Packer May Sue Inspectors

[Tam]

Tam, were the packers pushing it to be used for feed for ruminants or not?

SH:

The government is already involved in food safety issues and food safety issues are not going to be compromised so a private company can make a quick buck off the ignorance of the Japanese consumer.

Is SH arguing out of convenience or merit? Penn already believes the Japanese are smarter than the americans. Substitute americans for Japanese.

the packers were still selling it for the use in cattle feed.

Do you have proof they were still selling it for use in cattle feed? Just because they were pushing for it doesn't mean they were still selling it for use in cattle feed. Besides they don't make or sell cattle feed so wouldn't it have to have been the manufacturers that actually made the stuff into cattle feed that would be preforming the illegal act. I have heard of producers using chicken feed on their sick baby calves because of the cheap antibiotics that are in it. So if the Packer sells the stuff to be put in Chicken feed is he also responsible for the producers illegal act of feeding chicken feed that can legally have ruminant by products in it to his calves? Where is the accountability of the rest of the industry? Should the packers take the blame for everyone just to make you happy?

 

[Mike]

Tam wrote:

Besides they don't make or sell cattle feed so wouldn't it have to have been the manufacturers that actually made the stuff into cattle feed that would be preforming the illegal act.

Cargill is one of the largest feed manufacturers in the world Tam. :???: :???: :???:

Are they not a packers too? :shock:

 

[Tam]

Tam wrote:

Besides they don't make or sell cattle feed so wouldn't it have to have been the manufacturers that actually made the stuff into cattle feed that would be preforming the illegal act.

Cargill is one of the largest feed manufacturers in the world Tam. :???: :???: :???:

Are they not a packers too? :shock:

Do you have proof they are using ruminant by products in their cattle feed? Did the FDA find Cargill plants non compliant to Feed ban rules? If you have proof that Cargil did anything wrong let's see it. How many other feed manufacturer are in the US and Canada that are not Cargil owned? How many Packers are there in the US and Canada that sell this stuff that are not Cargill owned? Now Econ said the PACKERS are still selling this stuff to be used in cattle feed. IF he has proof Cargill was doing something wrong then turn the evidence over to the FDA and do something about it? As selling cattle feed laced with Ruminant by products is illegal. But selling the by products to be used in other animals feed isn't.

 

[Econ101]

Tam wrote:

Besides they don't make or sell cattle feed so wouldn't it have to have been the manufacturers that actually made the stuff into cattle feed that would be preforming the illegal act.

Cargill is one of the largest feed manufacturers in the world Tam. :???: :???: :???:

Are they not a packers too? :shock:

Do you have proof they are using ruminant by products in their cattle feed? Did the FDA find Cargill plants non compliant to Feed ban rules? If you have proof that Cargil did anything wrong let's see it. How many other feed manufacturer are in the US and Canada that are not Cargil owned? How many Packers are there in the US and Canada that sell this stuff that are not Cargill owned? Now Econ said the PACKERS are still selling this stuff to be used in cattle feed. IF he has proof Cargill was doing something wrong then turn the evidence over to the FDA and do something about it? As selling cattle feed laced with Ruminant by products is illegal. But selling the by products to be used in other animals feed isn't.

Tam, let us get this right. I did not say they were still selling this stuff today. I don't know the answer to that question. What I said, and I am sorry it was not clear, was that when the truth about BSE being traced back to the feed was discovered, they were still selling as a feed for ruminants.

Before you go and answer on the next step, consider the asbestos litigation and accountablity.

 

[Tam]

Tam wrote:

Cargill is one of the largest feed manufacturers in the world Tam. :???: :???: :???:

Are they not a packers too? :shock:

Do you have proof they are using ruminant by products in their cattle feed? Did the FDA find Cargill plants non compliant to Feed ban rules? If you have proof that Cargil did anything wrong let's see it. How many other feed manufacturer are in the US and Canada that are not Cargil owned? How many Packers are there in the US and Canada that sell this stuff that are not Cargill owned? Now Econ said the PACKERS are still selling this stuff to be used in cattle feed. IF he has proof Cargill was doing something wrong then turn the evidence over to the FDA and do something about it? As selling cattle feed laced with Ruminant by products is illegal. But selling the by products to be used in other animals feed isn't.

Tam, let us get this right. I did not say they were still selling this stuff today. I don't know the answer to that question. What I said, and I am sorry it was not clear, was that when the truth about BSE being traced back to the feed was discovered, they were still selling as a feed for ruminants.
Before you go and answer on the next step, consider the asbestos litigation and accountablity.

I want to remind you that BSE being linked to bovine products in animal feed was pretty well known and the packers were still selling it for the use in cattle feed. Is there ever any accountability in this industry?

Again where is the accountability of the rest of the indusrty, If what you meant was after the facts were known about this stuff but before the government ban it? Everyone in the industry including the government knew the same facts and those that choose to still use it did it legally. Why not hold the Governments accountable they were the ones that didn't ban it the minute the facts were known? Why aren't you blaming the manufacturers as they bought it and still made the cattle feed even though they knew what it could do? Why not blame those Producers that decided to keep buying it to feed to their cattle knowing what it could do? Why is your comment accusing only the packers of any wrong doing?

 

[Econ101]

Tam,

Usually in these cases the ones responsible are the ones selling it. In this case the packers made up that market for a by product they had. The fact is that the packers were still selling it for ruminant feed when BSE was known. T
he govt. has its own accountability methods. The companies, like drug companies that put out "bad" drugs, need to be accountable through efficient court proceedings. We don't have efficient court proceedings in the U.S. when it comes to this accountability. The Pickett and other cases prove that.

A company can not hide behind the govt. not doing its job unless the govt. compelled them to sell the product. Companies are still liable for their products. The liability is on the maker and seller of the product, not the user.

 

[Tam]

Tam,

Usually in these cases the ones responsible are the ones selling it. In this case the packers made up that market for a by product they had. The fact is that the packers were still selling it for ruminant feed when BSE was known. The govt. has its own accountability methods. The companies, like drug companies that put out "bad" drugs, need to be accountable through efficient court proceedings. We don't have efficient court proceedings in the U.S. when it comes to this accountability. The Pickett and other cases prove that.

A company can not hide behind the govt. not doing its job unless the govt. compelled them to sell the product. Companies are still liable for their products. The liability is on the maker and seller of the product, not the user.

What came first Econ the egg or the chicken? If some producer in the UK wouldn't have sold an infected animal to a producer in North America and if that producer hadn't imported the BSE infected animal from the UK to North America and sold it to the packers for processing, would the US or Canadian packer have had this stuff to sell to the manufacturer to be processed into cattle feed? So who is responsible for BSE in North America, The UK producer, the importing producer, the packer, or the feed manufacturer that processed the UK animal into feed? :?

The companies, like drug companies that put out "bad" drugs, need to be accountable through efficient court proceedings

But are the producers/suppliers of the raw product (IE the ingredients that go into the drug) liable for the damages done by the manufactured drug/product? If they are not then why are the packers responsible for the feed manufacturers product?
Can you bring something to prove that the packers invented the use of ruminant proteins in cattle feed?

 

[Econ101]

Tam,

Usually in these cases the ones responsible are the ones selling it. In this case the packers made up that market for a by product they had. The fact is that the packers were still selling it for ruminant feed when BSE was known. The govt. has its own accountability methods. The companies, like drug companies that put out "bad" drugs, need to be accountable through efficient court proceedings. We don't have efficient court proceedings in the U.S. when it comes to this accountability. The Pickett and other cases prove that.

A company can not hide behind the govt. not doing its job unless the govt. compelled them to sell the product. Companies are still liable for their products. The liability is on the maker and seller of the product, not the user.

What came first Econ the egg or the chicken? If some producer in the UK wouldn't have sold an infected animal to a producer in North America and if that producer hadn't imported the BSE infected animal from the UK to North America and sold it to the packers for processing, would the US or Canadian packer have had this stuff to sell to the manufacturer to be processed into cattle feed? So who is responsible for BSE in North America, The UK producer, the importing producer, the packer, or the feed manufacturer that processed the UK animal into feed? :?

The companies, like drug companies that put out "bad" drugs, need to be accountable through efficient court proceedings

But are the producers/suppliers of the raw product (IE the ingredients that go into the drug) liable for the damages done by the manufactured drug/product? If they are not then why are the packers responsible for the feed manufacturers product?
Can you bring something to prove that the packers invented the use of ruminant proteins in cattle feed?

No, I guess I can not prove that packers invented the use of ruminant proteins in cattle feed. I have seen many cows eat their placenta so I guess you could blame that one on the cow.

The fact is that the packers did use the ruminant proteins in cattle feed. They manufactored that product and then they sold it as such. They might not have known its dangers at the time, but they are still responsible for those dangers. Maybe we would not have a BSE problem today if they had been held accountable back then. I bet every slaughter animal would be tested now if that had been the case. We would all be safer and it would not be an international issue. Sometimes removing accountability allows for bad decisions to be made. My point is that SH's arguments on efficiency for the packer can have costs to all of us in the long run. Reducing their liability or accountability only shifts the costs, it does not make them dissappear. Often times they show up later as evidenced in the current situation on the BSE issue. Hiding the truth only makes the costs compound and harder to swallow later.

I sense the question you are asking is a little different than the one posed. On taking the liberty of guessing at that underlying question I run the chance of assuming you are saying something you did not say. Let me address what I believe was in the undercurrents of your question:

Packers have to make a profit or they would not be in the business. This is true. The producers assuming the responsiblity of them making a profit is a mistake. Producers assuming that packers pass on their costs to the producer is a mistake. Packers need to pass on their costs to the consumer, not the producers all the time. SH has this one all wrong and I believe he knows it. With the current concentration in the industry and the testimony in the Pickett case, it seems as if the packers are able to pass all costs down to the producers. They have market power and are willing to exercise it as Pickett pointed out. Did they try to hide what they are doing? Yes, of course. This was evidenced by the lack of documentation of the captive supply payments compared to the cash market payments for short periods of time.

Just as in the Hillary Clinton commodities trading scam, the lack of time dating of the trades allowed for the evidence to be hidden. GIPSA and USDA economists were not smart enough to require this information or were kept from doing so by the politicians making policy. Politicians were handsomely paid for this inefficiency in government that allowed the abuse of market power as evidence posted on these boards illustrates (that was only the tip of the iceberg). Why not? The damages to the market were estimated to be 2.46 billion dollars. Tyson did not realize the full benefit of these damages directly. Since they own control of the substitutes they were able to make much of their money there. Some was lost due to deadweight losses and some was lost to benefits to the consumer surplus (hence the feeble attempt at the RPA example in the appellate brief).

If cattle producers can be divided and made to fight each other, they will never be able to protect the producer surplus. Tysons, Cargill, and the other agribusinesses have strategic economic thinkers that come up with all of these scams. They go through the revolving door at the USDA and allow the government to be "dumbed down" or just plain corrupt. Either way the producers lose.

The article on the airline industry I pointed out illustrates the concept that sometimes it is good for companies to go out of business completely. That is a necessary part of a free market. If Tyson is trying to compete with other companies by forcing "efficiencies" on its workers then it must pay with bad labor relations and possibly strikes. To not allow this turns our societies into slaves for corporations. If rkaiser gets a company going and is better to its labor, then the through competition and maybe strikes, Tyson will have to be better to its labor or not be able to produce its product. Free and competitive markets allow everyone to get their fair share of the economy. Producers supporting labor like in the the Lakeside strike (I don't make any judgements here) may actually help them gain competiters like rkaiser supports. Producers supporting Lakeside packers may in fact not be in their best long term interest. Short term, maybe. Long term, no. It is obvious that the packers are looking for their own gains, they do not need producers to do that for them. So this begs the question, Jason, MRJ, Tam and SH, why do you do it?

 

[Jason]

Packers have to make a profit or they would not be in the business. This is true. The producers assuming the responsiblity of them making a profit is a mistake. Producers assuming that packers pass on their costs to the producer is a mistake. Packers need to pass on their costs to the consumer, not the producers all the time. SH has this one all wrong and I believe he knows it. With the current concentration in the industry and the testimony in the Pickett case, it seems as if the packers are able to pass all costs down to the producers. They have market power and are willing to exercise it as Pickett pointed out. Did they try to hide what they are doing? Yes, of course. This was evidenced by the lack of documentation of the captive supply payments compared to the cash market payments for short periods of time.

Econ, when have producers ever taken on the responsibility of making sure the packers make a profit? I say they will look after themselves and producers should learn what they can from them.

You say packers need to pass on their costs to the consumer. How can they do that? Force people to buy more beef at higher prices? If the consumer chooses to NOT buy beef where does it go? SH, Agman, and myself have all said all income is from the consumer. We need to advertise and help the consumer find easy ways to use more beef.

Pickett proved nothing other than cattle prices fluctuate. That is a fact. Or maybe you think a new organization that will sue consumers if they don't buy beef is a good idea.

Packers are exactly the same as producers, they can only control their costs not their income. Income goes down, costs must follow or a loss occurs. Tell everyone how often the packers run in a loss. That would show you at least have some idea of how the system works.

 

[Econ101]

Packers have to make a profit or they would not be in the business. This is true. The producers assuming the responsiblity of them making a profit is a mistake. Producers assuming that packers pass on their costs to the producer is a mistake. Packers need to pass on their costs to the consumer, not the producers all the time. SH has this one all wrong and I believe he knows it. With the current concentration in the industry and the testimony in the Pickett case, it seems as if the packers are able to pass all costs down to the producers. They have market power and are willing to exercise it as Pickett pointed out. Did they try to hide what they are doing? Yes, of course. This was evidenced by the lack of documentation of the captive supply payments compared to the cash market payments for short periods of time.

Econ, when have producers ever taken on the responsibility of making sure the packers make a profit? I say they will look after themselves and producers should learn what they can from them.

You say packers need to pass on their costs to the consumer. How can they do that? Force people to buy more beef at higher prices? If the consumer chooses to NOT buy beef where does it go? SH, Agman, and myself have all said all income is from the consumer. We need to advertise and help the consumer find easy ways to use more beef.

Pickett proved nothing other than cattle prices fluctuate. That is a fact. Or maybe you think a new organization that will sue consumers if they don't buy beef is a good idea.

Packers are exactly the same as producers, they can only control their costs not their income. Income goes down, costs must follow or a loss occurs. Tell everyone how often the packers run in a loss. That would show you at least have some idea of how the system works.

Jason, they can also use their market power and break the enumerated prohibitions (they are enumerated because they are the tools of market power) in the Packers and Stockyards Act to influence the normal equilibrium between supply and demand. I am sorry you do not understand that fact. Market manipulation in the beef industry benefitted Tyson in the poultry side of the business. Companies who own substitutes have motives you don't understand or are unwilling to look at. Swift. Tyson. Cargill. Tyson benefitted by a slide down the supply curve, not by increased margins in the beef industry. A slide down the supply curve allowed them to capitalize on their poultry business.

I hope you get your operation reversed.

 

[Jason]

Econ your name calling aside, I still ask you to provide a scintilla of proof that Tyson manipulated the markets. If they lower the cost of cattle how does that now help them in their poultry side? You keep twisting in the wind.

Answer the question of where does beef go if it isn't sold before it spoils? Who loses money when that happpens?

Are you going to avoid these question too? Maybe we will arrive at how their real motivation is world domination. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Econ your name calling aside, I still ask you to provide a scintilla of proof that Tyson manipulated the markets. If they lower the cost of cattle how does that now help them in their poultry side? You keep twisting in the wind.

Answer the question of where does beef go if it isn't sold before it spoils? Who loses money when that happpens?

Are you going to avoid these question too? Maybe we will arrive at how their real motivation is world domination. :roll:

Jason, I have stated many times that the proof of the manipulation can not be adequately posted on this forum. In the U.S., that is for the court room.

If beef spoils I would hope it goes out of the human food chain. Those losses in money should be born by those who let it spoil. I did have that happen once when we lost electricity. The world did not come to an end, we just threw it out.

Tyson is using its market power tools (yes it got good at them in the poultry industry) and abusing them. I just don't think they should get away with it. I am sorry that you do.

 

[Tam]

Econ your name calling aside, I still ask you to provide a scintilla of proof that Tyson manipulated the markets. If they lower the cost of cattle how does that now help them in their poultry side? You keep twisting in the wind.

Answer the question of where does beef go if it isn't sold before it spoils? Who loses money when that happpens?

Are you going to avoid these question too? Maybe we will arrive at how their real motivation is world domination. :roll:

Jason, I have stated many times that the proof of the manipulation can not be adequately posted on this forum. In the U.S., that is for the court room.

If beef spoils I would hope it goes out of the human food chain. Those losses in money should be born by those who let it spoil. I did have that happen once when we lost electricity. The world did not come to an end, we just threw it out.

Tyson is using its market power tools (yes it got good at them in the poultry industry) and abusing them. I just don't think they should get away with it. I am sorry that you do.

Jason, I have stated many times that the proof of the manipulation can not be adequately posted on this forum. In the U.S., that is for the court room

Doesn't look like it can be proven in a court of law either. :wink:

If beef spoils I would hope it goes out of the human food chain. Those losses in money should be born by those who let it spoil. I did have that happen once when we lost electricity. The world did not come to an end, we just threw it out.

If the meat shop looses money by having to throw out a bit of spoiled meat he does one of two things. One he charges more for the beef he sells to the consumer to cover those losses, but if he does that and the consumer decides not to buy the beef at the high cost the meat shop has more meat to toss out which result in bigger loses. The second is he make sure he buys the meat at a price that he can afford to toss a bit and still make a profit. Which Econ means he pays the packer less and the packer pays the feedlot guy less and since the producers is the last one on the down hill slope he also gets less for his calves. So Econ the next time you and your professor buddies go into a meat counter and see the price of Beef don't bitch just pay the meat counter guy so he can pay the packer so he in turn can pay the feedlot guy so he can pay the trucker that got the cattle to the packers and the producers. If the producer gets a fair price maybe he will have a bit left over after he pays the feed manufacturer for the feed he bought and the commission the sale barn charged him to sell his calves to the feeder guy. The Beef Producers biggest problem is not who else is making a marginal profit it is the consumers unwillingness to pay more for what they eat. They would rather drive a gas sucking expensive SUV than to pay for a higher price for their food, as the neighbor sees the vehicle you drive not the food on your table. Face the facts all the money in the food industry comes from the consumers of the food and if they are not willing to pay more those in the industry have to make due with what is there. That is the REALITY OF THE ECONOMICS of the FOOD INDUSTRY.

Tyson is using its market power tools (yes it got good at them in the poultry industry) and abusing them. I just don't think they should get away with it. I am sorry that you do.

Now the only way I can see Tyson being able to beneifit their poultry division is by driving the price of beef to a point that consumer will not pay for beef and therefore switch to poultry. But don't you think that just maybe their competition that are in it to make a profit would just step in and under sell Tyson to keep the beef at a price that consumer will pay and not switch to Tyson Chicken?

 

[Econ101]

Tam,

I don't gripe about the meat I buy unless the quality is just not there. I have already posted on my experience with walmart "painted" beef. My wife thinks I am strange that I always try to find out what breed the animal is and where it came from and what the yield/grade it was. This is, unfortunately for my wife, every time I buy a steak at a resturaunt or one to cook at home.

My purchase for home cooked is always less and I get a lot more meat. I usually get it over the fire for a few minutes until it browns on both sides over the hickory or mesquite fire and then put it up where it can smoke the rest of the time. Sometimes I get a whole ribeye and cut it up into the size steaks I like and freeze them. My nephew came out from California and refused to eat meat for a while after watching the meat cutting show by his uncle. I found out that if you get one of those weber grills, get it going and then put a frozen steak on it and shut it down just right, the steak is as good as it gets at any resturaunt (bad buys excepted) after 20 minutes.

I don't have a problem paying a good price for a good piece of meat and I don't think most people do either.

When Tyson pushes the price of beef down the supply curve through any means, the short term result is a lower price for consumers if Tyson competitors compete the margins lower. A movement along the supply curve is different than a movement of the equilibrium price of supply/demand. In the short term there really is no difference in supply. In the long term it reduces the supply of cattle due to lower prices. We are now in a market where Tyson the supply has been restricted and can not react that quickly to the higher prices (supply of cattle is relatively inelastic). Tyson then tries to use the foreign markets to make more money. The domestic cattle producers argue, if Tyson artificially depresses the prices and then eventually it springs up because of reduced supplies, why should we let Tysons import meat? They have a good point. After all, they went through the bad times, why share the good times?

 

[Jason]

Jason, I have stated many times that the proof of the manipulation can not be adequately posted on this forum. In the U.S., that is for the court room.

So in other words you don't have any proof.

If beef spoils I would hope it goes out of the human food chain. Those losses in money should be born by those who let it spoil. I did have that happen once when we lost electricity. The world did not come to an end, we just threw it out.

What if you actually made a living from selling beef? You throw out a freezer full and that is a cost of doing business. If you just eat the loss your profits decline. If you lose enough beef you no longer make a profit. Price the beef too high and you will not sell enough to cover your expenses.

Tyson is using its market power tools (yes it got good at them in the poultry industry) and abusing them. I just don't think they should get away with it. I am sorry that you do.

You can't provide proof Tyson is manipulating the market, but you just want us to believe you they are.

You dislike a cheap food policy, but say it is Tyson that controls that too. Then Tyson is responsible for low prices and as a result too few cattle to feed the US public at a low price.

Don't you see your arguements contradict themselves?

Tyson doesn't set import regulations. They were cut off from Canadian cattle for over 2 years. Even if they had imported as many Canadian cattle as pre BSE, there aren't enough to affect the US market more than a few %. US producers would still have got to record prices with Canadian cattle. The only thing that may not have happened was beef becoming too expensive for many restaruants. Oh but you forgot that small detail.

You want food to be more expensive, fine, if we could move the volumes we currently do at the higher prices. That says you understand all money comes back to the producer from the consumer.

Then you say food is too cheap, yet it has been high enough to slow consumption.

You say Tyson wants cheap beef, but is then trying to benefit their chicken division by making beef too expensive.

Pick a stance Econ.

Maybe the real reason cattle prices drop is because wanna be ranchers with high paying jobs get a few cows to reduce their taxes on their "country" home. They don't make their living from those cows but they sell them in the same markets professional ranchers do.

Should hobby ranchers be banned too?

Be careful what you wish for. Packers are under the microscope. I don't know of another industry so maligned, so regulated, so hard to make a living at, yet a few companies have survived. Ranchers get a wake up call and they are all so scared they can hardly spit.

Change happens, the efficient will survive. Regulate one area of ranching you have to regulate everything else.

 

[rkaiser]

Jason -

Packers are under the microscope. I don't know of another industry so maligned, so regulated, so hard to make a living at, yet a few companies have survived.

Can somebody get me a hanky.

 

[Mike]

Jason -

Packers are under the microscope. I don't know of another industry so maligned, so regulated, so hard to make a living at, yet a few companies have survived.

Can somebody get me a hanky.

About to make me cry too, Randy. There ought to be a law protecting these guys from all the insults and name calling.

I guess we are just lucky to have someone that will buy our cattle. :???:

 

[Jason]

I guess Randy and Mike have nothing to offer either.

 

[Econ101]

Jason, the cheap food policy is the U.S.D. A. policy. I wish you had something else in your post worth responding to. Do you even know what the elasticity of supply and demand of beef is?

 

[Mike]

I guess Randy and Mike have nothing to offer either.

No, your tearjerking story left us speechless. We are so ashamed of ourselves for picking on the conglomerates. If only we could make it up to them somehow. :roll:

Hope you get your operation soon Jason. :wink: