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

Reply to thread

Message

To illustrate how CAB fell for the meat packer spread misinformation, one needs to only look at the following article and in particular the last paragraph in bold:

Certified Angus Beef Champions Their Stand Against GIPSA Rule
Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:46:00 CDT

Certified Angus Beef Champions Their Stand Against GIPSA Rule Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) President John Stika sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to explain the branded beef company's stand against current wording in rule changes proposed by the Grain Inspection Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)

The USDA agency last summer unveiled its proposed rule changes that govern livestock marketing. A divide soon appeared within the beef industry over lengthening the comment period, and whether the proposed changes themselves needed changes. "Fairness" debates began from coffee shops to editorials and letters to USDA expressing either support or concern over vague language.

At a USDA/Justice Dept. workshop on competition in Fort Collins, Colo., last August 27, in an open letter to Angus producers and in subsequent comments to GIPSA, Stika expressed concern over unintended consequences and called for further study because there had been very little. By the end of the extended November deadline and after two private economic analyses quantifying costs and concerns, more than 60,000 comments had come in to GIPSA. Vilsack then announced USDA would conduct its own economic impact study.

"The issue seemed to fade a little, but in fact it has not gone away," Stika said. "We owe it to Angus producers and all of our licensed partners across the beef industry to maintain an active role in helping USDA craft the best possible clarifications to the proposed GIPSA rules."

The letter stated, "Pleasing the consumer is the single most effective and sustainable solution to maintaining an economically viable beef industry… Unless heavily edited, we believe the proposed rule will cause cattlemen and brand partners great economic hardships as their investment in premium genetics meet a constricted market." While not opposing the effort to better define terms, the letter noted, "it appears the kind of clarity being proposed negates the intent and opens the doors to a long series of lawsuits … litigation will lead to a reduction in the availability of value-based marketing arrangements."

Value separation would be minimized but "easier to defend," the letter said. Certified Angus Beef Board Chairman Steve Olson said, "This brand has worked for years to get ranchers premiums on their high-quality cattle through value-based marketing. Because the proposed rules may threaten these premiums, we must voice our opinion."

The American Angus Association supports these efforts, noted Association Board Chairman Joe Hampton. "By working with Secretary Vilsak, we hope Certified Angus Beef can help insure that any changes to the existing GIPSA regulations allow for the continued expansion of quality-focused, value-based marketing options," he said. That's what allows financial rewards for those who meet the growing consumer demand for products such as those bearing the Certified Angus Beef brand, said Association board member Leo McDonnell.

You will note that Stika called for reviewing a pending USDA economics study. This is a "study" called for by meat packers after they called for more time in the comment period and in the meantime put out another bogus "economic study" made by the same people who said MCOOL would be too expensive and would cost the industry X dollars.

Of course that was all a lie and a delaying tactic by the meat packers also. The whole argument is trying to be shifted by meat packers from the actual cases in court where they use their contacts in the U.S. Judiciary to throw cases and make get federal judges to make new excuses for them while demanding that the actual evidence from the trial be hidden from review.

I am ashamed that the leading cattle organizations fall for these deceitful tactics and especially the NCBA in testimony before Congress.

Meat packers couldn't orchestrate things better for themselves than to make rules they don't want to follow and cases they lose in front of juries go away with a new excuse slipped in to save them from the market crimes they are committing.

It is a total shame that so many in leadership in the industry just use the talking points handed to them that originate from meat packer strategists, PR firms, and the next guy they bought off in office or from these regulatory agencies.

It is part of what is wrong with the country. We get so far away from the real issues because that is what money can buy.

Tex

<blockquote data-quote="Tex" data-source="post: 526189" data-attributes="member: 2393">To illustrate how CAB fell for the meat packer spread misinformation, one needs to only look at the following article and in particular the last paragraph in bold:Certified Angus Beef Champions Their Stand Against GIPSA RuleFri, 15 Apr 2011 10:46:00 CDTCertified Angus Beef Champions Their Stand Against GIPSA Rule Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) President John Stika sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to explain the branded beef company&#039;s stand against current wording in rule changes proposed by the Grain Inspection Packers &amp; Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)The USDA agency last summer unveiled its proposed rule changes that govern livestock marketing. A divide soon appeared within the beef industry over lengthening the comment period, and whether the proposed changes themselves needed changes. &quot;Fairness&quot; debates began from coffee shops to editorials and letters to USDA expressing either support or concern over vague language.At a USDA/Justice Dept. workshop on competition in Fort Collins, Colo., last August 27, in an open letter to Angus producers and in subsequent comments to GIPSA, Stika expressed concern over unintended consequences and called for further study because there had been very little. By the end of the extended November deadline and after two private economic analyses quantifying costs and concerns, more than 60,000 comments had come in to GIPSA. Vilsack then announced USDA would conduct its own economic impact study.&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;The issue seemed to fade a little, but in fact it has not gone away,&quot; Stika said. &quot;We owe it to Angus producers and all of our licensed partners across the beef industry to maintain an active role in helping USDA craft the best possible clarifications to the proposed GIPSA rules.&quot;The letter stated, &quot;Pleasing the consumer is the single most effective and sustainable solution to maintaining an economically viable beef industry… Unless heavily edited, we believe the proposed rule will cause cattlemen and brand partners great economic hardships as their investment in premium genetics meet a constricted market.&quot; While not opposing the effort to better define terms, the letter noted, &quot;it appears the kind of clarity being proposed negates the intent and opens the doors to a long series of lawsuits … litigation will lead to a reduction in the availability of value-based marketing arrangements.&quot;Value separation would be minimized but &quot;easier to defend,&quot; the letter said. Certified Angus Beef Board Chairman Steve Olson said, &quot;This brand has worked for years to get ranchers premiums on their high-quality cattle through value-based marketing. Because the proposed rules may threaten these premiums, we must voice our opinion.&quot;The American Angus Association supports these efforts, noted Association Board Chairman Joe Hampton. &quot;By working with Secretary Vilsak, we hope Certified Angus Beef can help insure that any changes to the existing GIPSA regulations allow for the continued expansion of quality-focused, value-based marketing options,&quot; he said. That&#039;s what allows financial rewards for those who meet the growing consumer demand for products such as those bearing the Certified Angus Beef brand, said Association board member Leo McDonnell.You will note that Stika called for reviewing a pending USDA economics study.&nbsp; This is a &quot;study&quot; called for by meat packers after they called for more time in the comment period and in the meantime put out another bogus &quot;economic study&quot; made by the same people who said MCOOL would be too expensive and would cost the industry X dollars.Of course that was all a lie and a delaying tactic by the meat packers also.&nbsp; The whole argument is trying to be shifted by meat packers from the actual cases in court where they use their contacts in the U.S. Judiciary to throw cases and make get federal judges to make new excuses for them while demanding that the actual evidence from the trial be hidden from review.I am ashamed that the leading cattle organizations fall for these deceitful tactics and especially the NCBA in testimony before Congress.Meat packers couldn&#039;t orchestrate things better for themselves than to make rules they don&#039;t want to follow and cases they lose in front of juries go away with a new excuse slipped in to save them from the market crimes they are committing.It is a total shame that so many in leadership in the industry just use the talking points handed to them that originate from meat packer strategists, PR firms, and the next guy they bought off in office or from these regulatory agencies.It is part of what is wrong with the country.&nbsp; We get so far away from the real issues because that is what money can buy.Tex</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tex, post: 526189, member: 2393"] To illustrate how CAB fell for the meat packer spread misinformation, one needs to only look at the following article and in particular the last paragraph in bold: Certified Angus Beef Champions Their Stand Against GIPSA Rule Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:46:00 CDT Certified Angus Beef Champions Their Stand Against GIPSA Rule Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) President John Stika sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to explain the branded beef company’s stand against current wording in rule changes proposed by the Grain Inspection Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) The USDA agency last summer unveiled its proposed rule changes that govern livestock marketing. A divide soon appeared within the beef industry over lengthening the comment period, and whether the proposed changes themselves needed changes. “Fairness” debates began from coffee shops to editorials and letters to USDA expressing either support or concern over vague language. At a USDA/Justice Dept. workshop on competition in Fort Collins, Colo., last August 27, in an open letter to Angus producers and in subsequent comments to GIPSA, Stika expressed concern over unintended consequences and called for further study because there had been very little. By the end of the extended November deadline and after two private economic analyses quantifying costs and concerns, more than 60,000 comments had come in to GIPSA. Vilsack then announced USDA would conduct its own economic impact study. “The issue seemed to fade a little, but in fact it has not gone away,” Stika said. “We owe it to Angus producers and all of our licensed partners across the beef industry to maintain an active role in helping USDA craft the best possible clarifications to the proposed GIPSA rules.” The letter stated, “Pleasing the consumer is the single most effective and sustainable solution to maintaining an economically viable beef industry… Unless heavily edited, we believe the proposed rule will cause cattlemen and brand partners great economic hardships as their investment in premium genetics meet a constricted market.” While not opposing the effort to better define terms, the letter noted, “it appears the kind of clarity being proposed negates the intent and opens the doors to a long series of lawsuits … litigation will lead to a reduction in the availability of value-based marketing arrangements.” Value separation would be minimized but “easier to defend,” the letter said. Certified Angus Beef Board Chairman Steve Olson said, “This brand has worked for years to get ranchers premiums on their high-quality cattle through value-based marketing. Because the proposed rules may threaten these premiums, we must voice our opinion.” The American Angus Association supports these efforts, noted Association Board Chairman Joe Hampton. “By working with Secretary Vilsak, we hope Certified Angus Beef can help insure that any changes to the existing GIPSA regulations allow for the continued expansion of quality-focused, value-based marketing options,” he said. That’s what allows financial rewards for those who meet the growing consumer demand for products such as those bearing the Certified Angus Beef brand, said Association board member Leo McDonnell. [b][/b] You will note that Stika called for reviewing a pending USDA economics study. This is a "study" called for by meat packers after they called for more time in the comment period and in the meantime put out another bogus "economic study" made by the same people who said MCOOL would be too expensive and would cost the industry X dollars. Of course that was all a lie and a delaying tactic by the meat packers also. The whole argument is trying to be shifted by meat packers from the actual cases in court where they use their contacts in the U.S. Judiciary to throw cases and make get federal judges to make new excuses for them while demanding that the actual evidence from the trial be hidden from review. I am ashamed that the leading cattle organizations fall for these deceitful tactics and especially the NCBA in testimony before Congress. Meat packers couldn't orchestrate things better for themselves than to make rules they don't want to follow and cases they lose in front of juries go away with a new excuse slipped in to save them from the market crimes they are committing. It is a total shame that so many in leadership in the industry just use the talking points handed to them that originate from meat packer strategists, PR firms, and the next guy they bought off in office or from these regulatory agencies. It is part of what is wrong with the country. We get so far away from the real issues because that is what money can buy. Tex [/QUOTE]

Verification: What city in Missouri has a big arch?