OT mis-information re. Beef Checkoff Refuted

[Jason]

Pickett lost get over it.

Got any proof?

I thought not.

 

[Econ101]

Pickett lost get over it.

Got any proof?

I thought not.

Yes. But not on this forum.

 

[Jason]

In other words no you have no proof.

 

[Econ101]

In other words no you have no proof.

You sure have a problem with reading comprehension, Jason. Maybe you could clerk for the 11th circuit on some kind of interational education exchange program.

 

[Jason]

You haven't ever got anything right conman... we are just supposed to believe you that you have proof but you just can't share it here?

My reading comprehension is fine. I can see you are a fraud.

 

[mrj]

Have you seen the ad from Hardees with the pregnant lady who better eat all she can at Hardee's now because for the next 12 years she will be eating at McDonald's (with her kid)?

Why can't the checkoff program fund a similar add making beef more acceptable than chicken?

The reason the checkoff can't fund an ad that attacks another commidity is because the Sec. of Ag, who must approve all funding requests, wouldn't allow it. There was an ad proposed that said "There's no such thing as a chicken knife." that was not allowed.

I think you are in error with that particular ad. I also believe there was an ad that did sort of put chicken down factually on the nutrition aspect, if I recall correctly, which USDA did put the kibosh to. The ad was re-worked and 'passed' in a slightly different format.

I have seen the "No chicken knife" ad in print in some magazines, most recently in a current ag magazine where it tells cattle producers how their advertising is used with consumers.

It seems the position of the Sec. of Ag is that that office must support ALL of agriculture and not pit one against another. It seems like it would be quite a lot of fun to poke another commodity in the eye, so to speak......however, it's very obvious to most people that positive advertising of the genuine benefits of beef will serve cattle producers best, in the long term.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

The only influence Tyson can have on consumers is advertising, which has laws of what can and cannot be said, and possibly lowering their margin to lower the price, however retailers set the retail price based on competition for consumers dollars. Any lower price from Tyson could be taken by retailers as extra profit.

Consumers will buy what they want and pay as little as they can for it.

Tyson has no control over consumers.

No, Jason, the checkoff money has limits put on it by the way it was set up. Tyson advertising does not. There is a huge difference. The advertising money is captive to the interests of Tyson as sure as ever as long as you don't see effective add campaigns that allow beef to lose market share to poultry.

Who do you think put a lot of money into the notion that chicken was "better" than beef due to its lower fat content? By the way, they always compared the lower fat of chicken breasts to beef instead of chicken thighs.

You really need to read some of those books I suggested before giving some of your examples.

My OPINION is that Consumer Federation of America leader Carole Tucker Foreman (or is it Brown?)....anyway the one who is a "friend" of R-CALF of late.......back some years when she was influential in USDA and government circles was involved in promoting ANYTHING as better than beef, healthwise. She certainly tried hard to cut, if not eliminate, beef from School Lunch programs. She and others against red meat led the national media with stories about the "danger" of red meats and benefits of poultry and fish. They STILL persevere!

However, research funded with Beef Checkoff dollars has given the lie to much of the anti-beef nutrient/pro poultry and fish rhetoric, with more to come on the fatty acids of beef. NCBA work with media thought leaders has helped to get the facts in front of consumers as never before. And that is FACT, not just my opinion!


MRJ


BT

 

[Econ101]

Have you seen the ad from Hardees with the pregnant lady who better eat all she can at Hardee's now because for the next 12 years she will be eating at McDonald's (with her kid)?

Why can't the checkoff program fund a similar add making beef more acceptable than chicken?

The reason the checkoff can't fund an ad that attacks another commidity is because the Sec. of Ag, who must approve all funding requests, wouldn't allow it. There was an ad proposed that said "There's no such thing as a chicken knife." that was not allowed.

I think you are in error with that particular ad. I also believe there was an ad that did sort of put chicken down factually on the nutrition aspect, if I recall correctly, which USDA did put the kibosh to. The ad was re-worked and 'passed' in a slightly different format.

I have seen the "No chicken knife" ad in print in some magazines, most recently in a current ag magazine where it tells cattle producers how their advertising is used with consumers.

It seems the position of the Sec. of Ag is that that office must support ALL of agriculture and not pit one against another. It seems like it would be quite a lot of fun to poke another commodity in the eye, so to speak......however, it's very obvious to most people that positive advertising of the genuine benefits of beef will serve cattle producers best, in the long term.

MRJ

MRJ, I am not against the idea and goals of the checkoff program. It shouldn't be funded by producers who are limited in their efforts by government censorship of private dollars (I am not talking about extreme and erroneous lies about beef).

The Secretary of Ag should not get in the way of checkoff dollars mounting effective campaigns against the substitutes. He is just a puppet for the interests of the packers and their agenda. Captive advertising is what it is.