially one that is accompanied by verification of vaccinations, etc. from that vet?

A visual health inspection tells you nothing on feed, implants or vaccinations- or do you hire a vet to do all your vaccinations and feeding.......

You know very well that NCBA does no such thing! Show us where NCBA has policy, or our leaders have made statements supporting your accusations. Why do you persist in those lies. People can easily find the truth, so why embarrass yourself so?

NCBA would not profit from ANY lies about cattle production. Such things as implants, age, antibiotics, etc., and 'natural' are ALL the responsibility of the producer, and most such claims have traditionally been on a handshake. Producers can find themselves in considerable trouble if they get caught in lies about those things. Reputation does mean something in this industry, to those of us who have built good ones, that is. The premiums our ranch has received have been based on our honesty and the quality of our cattle. We are not about to compromise that reputation. I do not rule out making you pay for your lies about me and my family.

Maxine- and it was not me that brought up the question of being able to trust people that support defrauding consumers -- It was a cattle buyer I was sitting next to at one of the many cattle sales I usually attend monthly- that was questioning when an NCBA leaders bulls were being sold with a Lauras Lean All Natural signed affidavit -- As he said- "if they can support lying to and defrauding consumers about what country their beef comes from- why wouldn't they sign a fraudulent statement to defraud buyers, packers, and consumers- to make an extra couple of bucks a pound :???:" If your willing to belong to and support an organization that will promote and lobby for lying to, deception of, and passing off foreign beef to US consumers as a US product-- what else will you do for personal profit?

MRJ

OT, what I believe is that the requirements for inspection of imported beef is the same as ours. The 'foreigners' are trained to our specifications. There are spot checks. It is POSSIBLE that there will be some discrepancies. However, how many companies will take the chance of being caught?

Your claims of fraud on the part of foreign packing plants are long on speculation, possible hearsay, and innuendo.......and your proof is non-existent.......as is usual with your charges of abuses and fraud!

I recently read that here is a surprisingly large percentage of the Mexican population that is VERY wealthy. Those people eat mostly imported US beef. There is a middle income percentage that are fairly well off, and they eat the better quality of the Mexican produced beef. And there is a significant percent of very poor people in Mexico. Yet those poor people are also very heavy beef consumers of the lower quality of Mexican produced beef, and also of parts of the beef animal not popular in the USA which we export to Mexico. Mexico, for those reasons are good trading partners for the US beef industry. No 'proof', but this was told by a speaker, possibly a Mexican, at an NCBA meeting a couple of years ago and no one challenged his numbers and I have no reason to doubt his honesty.

I may not have been as clear as I should on that vet animal health inspection. The papers are copies of the vaccines we purchase and treatments we use as recommended by our vets. It is unlikely that people will buy vaccines and not use them. We do our own vaccinations, so far as allowed by law. Anyone who purchases our cattle are welcome to test them for illegal residues. They won't find any.

Re. your 'cattle buyer' comment......I would tell him, as I tell you, that could pretty well qualify as a 'fraudulent' statement, IMO. It has just about forever been understood by anyone who knows anything about USDA 'labels' that "USDA Inspected" means exactly that. It has not been until recently that SOME consumers have said they believed it meant "US origin". If packers have taken advantage of the fact, they should not have. Nor is it their fault that people no longer have much access to Home Ec classes in jr. hi and high school, where they used to learn about such labels.

There is no way on earth that you should be able to honestly believe and claim that NCBA supports ANY form of packer fraud. You are guilty of, at best, taking a cheap shot, and more likely, IMO, of actual lies about NCBA on this count for certain, and probably others as well.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Oldtimer said:
MRJ said:
It sure is surprising (and not just a little bit disgusting!) to see an ex-sheriff write things he has to know are not true!

Your kind of "traceback" is lying to consumers because it ends when the hide comes off. There is no mechanism required to be used that will trace the meat a consumer buys to find the source of any problem that may have come from pre-harvest, and you surely do know that.

Isn't that, after all, why your bunch prevented any trace-back to producers in your COOL law?

That makes COOL a true fraud on consumers because you imply that they are safer eating US produced beef, when there has been no verification.


How are your "signed affidavits" better than a vet Health Certificate on cattle, especially one that is accompanied by verification of vaccinations, etc. from that vet?



You know very well that NCBA does no such thing! Show us where NCBA has policy, or our leaders have made statements supporting your accusations. Why do you persist in those lies. People can easily find the truth, so why embarrass yourself so?

NCBA would not profit from ANY lies about cattle production. Such things as implants, age, antibiotics, etc., and 'natural' are ALL the responsibility of the producer, and most such claims have traditionally been on a handshake. Producers can find themselves in considerable trouble if they get caught in lies about those things. Reputation does mean something in this industry, to those of us who have built good ones, that is. The premiums our ranch has received have been based on our honesty and the quality of our cattle. We are not about to compromise that reputation. I do not rule out making you pay for your lies about me and my family.



MRJ

OT, what I believe is that the requirements for inspection of imported beef is the same as ours. The 'foreigners' are trained to our specifications. There are spot checks. It is POSSIBLE that there will be some discrepancies. However, how many companies will take the chance of being caught?

Your claims of fraud on the part of foreign packing plants are long on speculation, possible hearsay, and innuendo.......and your proof is non-existent.......as is usual with your charges of abuses and fraud!

I recently read that here is a surprisingly large percentage of the Mexican population that is VERY wealthy. Those people eat mostly imported US beef. There is a middle income percentage that are fairly well off, and they eat the better quality of the Mexican produced beef. And there is a significant percent of very poor people in Mexico. Yet those poor people are also very heavy beef consumers of the lower quality of Mexican produced beef, and also of parts of the beef animal not popular in the USA which we export to Mexico. Mexico, for those reasons are good trading partners for the US beef industry. No 'proof', but this was told by a speaker, possibly a Mexican, at an NCBA meeting a couple of years ago and no one challenged his numbers and I have no reason to doubt his honesty.

Maxine you need to do a little research on why many of the industry and companies that moved to Mexico have now relocated again...The fraud and corruption is driving them out...So thats not a place I feel secure in importing meat from and having it passed off as US product uninspected...

I may not have been as clear as I should on that vet animal health inspection. The papers are copies of the vaccines we purchase and treatments we use as recommended by our vets. It is unlikely that people will buy vaccines and not use them. We do our own vaccinations, so far as allowed by law. Anyone who purchases our cattle are welcome to test them for illegal residues. They won't find any.

Same here- The invoice receipts for the purchased vaccine/pour ons is part of the affidavit "package" the buyer receives...

Re. your 'cattle buyer' comment......I would tell him, as I tell you, that could pretty well qualify as a 'fraudulent' statement, IMO. It has just about forever been understood by anyone who knows anything about USDA 'labels' that "USDA Inspected" means exactly that. It has not been until recently that SOME consumers have said they believed it meant "US origin". If packers have taken advantage of the fact, they should not have. Nor is it their fault that people no longer have much access to Home Ec classes in jr. hi and high school, where they used to learn about such labels.

There is no way on earth that you should be able to honestly believe and claim that NCBA supports ANY form of packer fraud. You are guilty of, at best, taking a cheap shot, and more likely, IMO, of actual lies about NCBA on this count for certain, and probably others as well.

Maxine- I haven't seen NCBA or the checkoff out lobbying for "honest labeling" of beef products or promoting/sponsoring any educational programs to tell consumers the truth about this labeling-- that the "USDA inspected" label does not mean a US produced product/ or even a product that has ever been looked at by a USDA employee.....

Take it as a cheap shot or whatever - but NCBA's lobbying to stop any M-COOL legislation is supporting a fraud that the Packer/importer/retailers are profiting from and taking advantage of consumers from....That makes NCBA as quilty to lying to consumers as the packers/retailers in my book...


MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MRJ said:

OT, what I believe is that the requirements for inspection of imported beef is the same as ours. The 'foreigners' are trained to our specifications. There are spot checks. It is POSSIBLE that there will be some discrepancies. However, how many companies will take the chance of being caught?

Your claims of fraud on the part of foreign packing plants are long on speculation, possible hearsay, and innuendo.......and your proof is non-existent.......as is usual with your charges of abuses and fraud!

I recently read that here is a surprisingly large percentage of the Mexican population that is VERY wealthy. Those people eat mostly imported US beef. There is a middle income percentage that are fairly well off, and they eat the better quality of the Mexican produced beef. And there is a significant percent of very poor people in Mexico. Yet those poor people are also very heavy beef consumers of the lower quality of Mexican produced beef, and also of parts of the beef animal not popular in the USA which we export to Mexico. Mexico, for those reasons are good trading partners for the US beef industry. No 'proof', but this was told by a speaker, possibly a Mexican, at an NCBA meeting a couple of years ago and no one challenged his numbers and I have no reason to doubt his honesty.

Maxine you need to do a little research on why many of the industry and companies that moved to Mexico have now relocated again...The fraud and corruption is driving them out...So thats not a place I feel secure in importing meat from and having it passed off as US product uninspected...

I may not have been as clear as I should on that vet animal health inspection. The papers are copies of the vaccines we purchase and treatments we use as recommended by our vets. It is unlikely that people will buy vaccines and not use them. We do our own vaccinations, so far as allowed by law. Anyone who purchases our cattle are welcome to test them for illegal residues. They won't find any.

Same here- The invoice receipts for the purchased vaccine/pour ons is part of the affidavit "package" the buyer receives...

Re. your 'cattle buyer' comment......I would tell him, as I tell you, that could pretty well qualify as a 'fraudulent' statement, IMO. It has just about forever been understood by anyone who knows anything about USDA 'labels' that "USDA Inspected" means exactly that. It has not been until recently that SOME consumers have said they believed it meant "US origin". If packers have taken advantage of the fact, they should not have. Nor is it their fault that people no longer have much access to Home Ec classes in jr. hi and high school, where they used to learn about such labels.

There is no way on earth that you should be able to honestly believe and claim that NCBA supports ANY form of packer fraud. You are guilty of, at best, taking a cheap shot, and more likely, IMO, of actual lies about NCBA on this count for certain, and probably others as well.

Maxine- I haven't seen NCBA or the checkoff out lobbying for "honest labeling" of beef products or promoting/sponsoring any educational programs to tell consumers the truth about this labeling-- that the "USDA inspected" label does not mean a US produced product/ or even a product that has ever been looked at by a USDA employee.....

Take it as a cheap shot or whatever - but NCBA's lobbying to stop any M-COOL legislation is supporting a fraud that the Packer/importer/retailers are profiting from and taking advantage of consumers from....That makes NCBA as quilty to lying to consumers as the packers/retailers in my book...


MRJ

OT, Whose information do you trust, and why? Why do you trust those "industries" and "companies" that claim they moved out of Mexico.....you rarely give any verbal support to global corporations.

OT, why are you so certain that because you do not know of it, NCBA is, or is not doing such lobbying?

I do know there has been some educational work done with consumers to inform what various USDA labels mean. I do not know the scope of it, nor for how long a time it was done. Maybe it continues to this day. There are many valuable projects that have to be scrapped due to budget constraints.

Cattle producers across the nation at both the state Beef Council level and national levels (CBB), (comprised of representatives of most beef organizations) and LMA, claiming to represent those producers who do not join organizations, present new projects for consideration each year. Then they prioritize those which make the cut as to value to the cattle industry.

BTW, as one who frequently criticizes USDA, isn't it a bit strange you insist only USDA employees should "look at" or inspect imported beef?

I believe it is incorrect to state, as you do, that NCBA is "lobbying to stop any M-COOL legislation". NCBA is only lobbying to stop an M-COOL law that perpetrates the genuine fraud of fooling consumers into believing that label makes beef any safer than it is now. NCBA supports the voluntary consumer/market driven, label that has REAL source verification and improved beef safety, bu tnot your version which prevents it.

That makes YOU the one who is guilty of lying to consumers!

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "NCBA is only lobbying to stop an M-COOL law that perpetrates the genuine fraud of fooling consumers into believing that label makes beef any safer than it is now.

I've shown you several times an example of a country using a drug on cattle that is illegal here for food animals. If it is illegal to use on food animals, that tells you it is a food safety issue. Yet, you ignore my example and continue to claim there are no food safety advantages to COOL. You're wrong, MRJ.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker- Macon needs to get us a "beat head against stone wall" emoticon :roll: The one good thing about Maxines posts are she reminds me why I lost confidence in the NCBA ever doing anything positive for the cattle producer.... :wink: :lol:

Don't be afraid to see what you see
Ronald Reagan

But you have to look first :shock:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "NCBA is only lobbying to stop an M-COOL law that perpetrates the genuine fraud of fooling consumers into believing that label makes beef any safer than it is now.

I've shown you several times an example of a country using a drug on cattle that is illegal here for food animals. If it is illegal to use on food animals, that tells you it is a food safety issue. Yet, you ignore my example and continue to claim there are no food safety advantages to COOL. You're wrong, MRJ.


Sandhusker, the "science" and validation you have "shown" us on that subject is questionable at best. If it should PROVE to be accurate, and the drug in question should PROVE to leave dangerous residues in the meat, it might be worth some study.

Now, please tell us how it is going to "improve" food safety when you got a COOL law passed which exempts the vast majority of imported beef from that law, leaving it with no label.

What Macon really needs to do is provide a pop up a sign that blinks "Sour grapes alert" every time a snide remark or lie about NCBA or the Beef Checkoff is posted by an R-CALF apologist!

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "NCBA is only lobbying to stop an M-COOL law that perpetrates the genuine fraud of fooling consumers into believing that label makes beef any safer than it is now.

I've shown you several times an example of a country using a drug on cattle that is illegal here for food animals. If it is illegal to use on food animals, that tells you it is a food safety issue. Yet, you ignore my example and continue to claim there are no food safety advantages to COOL. You're wrong, MRJ.


Sandhusker, the "science" and validation you have "shown" us on that subject is questionable at best. If it should PROVE to be accurate, and the drug in question should PROVE to leave dangerous residues in the meat, it might be worth some study.

Now, please tell us how it is going to "improve" food safety when you got a COOL law passed which exempts the vast majority of imported beef from that law, leaving it with no label.

What Macon really needs to do is provide a pop up a sign that blinks "Sour grapes alert" every time a snide remark or lie about NCBA or the Beef Checkoff is posted by an R-CALF apologist!

MRJ

The science I have shown is from the FDA, MRJ. They were the ones who banned the drugs. Obviously, they felt they had enough proof for the ban. Do you have anything to dispute them?

R-CALF wanted to label everything. Your group is the one who forced a watered down compromise. Regardless, a label would allow one to avoid product from countries that use those drugs. That IS a food safety issue that is addressed by COOL. Would you knowingly buy fruit from a country that still uses DDT?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "NCBA is only lobbying to stop an M-COOL law that perpetrates the genuine fraud of fooling consumers into believing that label makes beef any safer than it is now.

I've shown you several times an example of a country using a drug on cattle that is illegal here for food animals. If it is illegal to use on food animals, that tells you it is a food safety issue. Yet, you ignore my example and continue to claim there are no food safety advantages to COOL. You're wrong, MRJ.


Sandhusker, the "science" and validation you have "shown" us on that subject is questionable at best. If it should PROVE to be accurate, and the drug in question should PROVE to leave dangerous residues in the meat, it might be worth some study.

Now, please tell us how it is going to "improve" food safety when you got a COOL law passed which exempts the vast majority of imported beef from that law, leaving it with no label.

What Macon really needs to do is provide a pop up a sign that blinks "Sour grapes alert" every time a snide remark or lie about NCBA or the Beef Checkoff is posted by an R-CALF apologist!

MRJ

The science I have shown is from the FDA, MRJ. They were the ones who banned the drugs. Obviously, they felt they had enough proof for the ban. Do you have anything to dispute them?

R-CALF wanted to label everything. Your group is the one who forced a watered down compromise. Regardless, a label would allow one to avoid product from countries that use those drugs. That IS a food safety issue that is addressed by COOL. Would you knowingly buy fruit from a country that still uses DDT?

Sandhusker! You are holding up USDA/FDA as doing good work! Careful there, you may find they are not so "corrupt" and "incompetent" and "fraudulent" after all! And before you get back on your high horse, yes, I know you may not have made those accusations, but you have bad-mouthed USDA, whether or not I got the exact words.

I understand there may be many reasons for FDA to ban a drug. Those reasons may or may not result in dangerous meat.

Which specific points in your COOL law do you believe that NCBA succeeded in getting "watered down"? The politicians you were playing "legislation" with made the decision, not NCBA! The politicians were only interested in getting re-elected, so gave you a watered down, useless law, beleiving that by the time it was found out, the election would be over, IMO.

I do know who forced keeping a "trace-back" mechanism out of the law, when that is imperative for real food safety/illness prevention. Clue, it sure wasn't "my" group!

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "Sandhusker! You are holding up USDA/FDA as doing good work! Careful there, you may find they are not so "corrupt" and "incompetent" and "fraudulent" after all! And before you get back on your high horse, yes, I know you may not have made those accusations, but you have bad-mouthed USDA, whether or not I got the exact words."

You're reading something that I didn't write. Where did I mention USDA?

MRJ "I understand there may be many reasons for FDA to ban a drug. Those reasons may or may not result in dangerous meat. "

The FDA banned it for FOOD ANIMALS. Are you doubting their reasons?

MRJ, " The politicians you were playing "legislation" with made the decision, not NCBA! "

So now it is the politicians who wrote the law? Why then were you chasing R-CALF for the flaws? I'll remember your comment.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "Sandhusker! You are holding up USDA/FDA as doing good work! Careful there, you may find they are not so "corrupt" and "incompetent" and "fraudulent" after all! And before you get back on your high horse, yes, I know you may not have made those accusations, but you have bad-mouthed USDA, whether or not I got the exact words."

You're reading something that I didn't write. Where did I mention USDA?

MRJ "I understand there may be many reasons for FDA to ban a drug. Those reasons may or may not result in dangerous meat. "

The FDA banned it for FOOD ANIMALS. Are you doubting their reasons?

MRJ, " The politicians you were playing "legislation" with made the decision, not NCBA! "

So now it is the politicians who wrote the law? Why then were you chasing R-CALF for the flaws? I'll remember your comment.

Sorry. You bad-mouth the GWBush administration and USDA and FDA both are part of the Bush admin. so maybe I assumed too much, this time.


However, you did not show any evidence or the specific reason for the ban of the drug you mentioned. Using the reasoning some of you naysayers re. departments of the Bush admin. have, it could be that there was "money under the table", or some sort of "back door deal". Not that I believe things run that way, but some posting here claim it happens........when it is an issue that suits their agenda.

Do you have any evidence of beef treated with that drug containing residues of the drug? What are the expected health problems to humans from use of the drug in food animals? Does that country export beef to the USA? Have there been any recorded health consequences of use of the drug in cattle on people in that country? Obviously there are many questions which you should have answered before making your claim, IMO.

R-CALF accepted the flaws and touts the law as darn near miraculous! Sure the pols are the ones who passed it, but if not for R-CALF insistence on "no traceback burdens on producers", it MIGHT have had some small benefit for consumers.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "However, you did not show any evidence or the specific reason for the ban of the drug you mentioned."

Why do I need to? Why are you doubting the credibilty of the FDA?
 
Top