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

Politicizing food?

B

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,022
Location
west of Soapweed
From ag report

Denmark proposed a tax on all beef sold in the country in order to discourage beef production and consumption. The tax was an offset to their notion of the contribution cattle raising made to global warming from cattle as methane producers. Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder, also has weighed in saying he will be eating less red meat in order to make a small impact on global warming.

Global warming is an issue that requires action on the part of humans but targeting animals used for food is a misdirected start. The consensus among expert nutritional opinion is beef serves an important role in a balanced diet and as a source of iron, zinc, raboflavin, and other important nutrients, it should remain an important part of every diet.

The beef industry depends on the good will of young folks who will grow to become the future buyers of beef products or not as their education dictates. Beef gets a bad rap on college campuses across the nation. That needs to change and opinion makers need more and better information from scientific experts to carry the message of the value of beef in the diet.

Localavores are a part of the food reform movement who would like to tax any food not raised within 50 miles of the grocery store. This leaves many residents in desert centers like Phoenix wondering how they are expected to grow local foods. This movement insists on locally grown beef and ignores the realities of today's beef production and the value of aging on the beef product.

The difficulty of getting beef's message out in the media is a challenging one. The industry must rely on elite universities whose opinions matter to the press and influence tracks with opinion formers in the country. The check off dollars must be used strategically to promote and educate.
 
Thanks for sharing this information, Brad S.

It would be very interesting to know who (individuals, organizations, govt agencies) is behind all this. Seems like 'global warming, animal rights, Locavore food movement, extreme environmentalism, 'mother earth' worship and other extremist promotions are pretty well interwoven. They seem to be taught first in more liberal universities, and have long ago filtered down to our local schools to ever greater degrees. Why has this been done, and who is behind it all? It's difficult to find effective ways of combatting all this mis-information when we don't know the 'who and why' behind the promotion of it.

It should be simple enough to demonstrate that beef is a valuable nutrient rich food, really the best source of many elements very necessary to optimum health using the best of science. Yet, so many people today mis-trust science, preferring the mantra of earth worship, animal worship, disdaining common sense.

Throw in many government agencies determined to pick and choose 'winners and losers' in every facet of our lives from agriculture and other businesses to choosing our diets. Why don't they just cut to the chase and admit that they want there to be fewer people living shorter lives, as that seems to be what 'they' believe is best for the environment judging by what they 'encourage' people to do or not do.

I will say the Beef Check Off leadership is doing a fantastic job with what they have in spite of endless attacks against the group.

mrj
 
The check off has been a good firewall against this type of defamation but they seem so relentless. When the check off began, we were selling $300. & $400. Calves about 5 times per head. Now we sell $1000 calves once or twice in its lifetime, and we have fewer calves.

Given the good performance the check off has exhibited over decades now, $5 check off would be money well spent. The Hollywood types are never ending on the other side.
 
All too true that anti-meat animal activists are relentless! It is just sick, sad, disgusting that they are so easily able to raise huge piles of money from the fools who swallow their sob stories about 'helping animals'! They seem to work well with those mis-guided folks who preach that meat is harmful to everything from our health to the environment.......all scientifically proven wrong, but no matter when zealots have tons of money to spend to convince the ill-informed and gullible among us.

It is also sad that our costs continue to be driven ever higher, and we aren't being well rewarded for the fact that we produce so much more meat from each animal. If anyone has done an admirable job of doing more with less and producing a superior product in that process, it is the cattle and beef industries!

I would definitely support increasing the check off, yet the more money there is, the more groups will want to control it. It has worked pretty well with RANCHERS controlling it, better before a couple of groups manipulated the legislated process to get USDA to appoint people other than the nominees, but virtually all national ag organizations are represented in Beef Check Off leadership.

mrj
 
There is a story on CNN about a NFL player who was cleared from testing positive for banned substances because he proved he picked it up clenbuterol from beef in MEXICO. As in our NAFTA ''trading'' partner. With no COOL it is the same as US beef. THAT is what your checkoff dollars are also promoting.
 
What I read about the NFL player didn't prove anything, other than his lawyer came up with a great excuse, to get enough doubt created, to get his suspension overturned! How much steroid was in that Mexican steak to get a positive test? Or did he eat 400? Sure sounds like a fairy story to me!

Angus 62, just because the check off program isn't perfect doesn't mean we should abandon it. Especially in the time in which we live! With attacks on ranchers and farmers coming from every direction, we need to stand united. To me, our checkoff dollars do a vastly better job than the tiny amount of negative I disagree with. My 2 cents, and probably not worth half. :)
 
Pretty simple answer . Checkoff dollars from US producers should be used to promote AMERICAN beef. Oh wait, there is no longer a way to pick up a package of beef in a store and know it was born raised and slaughtered in the US. You can thank (among others) the NCBA.
 
Good points, H. The anti-check off crowd really have to reach to find things to blame on the Beef Check Off! A couple of groups fought 'tooth and nail' to keep it from passing, and all these years later with STILL over 75% of producers approving of it, are STILL trying to eliminate it. We are so fortunate that common sense prevails and the good work keeps getting better at bringing consumers together with producers and experts to show the values of beef in the diet. We have enough work keeping ahead of anti-beef people outside our industry, so we sure don't need 'our own kind' working against us like that!

mrj
 
Angus 62, re. COOL and promoting "AMERICAN" beef.....those labels didn't give consumers any information they have told us they want. And they promoted the poorest of US beef right along with the best with no differentiation! That sure doesn't serves some of us very well......and is a boon to those producing the poorest quality beef!

Further, there currently are around 150 different brands of beef in the USA now. If, as your 'name' implies, you raise Angus beef, are you selling through that brand? If so, there you go, you have a branded beef product to be proud of!!!!

mrj
 
The checkoff should be better funded. Realistically, most of that money should be spent in places where producers often times won't see it first hand. Many older gents have complained about that in the past, but I think the younger generations have a better understanding of useful promotion and advertising.

And secondly, country of origin is a lot bigger than the beef industry. There was also the problem of slave labor in the seafood industry, and other issues which I tried to link to some in the proper forum. And Clenbuterol, it sort of seems to be an ongoing problem. But sshhhhh, the consumers don't need to know that. A random sampling of 200 and 58 were positive. Just put a USDA label on it and send it to the food service industry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexico-watches-out-for-banned-steroid-clenbuterol-in-food/2016/04/27/7386ea52-0cd4-11e6-bc53-db634ca94a2a_story.html
 
Why and where has clenbuterol been used? Think I've heard the name, but that is all.

Hope not too many foolish people read the linked story because the words "...boosts metabolism and cuts fat...." will create a demand for it as a diet aid in this country!!

mrj
 
One of the biggest lies about COOL or trade agreements like NAFTA or TPP is that other countries health standards are equivalent to the US. The checkoff in it's current mode does little for US producers, just the way packers and NCBA want it.

Clenbuterol is a muscle enhancer, purported to once be widely abused in the show ring.
 
Angus 62, that hot air and hate is a waste of space! Where have you ever read that about other countries health standards? No credible source would say that. What they do say is that inspection has to show food for import DOES match our standards. It may be possible for an occasional batch to slip by, just as happens with USA bred, fed, and processed beef.

It must be a little lonely among that 25% or less that insist the check off does not encourage consumers to choose beef. It can't fix the economy so that consumers can afford all the beef they want, but IS helping them figure out how to get more for their money when they do buy beef.

I've met hundreds of NCBA members over the past 50 years and never one has said or done anything but work to make the cattle and beef business better for ALL of us who make our living in it, from the smallest 'producer' to the biggest, and all those who have a part in getting our living, raw product into forms that consumers can buy and eat! If we cannibalize one another, no one is going to benefit from raising cattle, and that seems to be just what a few groups are promoting. Sorry you have fallen for that line.

mrj
 
Recent attempt to add another dollar to the checkoff in MO lost by 75%. If there was an (honest) national referendum of the entire checkoff I would bet it would disappear. Not because cattle people disagree with promoting their product, but because of the current monopoly by NCBA of checkoff money. Answer me this MRJ, why don't the packers pay into the checkoff when they sell an animal?
 
Angus 62 said:
Recent attempt to add another dollar to the checkoff in MO lost by 75%. If there was an (honest) national referendum of the entire checkoff I would bet it would disappear. Not because cattle people disagree with promoting their product, but because of the current monopoly by NCBA of checkoff money. Answer me this MRJ, why don't the packers pay into the checkoff when they sell an animal?
Click to expand...

Be careful arguing with MRJ A FORMER POSTER DID THE SAME AND IS NOW BANNED FROM THIS COMMUNIST SITE. That's how it works here disagree with the powers that be POOF your gone. I delivered a new trailer to a rancher in Montana on Wednesday he sold cattle in Williston and sounds like they have a $2 a head checkoff he got a refund and was pretty adamant about it also. Last year lowest cowherd numbers in history this year a non issue go figure.
 
Remember, lowest numbers - still record tonnages.

I don't get the NCBA hate. The check off money is demonstrably independent of NCBA operations.
 
Checkoff folks were way ahead or their time.............promoting for people to eat smaller servings and less beef. Now the mainstream his it figured out. Of course.........IF eating less of a good thing like beef is good........what is eating less of a bad thing like sugar??

http://www.businessinsider.com/junk-food-makers-tell-people-to-eat-less-junk-2016-5
 
Denny, that is interesting! I sure never heard about it. And have no problem with anyone voicing an alternative opinion. But reserve my right to point out when the information is clearly false. And try to state it is my opinion when simply disagreeing with a point. Re. those who demand a refund for check offs, how can they live with themselves for taking a free ride off those who do pay the check off?

The biggest 'failure' of the Beef check off, imo, is they are too reticent in correcting false information from others. And the fact that much of it originates in one way or another from a couple of organizations which either fought against it from the start, or after they were founded shortly after the check off passed.

Thanks for your points Brad S. It is a mystery why some people either fail to understand that or won't believe it when proof is presented.

graybull, sorry you are down on the Beef Check Off. I don't always agree with stands the Beef Council members have taken, such as going along with the health professionals who say eat less meats, including the American Heart Assoc. However, I do think they (the health professionals) were coming from what I believe is a false premise: that most 'beef eaters' were consuming those 16 to 32 ounce steaks we STILL see being featured in some places....and assumed that was done frequently. I believe Check Off has pushed the fact that beef is one of very few foods usually eaten at about, or even less than, the RECOMMENDED amount of four ounce servings daily. Actually around three ounces, I have read recently.

I especially like that the Check Off has been inviting groups of (often) city consumers to meetings to ASK them what they want to know about beef. Then the workshops with chef and other professionals, as well as Beef Council members to show them how to get better buys for their money by learning which cuts and grades of beef to choose to make the recipes they want. And especially like that the accurate nutritional information is promoted, as well as accurate nutrient content and showing them how beef DOES fit into a healthful diet.

mrj
 
There is just now a story on FOX News which rather well relates to the gist of this thread: "Facebook freely admits to not placing stories unless they are 'trending left" NEWS, no less, and actually bragging that they are holding back TRUE stories to promote LEFTIST leaning stories. Wonder how many people get their "news" exclusively from Facebook????

That seems equivalent to getting our 'news' about the cattle/beef industries exclusively from a very few groups that want to eliminate the Beef Check Off, in the belief that would eliminate NCBA. Meanwhile, NCBA continues their excellent work in support of ALL cattle producers, just as it and predecessor organizations have done since the late 1880's.

mrj
 

Latest posts

Back
Top