• 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 FLIP FLOPPING ALREADY???????

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Speaking Out for Agriculture
Inside D.C.


House Ag Committee hears experts on beef trade with Canada, Japan
Wednesday, March 2, 2005, 9:27 AM

by Josh St. Peters

The Secretary of Agriculture told lawmakers yesterday that the resumption of beef trade between the U.S. and Canada is critical, as it could set the precedent for redeveloping an export business with the Japanese. At a Congressional hearing before the House Agriculture Committee, Mike Johanns said that trade relationships between the U.S., Japan, and Canada must be standardized in order to create an ideal system for importing and exporting cattle across the U.S. borders.

At the hearing, farm state leaders heard from two panels representing a variety of interests in the cattle business. Johanns spoke on behalf of the Bush Administration, and was joined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Chief Economist, Keith Collins and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Administrator, Dr. Ron DeHaven.

The three USDA leaders painted a picture of scientific-based and economically-founded reasons to restart importing Canadian live cattle. The Secretary specifically pointed to the fact that a lack of U.S. action on Canada's trade requests could serve as a leverage point for the Japanese.

“Additional delays could further complicate relations between the United States and Japan,” Johanns said.

Chuck Kiker, a regional director for R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), told the Representatives that resuming imports of Canadian cattle is a bad idea.

“I have the utmost confidence in the beef we produce in the U.S.,” he said. “Unfortunately, Canada has a problem, and I don’t think it’s being addressed.”

R-CALF USA has long been an opponent of reopening the U.S. border to Canada. Meanwhile, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has varied their stance on the issue, first supporting beef trade, and then opposing the March 7, 2005 deadline for reopening the border.

At yesterday’s hearing, NCBA President Jim McAdams testified that his group had regained confidence in the science behind authorizing the beef imports. He said NCBA was fully supporting the Bush Administration’s minimal risk rule that lets Canadian cattle across the border.

But McAdams also urged the leaders to consider sanctions against the Japanese, due to the lack of interest in quickly resuming trade. The Texas cattleman pointed out that the U.S. has met all the scientific demands of the Japanese, but still has not succeeded in getting their business back.

“Many of our major trading partners still will not allow our product. We cattlemen expect that the government will ensure that we are treated fairly in the international arena," he said. "When our trading partners do not use sound science to base their rules upon, when they don’t follow the rules, and when they don’t negotiate in good faith, we expect our government to defend us by using all the tools necessary, including economic sanctions.”

The Congressmen also heard testimony from Cargill’s Vice President for Meat Procurement, Ken Bull, and Carl Kuehne, President of American Foods Group.

Johanns warned that U.S. cattlemen could run the risk of losing export business to the Canadians, if the cattle trade isn’t equalized between all three nations. The USDA leader warned that should Americans choose not to let Canadian cattle back across the border, it may leave that country’s leaders in a position to strike a trade deal with the Japanese.

The House Agriculture Committee chairman agreed with Johanns, supporting the Administration’s plan to restart trade with Canada. Virginia republican Bob Goodlatte credited the country’s robust surveillance system as clear evidence that it was safe to begin processing Canadian cattle in the U.S.

“I believe that all of our witnesses will agree that the discovery of a BSE positive cow in Canada in may of 2003 set in motion a string of events that have commanded our attention ever since. At the time, my view was that we should rely on sound science to work our way through this problem,” he said. “Since then, I have not been swayed by those who would use this situation to create non-tariff trade barriers or unnecessarily disrupt the free operation of our markets.”

The ranking Democrat on the committee, Representative Colin Peterson of Minnesota, asked the Secretary of Agriculture if USDA might not want to step away from its minimal risk rule and instead focus on putting the money that would have been spent implementing the rule into the new National Animal Identification System.

But the Agriculture Committee chairman warned his peers that this issue of beef trade could have a long-term impact on U.S. producers and foreign trading partners. He urged each person in the hearing to maintain a stance rooted in science, while considering the economic impacts of each decision they are asked to make.

“The public policy decisions being made now will have far-reaching implications for producers, processors, retailers and consumers and we owe it to them to remain both prudent and thoughtful,” Goodlatte said.

Brownfield's Washington Correspondent Matt Kaye contributed to this report.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
HAY MAKER said:
Meanwhile, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has varied their stance on the issue, first supporting beef trade, and then opposing the March 7, 2005 deadline for reopening the border.

At yesterday’s hearing, NCBA President Jim McAdams testified that his group had regained confidence in the science behind authorizing the beef imports. He said NCBA was fully supporting the Bush Administration’s minimal risk rule that lets Canadian cattle across the border.

This is getting worse than their COOL flip flops-- Looks like the packer bucks bought them out again-- well Haymaker, it should mean a few thousand new members to R-CALF...

MRJ- How do they flipflop on policy this many times?-- I thought the policy ballots were still in tha mail.... or did they get enough membership money in already that now they don't have to listen to the members....
 

feeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
950
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
I would like a NCBA member post if the ballots are back to the NCBA headquarters. What made the organization take the stance they have been taking the last few days. They don't sound anything like they did after their convention. Thanks
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
But McAdams also urged the leaders to consider sanctions against the Japanese, due to the lack of interest in quickly resuming trade. The Texas cattleman pointed out that the U.S. has met all the scientific demands of the Japanese, but still has not succeeded in getting their business back.

“Many of our major trading partners still will not allow our product. We cattlemen expect that the government will ensure that we are treated fairly in the international arena," he said. "When our trading partners do not use sound science to base their rules upon, when they don’t follow the rules, and when they don’t negotiate in good faith, we expect our government to defend us by using all the tools necessary, including economic sanctions.”

Another case of do as the US says not as they do :x
 

sw

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
NCBA Executive Director, Government Affairs

DATE: March 2, 2005
RE: Affiliate Update:

Status of NCBA actions regarding “Canadian Rule” directive

As you know, at NCBA’s recent annual meeting, our membership passed an 11-point directive regarding the resumption of trade with Canada. Listed below is a status report of NCBA actions and progress regarding the criteria.

Prohibit the importation of cattle and beef products from cattle more than 30 months of age.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced Feb. 9 a delay in the importation of beef products from cattle more than 30 months of age. The rule scheduled for implementation will include ONLY beef products from cattle under30 months of age.

Ron DeHaven, administrator for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said the agency has begun a scientific assessment on whether importing Canadian cattle over 30 months of age - and beef products made from these animals - would increase the risk of spreading BSE in the U.S. The risk assessment could take several months to complete. Secretary Mike Johanns has said it may take six to 12 months for the U.S. to open its border to older Canadian cattle.

Assurance that all Canadian firewalls to prevent BSE, specifically adherence to their feed ban, are function properly.

NCBA’s Canadian Trade Delegation reported, based on their January visit to Canada and tour of Canada’s beef production system, “the Canadian feed industry appears to be in compliance with its feed ban, based on visual inspections and audit reports.” Still, NCBA wanted further evidence of compliance, and the trade delegation specifically requested an audit of Canada’s compliance with its feed ban.

On Feb. 25, USDA released a report documenting Canada’s compliance with their feed ban.
The report, written by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says “based on their review of inspection records and on-site observations, the inspection team found that Canada has a robust inspection program, that overall compliance with the feed ban is good, and that the feed ban is reducing the risk of transmission of BSE in the Canadian cattle population.”

No feeder cattle imported until agreement is reached on harmonization of animal health standards, especially bluetongue and anaplasmosis.

Canada has issued preliminary rules to bring about harmonization of animal health standards on bluetongue and anaplasmosis as they relate to feeder cattle. NCBA President Jim McAdams met with the Canadian Ag Minister in Washington D.C. on Feb. 10. During that meeting Canadian officials assured NCBA that the government of Canada would work cooperatively with the U.S. to resolve the issues both for feeder cattle and for breeding stock. NCBA remains in regular contact with senior officials of the Canadian Ag ministry.

Movement of Canadian cattle into the U.S. must be managed to minimize market disruptions.

APHIS released on Feb. 22 documents outlining import procedures for product from Canada. As many as eight new files have been posted to the BSE “Hot Issues” section of their website to assist with the implementation of the “Minimal-Risk Region” rule. Some of the files include specific instructions on the overall importation requirements for Minimal Risk Regions and the importation of commodities from Canada, Importation of Bovines from Canada for feeding, Veterinarian instructions on the Importation of Live Animals, Protocol for the importation of Cattle for Immediate Slaughter and Protocol related to other species for import from Canada.

The reports, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/bse.html, will require additional clarification in a number of key areas.

Feeder cattle coming into the U.S. are likely to face fairly complex and new regulations ranging from age verification to the requirements for sealing trucks. Senior officials at USDA have been quoted on several occasions saying that completing the permit process will likely slow feeder cattle imports to the U.S., potentially putting off most Canadian feeder cattle exports to the U.S. for three to four months.

Fed Cattle imported for immediate slaughter must be certified to be less than 30 months of age at the time of importation.

The instructions released on Feb. 22, 2005 require age verification. Cattle moving direct to slaughter will be off-loaded (1 truck in 12) to verify their age, ID, etc. The reports indicated above provide comprehensive details of the age verification requirements.

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) also issued Feb. 28 a notice to inspectors regarding “the receipt, slaughter, and inspection of certain ruminants imported from Canada.”

It is posted on their website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/.

Ban the use of fetal bovine serum from heifers imported for immediate slaughter.

Fetuses found in heifers at slaughter will be treated as an illegal import and must be destroyed and disposed of by incineration, landfill, or digester.

USDA grades and stamps are not allowed on any imported beef product.

U.S. grade stamps are not authorized for use on boxed beef meeting the strictest interpretation of this rule. Virtually no product is shipped as carcasses. The most recent legislative attempt to modify the Meat Act to go beyond “product” was S. 544 (Burns, Bond, Craig & Thomas) in the 107th Congress. Concerns have been raised.

Preventing imported beef and lamb from receiving a USDA grade would violate national treatment rules under Article 3 of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, industry and government sources said. Article 3.1 states that imported products of a WTO member “shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use.”

Feeder cattle must be branded with a “CAN”, individually identified with an ear tag, certified to be less than 30 months of age at time of slaughter, shipped in sealed trucks from the border directly to an approved feedlot and moved directly in sealed trucks to slaughter.
As is prescribed in the final rule, the instruction documents released Feb. 22, require animals to be branded with a “CAN” and prohibit the removal of official Canadian ear tags (required by Canadian law). The rule also requires the shipment of feeder cattle in sealed trucks and a requirement for the seal to be removed by officials at the final destination. Movement to slaughter is also in “sealed” conveyance. Canadian cattle may not be shipped with non Canadian cattle from feedyard to slaughter. Age must be verified prior to shipment and Canadian cattle older than 30 months will be deemed an illegal import and must be destroyed. Age determination can be made using either dentition or through valid documentation.

Feeder heifers imported into the U.S. from Canada must be spayed.

USDA does not directly require spaying of heifers for import as feeders. USDA does require that all animals coming to the U.S. will need to be certified that they are not pregnant. That certification can be accomplished by spaying or by certification of other means by a veterinarian.

USDA must work with our primary trading partners to ensure that expanded export access for U.S. beef is not in any way jeopardized by expanded importation of cattle and beef from Canada.

The U.S. has received numerous assurances that our evaluation of minimal risk status for Canada in no way will negatively affect our ability to regain access to export markets. No countries have expressed concern with current USDA proposals, nor has any country indicated that the U.S. decision to expand trade with Canada, as defined by the rule, would negatively affect U.S. export opportunities. As an example: Mexico will not take any beef product from the U.S. that the U.S. is not taking from Canada. Conversely, they'll import any product from the U.S. or Canada that the U.S. and Canada decide to trade.

The Administration must reach an agreement to re-establish beef and beef byproduct trade with Japan, South Korea and Mexico, and apply economic sanctions if necessary.

At NCBA’s suggestion, 20 key U.S. Senators sent a letter on Feb. 18 to Ryozo Kato, Ambassador of Japan to urge resolution to the Japanese embargo on U.S. beef. The letter says: “If the Japanese government fails to lift the ban expeditiously, we are afraid that the U.S. Congress may pursue equitable, retaliatory, economic actions against Japan. Our preference is to avoid this course of action, but our livestock producers, our industry workforce and our communities cannot wait a moment longer.”

The letter was assigned by U.S. Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Jim Talent (R-MO), Larry Craig (R-ID), Kit Bond (R-MO), John Cornyn (R-TX), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Gordon Smith (R-OR), George Voinovich (R-OH), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Thune (R-SD), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Max Baucus (D-MT), James Inhofe (R-OK), and Pete Domenici (R-NM). A similar letter was also sent by thirty house members led by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). Also, Congressman Bill Thomas, Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee, sent a letter to the Ambassador of Japan as well.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
At NCBA’s suggestion, 20 key U.S. Senators sent a letter on Feb. 18 to Ryozo Kato, Ambassador of Japan to urge resolution to the Japanese embargo on U.S. beef. The letter says: “If the Japanese government fails to lift the ban expeditiously, we are afraid that the U.S. Congress may pursue equitable, retaliatory, economic actions against Japan. Our preference is to avoid this course of action, but our livestock producers, our industry workforce and our communities cannot wait a moment longer.”

And what makes the NCBA and these Senators think that Japan should care about the US ranchers or the US economy any more than the US cares about Canada's. US Ranchers are competition to the Japanese producers and with out US imports maybe Japanese ranchers are making a profit on their cattle. What goes around comes around. You want the science to save you but you don't believe in the science so why should Japan.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Quote: "Meanwhile, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has varied their stance on the issue, first supporting beef trade, and then opposing the March 7, 2005 deadline for reopening the border."

Quote: "At yesterday’s hearing, NCBA President Jim McAdams testified that his group had regained confidence in the science behind authorizing the beef imports. He said NCBA was fully supporting the Bush Administration’s minimal risk rule that lets Canadian cattle across the border."


Allow me to show you how cheap talk is from NCBA blamers like OT!


OT,

Provide for the readers your proof that NCBA ever opposed the opening of the Canadian border to UTM live cattle to support your allegation of an NCBA "flip flop".

Bring it "LAW MAN"!!!!!

Watch this....................



~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
SH...Provide for the readers your proof that NCBA ever opposed the opening of the Canadian border to UTM live cattle to support your allegation of an NCBA "flip flop".

Scott allow me just in case Oldtimer is not around.

NCBA will to work to resolve a list of conditions before trade is resumed. These include:

11..The Administration must reach an agreement to re-establish beef and beef byproduct trade with Japan, South Korea and Mexico, and apply economic sanctions if necessary.

I just posted the one pertaining to your question. It is very clear...The Administration MUST reach an agreement.....before trade is resumed.

That says it all.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
OT,

Provide for the readers your proof that NCBA ever opposed the opening of the Canadian border to UTM live cattle to support your allegation of an NCBA "flip flop".




~SH~

Thank you Tommy- I have been busy this morning.....

~SH~ I watched Jan Lyons, who at the time was President of the NCBA, go on national TV and DEMAND that USDA not open the border on March 7 until we had our export markets back and guarantees the border would not affect these markets.....

Was Jan speaking the truth or just trying to stop the membership from further decline ?--Can we not believe anything an NCBA official says? Starting to look like NCBA backed the wrong presidential candidate-- Kerry seems to best fit their style--FLIP FLOP--FLIP FLOP- Say whatever today-- but I really didn't mean it tommorow......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy,

That directive does not oppose the opening of the border to UTM cattle UCONDITIONALLY to support R-CALFs view.

AGAIN, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT NCBA OPPOSED THE OPENING OF THE CANADIAN BORDER TO UTM CATTLE TO SUPPORT R-CALF'S POSITION?????


The NCBA's 11 directives are conditional to opening the Canadian border. Nowhere did NCBA oppose opening the Canadian border to UTM cattle UNCONDITIONALLY like R-CALF did to support your flip flop allegation.


In my opinion, NCBA's directive to resume trade is foolish because Japan will not open their markets to us when we are setting a presidence that says that UTM cattle are unsafe by opposing opening the Canadian border.

Korea said they were unwilling to take our beef if we were unwilling to take Canadian cattle.

I disagree with that directive and think it was foolish to include it in their list of conditions but nowhere did NCBA oppose opening the Canadian border UNCONDITIONALLY which is R-CALF's position.

The only way there could be a flip flop is if NCBA opposed opening the Canadian border, PERIOD.


You want to talk about flip flopping OT, R-CALF wrote the book.

Flip - "Dont consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from"

Flop - "M"ID PROHIBITED FROM "M"COOL


Flip - "USDA does not care about food safety"

Flop - R-CALF deceptively compares the number of cattle BSE tested in the US BY USDA to the number of cattle BSE tested in Canada.

I THOUGHT USDA DIDN'T CARE ABOUT FOOD SAFETY OT?????


Flip - "The packers don't care about food safety, they only care about the money"

Flop - "We have the safest beef in the world".

THIS SAFE BEEF, IS THAT THE SAME BEEF THE PACKERS ARE PROCESSING THAT DON'T CARE ABOUT FOOD SAFETY OT????


You bet OT, let's talk about flip flopping shall we????


~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Scott your question was... provide proof that NCBA ever opposed the opening of the Canadian border to UTM live cattle to support your allegation of an NCBA "flip flop". I provided that proof.

Now it has changed to Unconditionally support R-CALF's view.

If Jan Lyons stating on National TV and a NCBA resolution saying the border should not be opened untill we reach an agreement with Japan, Korea, and Mexico is not proof enough for you then you don't want to hear or understand the truth. There is only one way to interpret it.
 

Latest posts

Top