NCBA Wants more USDA/GIPSA Oversight

[Anonymous]

Econ 101: "Meatpackers were not keeping track of foreign meat and passing that information to U.S. consumers. Meat packers didn't want to. They were getting cheap Canadian beef because of the BSE scare and selling it in the U.S. as though it wasn't Canadian beef."

How could meatpackers keep track of foreign beef WITHOUT A VALID TRACEBACK SYSTEM??

The only reason they aren't forced to do so today is because the hypocrites who supported "M"COOL and insisted on proving where an animal was "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED" before receiving the US BEEF label did not want the traceback system to prove it. That's why we have "CAN-MEX-USA" beef labels.

Those labels are a direct result of the ignorance of those who supported "M"COOL without a valid traceback system to enforce their flawed law.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

The people that want born, raised, and processed want that applied to US beef. We want to know that the beef from that animal lever left US soil, whether alive or not. If that animal crossed the border to be fed disqualifies it from that label and it is now "other". If that animal has ever been out of this country, it is easily identified at the packer's lot.

 

[Sandhusker]

Econ 101: "Meatpackers were not keeping track of foreign meat and passing that information to U.S. consumers. Meat packers didn't want to. They were getting cheap Canadian beef because of the BSE scare and selling it in the U.S. as though it wasn't Canadian beef."

How could meatpackers keep track of foreign beef WITHOUT A VALID TRACEBACK SYSTEM??

The only reason they aren't forced to do so today is because the hypocrites who supported "M"COOL and insisted on proving where an animal was "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED" before receiving the US BEEF label did not want the traceback system to prove it. That's why we have "CAN-MEX-USA" beef labels.

Those labels are a direct result of the ignorance of those who supported "M"COOL without a valid traceback system to enforce their flawed law.


~SH~

Under existing law, a packer knows full well if they have an animal that has never been out of this country. Yet, they put a label that shows a possibility that it could of been in Canada and Mexico. This is a practice that takes money out of the pockets of US producers - and you're defending it, SH.

 

[Tex]

Econ 101: "Meatpackers were not keeping track of foreign meat and passing that information to U.S. consumers. Meat packers didn't want to. They were getting cheap Canadian beef because of the BSE scare and selling it in the U.S. as though it wasn't Canadian beef."

How could meatpackers keep track of foreign beef WITHOUT A VALID TRACEBACK SYSTEM??

The only reason they aren't forced to do so today is because the hypocrites who supported "M"COOL and insisted on proving where an animal was "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED" before receiving the US BEEF label did not want the traceback system to prove it. That's why we have "CAN-MEX-USA" beef labels.

Those labels are a direct result of the ignorance of those who supported "M"COOL without a valid traceback system to enforce their flawed law.


~SH~

Under existing law, a packer knows full well if they have an animal that has never been out of this country. Yet, they put a label that shows a possibility that it could of been in Canada and Mexico. This is a practice that takes money out of the pockets of US producers - and you're defending it, SH.

If meat packers can not get this simple task right, they should be run out of the business. Enough coddling of these guys just because they want to get away with stuff.

Fines should be rare and large with little chance of being overturned or reduced. Fines should be sized to market size. If you control 25% of the market, your fine should be 25 times the fine for someone controlling 1% of the market.

We just don't have the courage by our regulatory agencies or federal judges because these companies are paying way too many politicians to be able to cheat and gain benefit from that cheating.

Tex

 

[mrj]

Tex, if you succeed in running all meat packers out of the country, what are you going to do with your cattle when you want to sell them?

mrj

 

[Tex]

Tex, if you succeed in running all meat packers out of the country, what are you going to do with your cattle when you want to sell them?

mrj

I have no intention of running all of the meat packers out of the country, I just want the crooked ones out of the business.

We don't have to have crooks running these businesses. If you are caught breaking the law, you shouldn't be rewarded by keeping your assets and not paying for the damages you caused others.

There will always be meatpackers. How honest they are will depend on how we treat the dishonest ones. I just want a forced change in personnel if they break the law, not continual hall passes because they are too rich to follow the law of the land.

Tex

 

[Faster horses]

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask this.

With all thier overhead and outputs and risks they take,
you honestly think packers are rich?

I wonder how much income tax they pay?

 

[Tex]

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask this.

With all thier overhead and outputs and risks they take,
you honestly think packers are rich?

I wonder how much income tax they pay?

The answer to that is immaterial. It doesn't matter how rich or poor you are. If you are a crook, you shouldn't be running large corporations. Should we ask Bernie Madoff how rich he is before prosecuting him?

It is more about control. When you have $425,000 to pay off a former majority leader in the Senate to keep getting away with your frauds in the courts, I don't care if you are poor or rich. You are just a crook no matter how you look at it.

#346 Donald John Tyson
Net Worth: $1.0 billion
Source: Food, chicken
Inherited and growing

Age: 75
Marital Status: Married, 4 children
Hometown: Springdale, AR
Education: University of Arkansas, Drop Out

Surviving son of John Tyson, who started Tyson Feed and Hatchery in 1930s. Don dropped out of U. of Arkansas to join company 1952; helped dad fend off takeover bid by Swanson Co. Took chicken business public 1963, changed name to Tyson Foods. Don took over 1967 after car-train wreck killed father, stepmother. Expanded mainly through acquisition: bought meatpacker IBP in 2001, making Tyson world's largest poultry and red meat provider. Passed reins to son John in 2000, but still enjoyed company perks. Paid more than $2 million in SEC fines for misleading disclosure of personal benefits. Chicken feed for Don, who gives millions to charity—especially his alma mater—each year through Tyson Family Foundation.
Distribution of the Forbes 400 by U.S. State

You don't think the Batistas are rich, or any of the other ones?




Pleaaasssse.


These guys have captured the profits of many, many, many under them. They should be paying the taxes on all of that captured wealth. Don't feel sorry for them or their wealth. They, like the Kochs have the ability to buy all the pity they want----where it counts.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "The people that want born, raised, and processed want that applied to US beef. We want to know that the beef from that animal lever left US soil, whether alive or not. If that animal crossed the border to be fed disqualifies it from that label and it is now "other".

Which requires a traceback system which you oppose. Great job shooting yourself in the foot again.

"CAN-MEX-USA".....that's exactly what you deserve for being so ignorant about tracking cattle and beef in an enforceable manner.

Sandhusker: "Under existing law, a packer knows full well if they have an animal that has never been out of this country. Yet, they put a label that shows a possibility that it could of been in Canada and Mexico. This is a practice that takes money out of the pockets of US producers - and you're defending it, SH."

That's bull. They don't know where an animal originates from unless there is a valid traceback system to prove it. You oppose a valid traceback system which is why "M"COOL is such a joke.

"M"COOL, as flawed as it was, took money out of the pockets of US producers but you are too ignorant to realize it. Increased costs in the processing and fabrication of beef will result in lower cattle prices ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

As if differentiating 5% of the beef at the retail level as foreign beef would have helped US BEEF sales.

Another one of your many hypocritical positions is your belief that the beef checkoff only benefits the packers yet "M"COOL would supposedly benefit the producers. Listening to you talk in circles and contradict yourself is like watching a cat chase it's tail.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "If you are a crook, you shouldn't be running large corporations."

Thank God we live in a country where you are not a crook until proven to be a crook regardless how badly some are looking for someone or something to blame.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "If you are a crook, you shouldn't be running large corporations."

Thank God we live in a country where you are not a crook until proven to be a crook regardless how badly some are looking for someone or something to blame.


~SH~

These guys are scared to death of juries so they play the inside game. Our founding fathers trusted juries more than the inside game and set it up that way. The inside game is winning today because the rules have been and are being bought from a govt. and employees willing to sell out the public interest.

Yes, Tyson has been proven a crook more times than I can count but they get everything from presidential pardons to deferred sentences from the DOJ on bribery they admitted.

The crook part isn't even debated anymore, it is so well known. Do some reading, there, sh. You might learn something.

Here is a start:

http://fcpaprofessor.blogspot.com/2010/04/mendelsohn-to-paul-weiss.html

See if you can put it together without help.



Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Our judicial system is based on a cornerstone concept called "THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE". Large corporations are not presumed guilty because blamers like you need something to blame. They have to be proven guilty which in Pickett they were not. The judge's decision was upheld by the appeals court and supreme court.

The Pickett plaintiff's convinced the ALABAMA (not a major cattle feeding state where they understand cattle marketing) jury that ONE PACKER dropping THEIR price in the cash market to reflect purchases made through forward contracts and grid pricing FROM WILLING SELLERS was market manipulation. How they could prove that in light of all the other factors that affect fat cattle prices on a daily basis is a mystery in itself. Judge Strom saw how foolish that decision would be and the socialized marketing consequences that would result in all aspects of cattle marketing had that ridiculous verdict been allowed to stand. No judge was bought off. The jury clearly got it wrong on their decision. Judge Strom's decision was upheld by the appeals court and supreme court.

Countless GIPSA investigations on allegations of market manipulation over many years have resulted in finding little to nothing.

Wanting to believe someone is guilty proves nothing.

If packer blamers like you were successful in breaking up the major packers into smaller less efficient packers, the end result would be lower cattle markets ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. You'd find someone or something to blame for that too I'm sure because you just don't know any better.

How do you explain current fat cattle prices TEX??? Hmmm??? Packer generosity??? What's the level of packer concentration now? Why can't packers manipulate the markets now? What's the level of captive supplies now hmmmm???? What's the impact of Canadian imports now hmmm??? All your baseless packer blaming conspiracy theories went flying out the window with $1.20 fat cattle didn't they?

Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious for a packer blamer.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "That's bull. They don't know where an animal originates from unless there is a valid traceback system to prove it."

No, SH, THAT is bull. If there's not the "M" or the "CAN", the animal has always been in the US.

 

[Tex]

Our judicial system is based on a cornerstone concept called "THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE". Large corporations are not presumed guilty because blamers like you need something to blame. They have to be proven guilty which in Pickett they were not. The judge's decision was upheld by the appeals court and supreme court.

The Pickett plaintiff's convinced the ALABAMA (not a major cattle feeding state where they understand cattle marketing) jury that ONE PACKER dropping THEIR price in the cash market to reflect purchases made through forward contracts and grid pricing FROM WILLING SELLERS was market manipulation. How they could prove that in light of all the other factors that affect fat cattle prices on a daily basis is a mystery in itself. Judge Strom saw how foolish that decision would be and the socialized marketing consequences that would result in all aspects of cattle marketing had that ridiculous verdict been allowed to stand. No judge was bought off. The jury clearly got it wrong on their decision. Judge Strom's decision was upheld by the appeals court and supreme court.

Countless GIPSA investigations on allegations of market manipulation over many years have resulted in finding little to nothing.

Wanting to believe someone is guilty proves nothing.

If packer blamers like you were successful in breaking up the major packers into smaller less efficient packers, the end result would be lower cattle markets ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. You'd find someone or something to blame for that too I'm sure because you just don't know any better.

How do you explain current fat cattle prices TEX??? Hmmm??? Packer generosity??? What's the level of packer concentration now? Why can't packers manipulate the markets now? What's the level of captive supplies now hmmmm???? What's the impact of Canadian imports now hmmm??? All your baseless packer blaming conspiracy theories went flying out the window with $1.20 fat cattle didn't they?

Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious for a packer blamer.


~SH~

While our judicial system is based on presumption of innocence (please spell it correctly), it is also based on if you can't get to a jury, you can't prove it, nanna nanna boo boo.

Our judicial system is based more on principals now days, not principles, as it once was.

The 1.20--- boy isn't it nice to have a real man running GIPSA instead of the packer's boy or girl.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "No, SH, THAT is bull. If there's not the "M" or the "CAN", the animal has always been in the US."

Wrong again! The "M" brand is probably registered in every state with brand inspection at every location on the animal which doesn't have a darn thing to do with tracing the beef from that animal which is what "M"COOL was about.

You wanted "M"COOL to be enforceable.

No you didn't want "M"COOL to be enforceable.

Yes, you wanted the law to be enforceable.

No you didn't want traceback.

Yes you wanted to know where an animal was "BORN & RAISED".

Ah, geee, ah, I sure hope USDA can figure that out.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "The 1.20--- boy isn't it nice to have a real man running GIPSA instead of the packer's boy or girl."

Couldn't be reduced cattle numbers.
Couldn't be reduced beef supplies.
Couldn't be increased exports.
Couldn't be reduced competitive meat supplies.
Couldn't be increased consumer demand.

Do you pride yourself in being so clueless to market factors?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker: "No, SH, THAT is bull. If there's not the "M" or the "CAN", the animal has always been in the US."

Wrong again! The "M" brand is probably registered in every state with brand inspection at every location on the animal which doesn't have a darn thing to do with tracing the beef from that animal which is what "M"COOL was about.

You wanted "M"COOL to be enforceable.

No you didn't want "M"COOL to be enforceable.

Yes, you wanted the law to be enforceable.

No you didn't want traceback.

Yes you wanted to know where an animal was "BORN & RAISED".

Ah, geee, ah, I sure hope USDA can figure that out.


~SH~

SH, if you knew where that "M" brand was located, you would be informed enough to participate in this discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "SH, if you knew where that "M" brand was located, you would be informed enough to participate in this discussion."

Moot point, tracking a hide has nothing to do with tracking beef. If you knew anything about beef fabrication and beef marketing, you would be informed enough to ....... eat popcorn and listen to a discussion that you didn't understand.


~SH~

 

[Tex]

Tex: "The 1.20--- boy isn't it nice to have a real man running GIPSA instead of the packer's boy or girl."

Couldn't be reduced cattle numbers.
Couldn't be reduced beef supplies.
Couldn't be increased exports.
Couldn't be reduced competitive meat supplies.
Couldn't be increased consumer demand.

Do you pride yourself in being so clueless to market factors?


~SH~

It could be all of those things but if packers are colluding on price manipulation, all of those things take a second seat to reduced prices because of lack of real competition. Sometimes a good cop on the beat just keeps the criminals at bay. That is why everyone wants their policing (everyone but the crooks, that is).



Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "It could be all of those things ......."

That's right so why would you make such a ridiculous statement as to suggest that $1.20 fat cattle has anything to do with who is running GIPSA???

The fact is you truly are clueless in understanding the factors that affect cattle markets.

Tex: "...but if packers are colluding on price manipulation,.."

BUT THEY'RE NOT, because if they were colluding on price manipulation, the markets would not be what they are and the evidence would have been produced in countless GIPSA investigations that came up empty handed as well as countless lawsuits filed against packers that also came up empty handed.

A packer is not guilty because a packer blamer like you wants them to be guilty. They are only guilty of what you accuse them of if they are proven guilty.

Tex: "...all of those things take a second seat to reduced prices because of lack of real competition."

Oh bullcrap! Those factors are playing on the markets every single day. Anyone who does any research on profits in the packing industry knows exactly how tight packer margins are on a daily basis and how those profits are tied to beef demand and cattle supplies.

Real competition in the packing industry is no more evident then in current fat cattle prices. If you don't think Tyson, Excel, USPB, and JBS are not in competition for the same cattle you are a complete fool.

Make no mistake about it, guys that believe in conspiracy theories like you do, Econ 101, are what is keeping this industry from moving forward.


~SH~