Pssst Hey Sandman.....over here!

[Anonymous]

ocm: "With the passage of this resolution R-CALF now has officially taken a position on mandatory ID. What was the official position before this resolution passed? They had not yet taken one. Therefore it was accurate to say that they were not against it. They were not for it either."

This resolution simply confirms the position that R-CULT has always taken on "M"ID which is why "M"ID was prohibited from "M"COOL.

Only a liberal democrat like OCM would suggest that R-CULT wasn't against "M"ID when they took action to prohibit "M"ID from "M"COOL.

Sandman was proven wrong again with his "IMPLICATION" that R-CULT supported "M"ID.

What's funny is that these hypocrites will argue that "M"COOL is needed in order to trace back food safety problems. What they don't tell consumers is that they only want to trace the 5% of beef at the retail level that is imported back to it's country of origin.

WOW, REAL CONSUMER SAFETY VALUE THERE!!!!

You betcha! Goooooo R-CULT!

Meanwhile, the free enterprise system is offering consumers exactly what they want with source verified, value added, branded beef programs.

BY GAWD CONSUMERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE THEIR BEEF WAS BORN, RAISED AND SLAUGHTERED as long as I don't have to prove it with a traceback system

R-CULT's blatant hypocrisy never ends.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Did they get M-ID tossed from COOL? Maybe yes, maybe no. The final version of COOL certainly wasn't what they wanted, but they decided it was good enough for a start. If they did, what were the reasons? The system for accomodating M-ID as proposed might of been the problem. Once again, you need answers directly from Bill or Leo to know."

WHAT?????

THE FINAL VERSION OF COOL CERTAINLY WASN'T WHAT THEY WANTED??????

Says who??? Says you???

Leo McDonnel said that "M"COOL IS A GOOD LAW" as it's written and admitted to helping write it at the "M"COOL listening session in Billings, Mont..

NOW YOU SAY IT WASN'T WHAT THEY WANTED?????

Hahahaha!

Once again, we witness the "sand shuffle".

The truth is, R-CULT doesn't want to face the reality of their unjustified, flawed, unenforceable, government mandate.

OCM: "R-CALF's long held position is that COOL should not be based on individual animal ID. Such individual animal ID is not necessary for COOL. A workable system to do that very thing has been put forward by R-CALF."

Yup, packers should just know where animals were "born, raised, and slaughtered" based on the color of the meat. Hahaha!

Once again, R-CULT reveals themselves as the epitomy of ignorance regarding the retail beef industry.

What a deal when someone else has to figure out how to enforce your flawed law.

What R-CULT proposed is unworkable. "Just marking the imports" is not an option under existing trade laws and does not allow for enforcement.

Here is another classic example of R-CULT's blatant hypocrisy. On one hand they want country of origin labeling because they claim packers are hiding foreign beef under the USDA grade stamp. On the other hand, they are willing to trust the packers to label beef correctly without an enforceable system.

What could be more hypocritical?????

WITHOUT A TRACEBACK SYSTEM ON ALL CATTLE, ANYTHING CAN BECOME ANYTHING WITH THE SWITCH OF A LABEL.

That's the problem, R-CULT sits in their damn critical throne of judgement, hands USDA an enforceable piece of crap legislation, then blames them for their inability to enforce it by just marking the imports.

That is sooooooooo R-CULT!

ocm: "They had not taken one on M ID alone, only in its relation to COOL."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

They had not taken a position on "M"ID, THEY JUST PROHIBITED IT FROM "M"COOL but that's not taking a position???

BWAHAHAHAHA!

OCM: "As an R-CALF member I supported this resolution because I think individual states can do an adequate job of animal ID. If an animal never crosses a state line then it's none the the federal governments business. When it crosses the line, then you could give the basic info to the feds, but the detail belongs to the state."

This statement by ocm is so revealing about the level of ignorance that exists on the enforcement aspects of this flawed law.

"WELL BY GOLLY, THOSE CATTLE ARE NOT FROM CANADA AND IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE ON THIS HERE AFFEEDAVIT"

What a shame that R-CULT and their mindless followers like ocm are not in charge of enforcing their own flawed law. Instead, they "BWAME USDA" for their inability to read an "M" BRAND or "C" BRAND that didn't quite burn through to the 300 individual packages of beef that a single carcass can become.

Unbelievable!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "NOW YOU SAY IT WASN'T WHAT THEY WANTED????? "

It is certainly not exactly what they wanted. Do I need to explain my comment, "they decided it was good enough for a start"?

 

[Anonymous]

Leo McDonnell said "M"COOL was a good law as written.

You say it wasn't what they wanted.


Typical!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Whatever :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

That's what my daughter used to say when she was up a tree too.


~SH~

 

[Tam]

So, Tam, there are two different things here. 1. No animal ID connected with COOL and 2. No animal ID by itself.

Number 1 has been R-CALF's position for quite some time.
Number 2 is new this year.

Sorry I missed this I thought you said

With the passage of this resolution R-CALF now has officially taken a position on mandatory ID. What was the official position before this resolution passed? They had not yet taken one. Therefore it was accurate to say that they were not against it. They were not for it either.

Now that this resolution has passed, they now have taken a position.

Which is it OCM was it their position to be against M"ID" or wasn't it?

They had not taken one on M ID alone, only in its relation to COOL.

ocm how was R-CALFs stand they took on M"ID" in relationship to M"COOL" different from the stand they took on M"ID" on its own. They wanted NEITHER. AND as of yet you have NEITHER and that is a big problem for the US beef industry because you can't prove where you beef really comes from. And from what I understand SH is right you can't just mark the imported beef because of trade agreements. But I guess that really doesn't matter to the US because that agreement will be just another agreement broken if the US sees fit to do so. face it R-CALFs offical stand in M"ID" is NO :roll:

 

[ocm]

face it R-CALFs offical stand in M"ID" is NO

That is now correct, as of this year's resolution.

Previously the official position was that no M ID was to be used in COOL.

And from what I understand SH is right you can't just mark the imported beef because of trade agreements.

That is not quite correct. The USDA has taken this position. But since the reopening of the border all feeders are to be marked with a C. All direct slaughter are shipped in sealed trucks. For some time now all Mexican cattle have been marked with an M. At slaughter origin is knowable on all cattle. No mark, US; C, Canada; M, Mexico. No M ID required. All box imports are marked with country of origin as well (but no M ID).

The USDA refuses to use that information as origin information. Would not violate NAFTA.

 

[Tam]

face it R-CALFs offical stand in M"ID" is NO

That is now correct, as of this year's resolution.

Previously the official position was that no M ID was to be used in COOL.

And from what I understand SH is right you can't just mark the imported beef because of trade agreements.

That is not quite correct. The USDA has taken this position. But since the reopening of the border all feeders are to be marked with a C. All direct slaughter are shipped in sealed trucks. For some time now all Mexican cattle have been marked with an M. At slaughter origin is knowable on all cattle. No mark, US; C, Canada; M, Mexico. No M ID required. All box imports are marked with country of origin as well (but no M ID).

The USDA refuses to use that information as origin information. Would not violate NAFTA.

OCM R-CALFs stand on M"ID" was no THEN and it is no NOW. Not one thing has change in their stand they don't want M"ID" either way. That is their offical stand and I don't care how you spin it, they don't want it.

Quote from OIE

"The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market"

If the US is not marking their products how can they mark the importing countries product. According to R-CALF it is a safety factor that is restricting trade and and since R-CALF follows all OIE rules to the T maybe they should read this rule again. "The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.

 

[Murgen]

At slaughter origin is knowable on all cattle. No mark, US; C, Canada; M, Mexico. No M ID required.

What? No mark for those Texan cattle either, the ones with the BSE and the drug laundried money! I'm flabbergasted that you do not take food safety into higher regard!

 

[ocm]

Quote from OIE

Quote:
"The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market"

If the US is not marking their products how can they mark the importing countries product. According to R-CALF it is a safety factor that is restricting trade and and since R-CALF follows all OIE rules to the T maybe they should read this rule again. "The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.

The USDA is currently requiring marking on imported cattle. There is no objection from anyone as to this being trade restrictive. (I think you have misapplied this to the OIE).

In other words this is already happening and R-CALF DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAKING IT HAPPEN. The USDA did.

BUT, they refuse to pass this information to the consumer.

 

[Tam]

Quote from OIE

Quote:
"The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market"

If the US is not marking their products how can they mark the importing countries product. According to R-CALF it is a safety factor that is restricting trade and and since R-CALF follows all OIE rules to the T maybe they should read this rule again. "The importing country cannot be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired national level of protection, and that it's measures must not be different from those applied to products within the domestic market.

The USDA is currently requiring marking on imported cattle. There is no objection from anyone as to this being trade restrictive. (I think you have misapplied this to the OIE).

In other words this is already happening and R-CALF DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAKING IT HAPPEN. The USDA did.

BUT, they refuse to pass this information to the consumer.

Tell us OCM just when has it ever mattered to the US about what their obligations to a trade agreement with another country are, including the WTO.

R-CALF DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAKING IT HAPPEN.

No they just demanded that none ever be let into the US again. I think if you look back though not only did R-CALF demand if they were to be let in they were to be branded, they also demanded the USDA find all Canadian cattle now in the US and test all of them for BSE. Even after the USDA proved they couldn't find all 81 cows imported with the Washington cow.

 

[Anonymous]

Tam- you're again giving R-CALF too much credit- getting more paranoid-EH :wink: I know R-CALF is the fastest growing organization in the country and is the largest cattlemans group in the US, but actually every major Ag organization in the US ( R-CALF, NCBA, FB, FU ) supported the branding of Canadian cattle :???:

You must dream about Bill and Leo.. :lol: :lol:

 

[Tam]

Tam- you're again giving R-CALF too much credit- getting more paranoid-EH :wink: I know R-CALF is the fastest growing organization in the country and is the largest cattlemans group in the US, but actually every major Ag organization in the US ( R-CALF, NCBA, FB, FU ) supported the branding of Canadian cattle :???:

You must dream about Bill and Leo.. :lol: :lol:

Thats funny OCM said R-CALF DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAKING IT HAPPEN. Do you really think the USDA would have made the restriction about branding if the beef organizations INCLUDING R-CALF wouldn't have been demanding that brand.

If those two ever entered into my dreams they would instantly become a NIGHTMARE and I would wake up screaming. :roll:

 

[ocm]

The branding of imported Mexican cattle has been going on for years. The USDA has finally decided to become consistent and do the same to Canadian cattle.