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

Packers: At it Again

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Packers: At it Again

by Kim Baker, Montana Cattlemen's Assn. Vice-President



The packers (Cargil, Tyson, etc.) are proposing that the Congress adopt a measure that would prohibit states from placing food warnings on beef and other food products. The multinationals are tired of consumers, farmers and ranchers meddling in their business plan. In particular they want to prevent ranchers from labeling their product and by all means must stop producers from naming the origin of beef they offer consumers. They are working hard to prevent labeling beef as to its quality or safety. The proposed legislation, which has recently passed in the House and is on its way to the Senate, is known as the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005 (HR 4167)



This proposed legislation would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to prohibit state or local governments from establishing or continuing in effect requirements imposed on food that are not identical to federal requirements under specified FDCA provisions concerning the definition of food adulteration or the issuance of warning notifications concerning the safety of food. If passed, this legislation would enact the most sweeping overhaul of food safety laws since the 1950's.



The danger of the bill is that it would preempt over 200 state statutes regarding food safety in the United States, including four statutes in Montana law. These four statutes deal with tolerance for food and color additives that are more protective than applicable federal tolerances, regulation of when a food can be labeled "honey", provisions regarding the safety of milk, and the safety of food in restaurants and other food service establishments.



According to Dennis McDonald, a rancher from Melville, Montana, and past president of Montana Cattlemen's Association, "This Act does have language that could be construed to prevent a state from implementing food labeling (such as Montana's COOL). The language is ambiguous, but I'm not comfortable taking the position that this Act is benign." McDonald underscored language in paragraph 4 of the Act, which states in pertinent part, "The term language under the laws of a state . . . must be substantially the same language as a comparable provision under this Act." In regard to Montana's COOL legislation, McDonald noted, "This probably means a state could not require a label that doesn't conform to Federal law."



McDonald concluded, "At the very least, the Act would prevent a state from requiring a 'warning label' on beef known to be imported from a country having BSE. Also, it would prevent a state from warning of beef from a country known to use chemicals or antibiotics banned in the U.S. This would be the case even if residues of the banned substance were found in the beef. However, the proposed Act does provide a procedure for a state to petition the Secretary to add a warning. This involves a convoluted procedure, which I'm sure was placed in the Act to mollify critics." McDonald is referring to a petition process by which states could request exemption for selected food safety and notification requirements that do not meet the national uniformity requirements instituted under the bill.



The cost of implementing H.R. 4167, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would be $100 million over the 2006-2011 period. The majority of the costs of the bill would result from reviewing and issuing final determinations on petitions filed for existing and future food safety and warning notification laws.



Fortunately, the bill faces opposition from 39 attorneys general, state food and drug officials, state departments of agriculture, and state legislators. Sadly, supporters of the bill include Cargill, ConAgra, Dean Foods, Hormel, the National Pork Producers Council, and the NCBA. They are trying to sell the bill as a "common sense" proposal to "help consumers make educated decisions." In fact, the bill would eliminate many types of important information currently available under state laws to help consumers make informed decisions (such as Montana's Country of Origin Placarding Act passed in 2005).
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Sadly, supporters of the bill include Cargill, ConAgra, Dean Foods, Hormel, the National Pork Producers Council, and the NCBA.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
NCBA members; This legislation would help producers how?

I could see lower production cost for packers which in turn will benefit what producers receive as a benefit. How much sense does it make for every state to have its own requirements? One plant may ship product to many states which may not be determined until the product sale occurs. How efficient is it to label each box separately? What about partial loads going to multiple states? How about product shipped to a major distributor or retailer then resold or distributed into another state? Gets a little complicated and costly does it not?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
NCBA members; This legislation would help producers how?

I could see lower production cost for packers which in turn will benefit what producers receive as a benefit. How much sense does it make for every state to have its own requirements? One plant may ship product to many states which may not be determined until the product sale occurs. How efficient is it to label each box separately? What about partial loads going to multiple states? How about product shipped to a major distributor or retailer then resold or distributed into another state? Gets a little complicated and costly does it not?

Then let a little local packer serve those markets if the big guys can't keep their business straight. Why do we need to change the laws to help the economies of scale corporations? Heck, we can't even get info about meat recalls out of them. Sometimes the big packer's "efficiency" isn't the god that needs to be worshipped all the time, Agman.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Agman, "I could see lower production cost for packers which in turn will benefit what producers receive as a benefit."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That is the NCBA Kool-Aid, isn't it? The more packers make, they more they pay for our cattle, so we are in favor of anything that increases their profitability. We're all brothers-in-arms in this together.......... :roll: .

Remember your lumber analogy?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
NCBA members; This legislation would help producers how?

I could see lower production cost for packers which in turn will benefit what producers receive as a benefit. How much sense does it make for every state to have its own requirements? One plant may ship product to many states which may not be determined until the product sale occurs. How efficient is it to label each box separately? What about partial loads going to multiple states? How about product shipped to a major distributor or retailer then resold or distributed into another state? Gets a little complicated and costly does it not?

Then let a little local packer serve those markets if the big guys can't keep their business straight. Why do we need to change the laws to help the economies of scale corporations? Heck, we can't even get info about meat recalls out of them. Sometimes the big packer's "efficiency" isn't the god that needs to be worshipped all the time, Agman.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
NCBA members; This legislation would help producers how?

I could see lower production cost for packers which in turn will benefit what producers receive as a benefit. How much sense does it make for every state to have its own requirements? One plant may ship product to many states which may not be determined until the product sale occurs. How efficient is it to label each box separately? What about partial loads going to multiple states? How about product shipped to a major distributor or retailer then resold or distributed into another state? Gets a little complicated and costly does it not?

Then let a little local packer serve those markets if the big guys can't keep their business straight. Why do we need to change the laws to help the economies of scale corporations? Heck, we can't even get info about meat recalls out of them. Sometimes the big packer's "efficiency" isn't the god that needs to be worshipped all the time, Agman.

Great idea, why don't you invest in a small plant with some of your R-Calf buddies? I will make book on how long you last before the banks come calling.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
I could see lower production cost for packers which in turn will benefit what producers receive as a benefit. How much sense does it make for every state to have its own requirements? One plant may ship product to many states which may not be determined until the product sale occurs. How efficient is it to label each box separately? What about partial loads going to multiple states? How about product shipped to a major distributor or retailer then resold or distributed into another state? Gets a little complicated and costly does it not?

Then let a little local packer serve those markets if the big guys can't keep their business straight. Why do we need to change the laws to help the economies of scale corporations? Heck, we can't even get info about meat recalls out of them. Sometimes the big packer's "efficiency" isn't the god that needs to be worshipped all the time, Agman.

Great idea, why don't you invest in a small plant with some of your R-Calf buddies? I will make book on how long you last before the banks come calling.

So your idea is to change the law to fit the big packer's agenda. No surprise here, Agman. It is being done in the USDA regulations. I pointed it out when it came to Walmart selling select as USDA Grade A and as USDA Choice, with your help.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "I pointed it out when it came to Walmart selling select as USDA Grade A and as USDA Choice, with your help."

This was one more of your never ending lies.

Conman, the "LYING KING".


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "I pointed it out when it came to Walmart selling select as USDA Grade A and as USDA Choice, with your help."

This was one more of your never ending lies.

Conman, the "LYING KING".


~SH~

SH, anyone can go and make those calls themselves. They can ask those questions at Walmart for themselves. There is a possibility that mine is an isolated case, I will grant you that. For you to call me a "liar" on this shows how loosely you throw out the term.

Go read the good book again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "There is a possibility that mine is an isolated case, I will grant you that."

Yours wasn't an "ISOLATED CASE", it wasn't a case at all. The lady you talked to IF IT ACTUALLY OCCURED SINCE YOU LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, didn't know what she was talking about so it never occurred. Walmart never sold "USDA SELECT" as "USDA CHOICE" as you claimed.

You sunk your teeth into it because she told you what you wanted to believe. You repeated it as fact after you knew it wasn't true which makes you a liar.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "There is a possibility that mine is an isolated case, I will grant you that."

Yours wasn't an "ISOLATED CASE", it wasn't a case at all. The lady you talked to IF IT ACTUALLY OCCURED SINCE YOU LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, didn't know what she was talking about so it never occurred. Walmart never sold "USDA SELECT" as "USDA CHOICE" as you claimed.

You sunk your teeth into it because she told you what you wanted to believe. You repeated it as fact after you knew it wasn't true which makes you a liar.


~SH~

Lets get a few facts straight here, SH. The first lie came from a lady at the phone bank for Tyson. The two subsequent lies came from the meat department personnell at Walmart (who were guys) and I suppose the meat manager at my local Walmart----who was on the phone. I didn't actually see the person on the other end of the phone.

Your little self appointed omniscient consciousness is just a litte too hard to swallow. I will have none of your purple kool aid, thank you.

Is this what the packer attorneys try to do to all of the witnesses in the trials against them? No wonder they have such a bad reputation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CAN YOU OFFER COLD HARD PROOF THAT TYSON IS SELLING "USDA SELECT" AS "USDA CHOICE" BEEF?

YES OR NO CONMAN?



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
CAN YOU OFFER COLD HARD PROOF THAT TYSON IS SELLING "USDA SELECT" AS "USDA CHOICE" BEEF?

YES OR NO CONMAN?



~SH~

No one can ever provide you enough "proof" for you to beleive something you don't want to, SH. It is your mental state.

Would I ever try to to do it? You are just not worth it.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Go do your own research."

DIVERSION!

Don't shoot your mouth off unless you know what you're talking about Conman.


~SH~

Oh, I know what I am talking about. You don't. Whatever process created a being like you, it must be revisted.

You are a disgrace to honest men.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "You are a disgrace to honest men."

You couldn't recognize honesty because you are a compulsive liar and a disgrace to the entire human race.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top