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

R-CALF- "an activist group with an isolationist agenda&

Help Support Ranchers.net:

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
National Cattlemen's group backs USDA in border case




Apr 21, 2005 (Omaha World-Herald - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News via COMTEX) -- The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, saying the U.S. Department of Agriculture may have "inadequately" defended its science dealing with the control of mad cow disease, filed a court brief Wednesday backing the agency's attempts to reopen the Canadian border to live cattle.

Officers in the beef association said they thought the injunction blocking the border opening that was handed down in early March by federal judge Richard Cebull in Montana "was a far cry from sound science," said Mike John, president-elect of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Canadian cattle have been banned from the United States since Canada announced the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in May 2003. Canada is allowed to export boneless meat cuts into the United States, which puts U.S. meatpackers at a disadvantage because of lower prices for Canadian cattle.

The rule proposed by the USDA would have allowed Canadians to export cattle younger than 30 months for delivery directly to U.S. feedlots or meatpacking plants.

Cebull's injunction effectively kept the border closed and ensured that the legal issues would be tied up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at least through early summer. The injunction was granted in response to a lawsuit filed by another cattle group, R-CALF USA, which wants to keep Canadian cattle from coming into the country.

John, a Missouri cattleman, said the National Cattlemen's Beef Association filed its brief because the group did not want R-CALF to be the only voice for cattlemen. John characterized R-CALF as an "activist minority group with an isolationist agenda."

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association's filing is meant to clarify the science used by the USDA to support reopening the border, said Terry Stokes, chief executive officer of the association.

Cebull's ruling stated that there seemed to be questions in the scientific community about how to stop mad cow disease. In their brief, association officials stated that a ban on cattle protein in cattle feed effectively eliminates the disease. Removal of specific internal organs during cattle slaughter further protects consumers, the association said.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I'm sick and flipping tired of this "sound science" nonsense that is selectively used as a requirement for trade. It sure sounds good, but when is examined more closely is a joke.

When did "sound science" become a requirement for trading goods?

How many of us use "sound science" when making our purchasing decisions, whether it is food, clothing, or a durable good?

Why does "sound science" say we take 30 month cattle from Canada and the same "sound science" says we send Japan 20 month cattle?

If "sound science" is part of our trading requirements, why do certain countries specify that we not send them poulty products from certain states, while other countries do not have that requirement - and we don't get that choice as US consumers?

How can allowing US companies to supply BSE tested beef be denied based on "sound science", but yet they can supply organic, hormone free, Kosher, and Halal?

The "sound science" smoke is getting pretty thick.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Opposition to CAFTA Continues to Grow
(Billings, Mont.) – Cattle producers and crop producers alike stood side-by-side Wednesday with state government leaders and members of Congress at two separate, bipartisan news conferences held to explain the negative impacts that the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) would have on U.S. agriculture and the U.S. cattle industry. The events preceded a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on CAFTA scheduled for today.

In Washington, D.C., nearly two dozen Senate and House members – both Republicans and Democrats – were joined at a news conference by 23 business and labor groups that also oppose CAFTA. U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., led the Capitol Hill event. Jess Peterson, R-CALF USA director of government relations, said CAFTA – as it is currently written – is simply unacceptable because it undermines the ability of U.S. cattle producers to compete in the global marketplace because the agreement fails to address the global distortions the domestic cattle industry continues to face.

“Under the Trade Promotion Act of 2002, cattle and beef are required to be classified as perishable and cyclical products, and because of this provision, a special safeguard must be put into place to ensure that rising imports and collapsing exports do not impede upon cattle producers’ ability to compete globally,” Peterson explained. “CAFTA does not permit the United States to have any special safeguards against beef and live cattle import surges, but it does allow Costa Rica and Nicaragua to impose special safeguards against U.S. beef exports. Denying U.S. cattle producers special safeguards is a step backward from the progress made in the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement prototype.”

Also on Wednesday, in Fargo, N.D., another news conference in opposition to CAFTA was underway in anticipation of today’s visit to that city by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, a staunch supporter of CAFTA.

Terry Duppong, an R-CALF USA member and North Dakota rancher, spoke at Wednesday’s event, which also was attended by North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, State Sen. Russell Thane (who sponsored that state’s anti-CAFTA resolution), along with representatives of North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Grain Growers, and the Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Association.

“CAFTA is troubling to U.S. ranchers because it appears the Administration’s present agenda is to negotiation free trade agreements (FTAs) with nearly every major beef-producing country in the world, but not one single major beef-consuming country,” Duppong emphasized. “Other problems faced by U.S. producers include blocks on beef exports because of illegal sanitary-phytosanitary measures, subsidies provided to foreign producers that give them an unfair advantage over U.S. ranchers, and export tariffs of over 80 percent, while our import tariff rate is almost zero.”

Duppong also pointed out that CAFTA nations have a combined cattle herd size nearly as large as the Canadian cattle herd.

“Currently, these countries do not have strong cattle industries, but with an increased export market these countries will upgrade both herds and slaughter capacity,” he said. “Those improvements will enable these CAFTA countries to meet domestic demands for beef and increase beef exports to the United States.”

Peterson added that CAFTA also allows cattle produced in nations like Brazil and Argentina to be shipped north to be slaughtered in Central America, thus providing preferential treatment to non-participating countries.

“Trade agreements need to have a “born and raised” standard for country of origin,” he pointed out. “Instead, CAFTA gives preferential treatment for beef based only on where an animal is slaughtered.

“R-CALF USA will continue to work for trade agreements that are good for independent U.S. ranchers, and we also pledge to work with the Administration to develop approaches to trade agreements that will be a win for both U.S. cattle producers and our trading partners,” Peterson continued. “We cannot support agreements that create bad precedents for future free trade agreements.

# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow-calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 14,500 strong – are located in 46 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
“Trade agreements need to have a “born and raised” standard for country of origin,” he pointed out. “Instead, CAFTA gives preferential treatment for beef based only on where an animal is slaughtered

Would this include the amount the US re-labeled and sold as their own, that was actually "product of Canada"

Which works out to be about what the US was exporting pre-BSE!
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Murgen,



Can t ask these R-calf Wingnuts any questions. They'll never answer them! Think there heads are full of rotten eggs!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Gentlemen, must I remind you that R-CALF wants those Canadian labels to stay on?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Gentlemen, must I remind you that R-CALF wants those Canadian labels to stay on?

So would I, so these US export markets know who they're actually buying beef from. Next time there's negotiations to be done, they'll know they can come straight to the source!, and not be threatened with sanctions!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandblaster: "When did "sound science" become a requirement for trading goods?"

"Sound science" becomes a consideration during issues of human health and safety such as BSE.


Sandblaster: "How many of us use "sound science" when making our purchasing decisions, whether it is food, clothing, or a durable good?"

When it comes to food safety, we continually use science to determine whether or not that product is safe. The surgeon general's waring of Tobbacco use is a classic example.


Sandblaster: "Why does "sound science" say we take 30 month cattle from Canada and the same "sound science" says we send Japan 20 month cattle?"

We have been over this and over this. 20 months is Japan's criteria, not ours.


Sandblaster: "How can allowing US companies to supply BSE tested beef be denied based on "sound science", but yet they can supply organic, hormone free, Kosher, and Halal?"

Kosher is a religious practice, Kosher kill has nothing to do with food safety or creating a false illusion of food safety like BSE testing of cattle younger than 24 months of age does.




~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandblaster: "When did "sound science" become a requirement for trading goods?"

"Sound science" becomes a consideration during issues of human health and safety such as BSE.


Sandblaster: "How many of us use "sound science" when making our purchasing decisions, whether it is food, clothing, or a durable good?"

When it comes to food safety, we continually use science to determine whether or not that product is safe. The surgeon general's waring of Tobbacco use is a classic example.


Sandblaster: "Why does "sound science" say we take 30 month cattle from Canada and the same "sound science" says we send Japan 20 month cattle?"

We have been over this and over this. 20 months is Japan's criteria, not ours.


Sandblaster: "How can allowing US companies to supply BSE tested beef be denied based on "sound science", but yet they can supply organic, hormone free, Kosher, and Halal?"

Kosher is a religious practice, Kosher kill has nothing to do with food safety or creating a false illusion of food safety like BSE testing of cattle younger than 24 months of age does.




~SH~

SH, ""Sound science" becomes a consideration during issues of human health and safety such as BSE."

We've always had health issues. This "sound science" buzz word is a new creation to baffle with BS.

SH, "When it comes to food safety, we continually use science to determine whether or not that product is safe. The surgeon general's waring of Tobbacco use is a classic example. "

:D Your example makes my point, SH! If "sound science" was such the important requirement as those spewing those syllabels would lead you to believe, tobacco products wouldn't even be available! You've just proven what a farce this requirement is. Why do you buy into that nonsense?

SH, "We have been over this and over this. 20 months is Japan's criteria, not ours."

You ignore the fact that the USDA's regulation with Canada is supposed to be "based on sound science". The USDA also told us that any trade deal with Japan would be "based on sound science". If "sound science" is to have any value as a basis for regulations, it must have absolute values. "Sound science" has to have one age. Is it 30 mos. or 20 mos? It is hypocritical for the USDA to champion "sound science" and then not even follow it themselves.

SH, "Kosher is a religious practice, Kosher kill has nothing to do with food safety or creating a false illusion of food safety like BSE testing of cattle younger than 24 months of age does. "

Yes, you are right, SH. Kosher is religious. However the USDA and their parrots say trade MUST be based on "sound science". Religion has nothing to do with "sound science"!

SH, you love to point your finger and holler "liar" or "hypocrite", yet you choose to ignore a huge hypocracy being committed by the USDA. If products have to be measured by the"sound science" yardstick, that requirement had better be evenly applied, and clearly it is not and never has been.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker, I know, I know........you apparently just want to get rid of tha inconvenience of science and use protectionist politics to determine imports and exports.

Some employees of packing plants and their union bosses insist that HACCP is an evil invention. They want us to scrap the sounc science necessary in that method of improving beef safety and simply add more inspectors and go backward to using the old "look, smell, cut" methods for "removing" food safety problems.

Interesting, isn't it, that since HACCP and the work of the beef industry, with a combination of Beef Checkoff and industry (that packer to retail segment of the industry some people love to hate) funding and plain hard work, the incidences of E Coli dropped 43.3 percent from 2003 to 2004. You can learn more about this at www.bifsco.org.

If you get the Furrow, a free ag magazine, you might check their Food Safety Starts Here story. Some people prefer to believe that only imported produce and meats can carry harmful bacteria. As I write, Johnny Smith is on with his "market" report. He is blaming that "crap" imported from other countries for most all our ills, food safety and, when lower than we like, cattle prices.

The article in the Furrow points out that most illnesses from produce comes from domestic, rather than imported. Fighting these organisms is very difficult because the organisms can and do change. Changes in the food industry and dietary habits also contribute. More food is eaten raw than previously. More hands touch our food from growing it to processing and preparing it. Interestingly enough, higher populations of people with compromised immune systems make them more susceptible to illnesses. While the story focuses on produce, it is just as applicable to raising any food including beef. Retailers are getting pretty united in requiring all growers to have extensive records and HACCP programs in place if they want to sell the produce to those retailers.

All cattle producers darn well better be supportive of "sound science" and working to make their product, cattle and beef, the safest you can get it. Remember, e coli does not just magically appear in the packing plant. It starts on the ranch/farm. It is found in deer. It is in healthy animals. True, it may not be harmful till it gets exposed in the packing plant, and humans working there can also be carriers. We can be proud of and thankful for our checkoff dollars used to find solutions to this problem. Not co-incidentally, that use of our dollars can also demonstrate that we are making a valid effort to eliminate the problem.

You who complain about CAFTA........why don't you like the fact that those countries will drop the tax on our beef going to their countries. They already send beef into this country at no to very small tariff.

Do any of you know the per capita income of Costa Rica? It's $9,100.00 per person. Mexico? $9,000.00 per person. Costa Ricans are beef eaters, as are Mexicans.

The real deal for us in this is the tourist trade wanting high quality USA fed beef.

I know, many of you do not believe that retailers and vendors selling more beef has anything to do with our cattle prices. Sorry, and I wish there was some way you could NOT benefit from such trade, but guess there isn't, at this time.

For goodness sake, study the issues! Don't just automatically believe that because some big corporations may benefit, and NCBA favors it that it is automatically bad for cattlemen.

MRJ
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Do any of you know the per capita income of Costa Rica? It's $9,100.00 per person. Mexico? $9,000.00 per person. Costa Ricans are beef eaters, as are Mexicans.

Then how can they afford our beef?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandblaster: "We've always had health issues. This "sound science" buzz word is a new creation to baffle with BS."

Science has always been the basis for food safety decisions. Where have you been?


Sandblaster: "If "sound science" was such the important requirement as those spewing those syllabels would lead you to believe, tobacco products wouldn't even be available! You've just proven what a farce this requirement is. Why do you buy into that nonsense?"

The consumer knows the risks of using tobacco. The determination of those risks are based on science. The point that is relevant here is that science is used to determine the risks of tobacco just as it determines the risk of BSE.

Tobacco use is an enjoyable experience for some people. BSE has nothing positive to offer anyone. What an absurd comparison on your part from the standpoint of whether or not the government should be consistant in allowing tobacco but not BSE testing that creates a false illusion of safety.
I can't believe what comes out of your computer at times.

When BSE science doesn't happen to support your political isolationist position on trade with Canada, then it changes to BS in your mind. Then if BSE was discovered again in the U.S., the science (firewalls) would then apply according to your fearless leader Leo.

Black today, white tommorrow. R-CULT will spin it when the time comes.


Sandblaster: "You ignore the fact that the USDA's regulation with Canada is supposed to be "based on sound science". The USDA also told us that any trade deal with Japan would be "based on sound science". If "sound science" is to have any value as a basis for regulations, it must have absolute values. "Sound science" has to have one age. Is it 30 mos. or 20 mos? It is hypocritical for the USDA to champion "sound science" and then not even follow it themselves.'

Using that ridiculous logic you would have us ignore the research on testing and support a 20 month standard BASED ON ANOTHER COUNTRY'S CRITERIA just for the purpose of consistancy?

Some trade negotiator you are!


Sandblaster: "However the USDA and their parrots say trade MUST be based on "sound science". Religion has nothing to do with "sound science"!"

Oh for crying out loud. That's so backwards it's really not even worthy of a response.

The implication is clearly that science should apply WHEN SCIENCE IS RELEVANT TO THE DECISION, NOT WHEN IT'S NOT. Good grief!


Sandblaster: "If products have to be measured by the"sound science" yardstick, that requirement had better be evenly applied, and clearly it is not and never has been."

The science on BSE is applied evenly and consistantly WHEN SCIENCE APPLIES not when it doesn't as in the case of your ridiculous kosher kill comparison.

How in the world would BSE research apply to a religious practice?

You thinking is so backwards and illogical.


You truly represent the worst aspects of R-CALF. Like Leo McDonnell, you can talk your way in and out of anything without making sense to anyone but the "head nodders". R-CALF must really be proud to have you as a member for that reason.


~SH~
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,984
Reaction score
81
Location
Big Muddy valley
rancher said:
Do any of you know the per capita income of Costa Rica? It's $9,100.00 per person. Mexico? $9,000.00 per person. Costa Ricans are beef eaters, as are Mexicans.

Then how can they afford our beef?

Rancher ever hear of TOURISM. How much more would you sell if it didn't have a 50% tariff against it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Science has always been the basis for food safety decisions. Where have you been?"

It has never been used as a basis for marketing, as it is now.

SH, "The consumer knows the risks of using tobacco. The determination of those risks are based on science. The point that is relevant here is that science is used to determine the risks of tobacco just as it determines the risk of BSE.Tobacco use is an enjoyable experience for some people. BSE has nothing positive to offer anyone. What an absurd comparison on your part from the standpoint of whether or not the government should be consistant in allowing tobacco but not BSE testing that creates a false illusion of safety. I can't believe what comes out of your computer at times."

Using tobbacco is not based on sound science therefore, how can selling it be? You just said "Science has always been the basis for food safety decisions" Where is the science that support tobbacco use?



Sandblaster: "You ignore the fact that the USDA's regulation with Canada is supposed to be "based on sound science". The USDA also told us that any trade deal with Japan would be "based on sound science". If "sound science" is to have any value as a basis for regulations, it must have absolute values. "Sound science" has to have one age. Is it 30 mos. or 20 mos? It is hypocritical for the USDA to champion "sound science" and then not even follow it themselves.'

SH, "Using that ridiculous logic you would have us ignore the research on testing and support a 20 month standard BASED ON ANOTHER COUNTRY'S CRITERIA just for the purpose of consistancy?

You ignore the obvious. THe USDA says "sound science" must be used in trade negotiaations, but then they didn't do it when negotiating with Japan. They went with "Japan's requirement" as you say. You can't say "sound science" must be followed and say you will follow it, and then agree to "another countires requirement" without being a hypocirt.

SH, "Some trade negotiator you are!"

In light of current events, that is one of the most rediclous statements you have ever made. I would of been moving beef and getting that $175 the NCBA says we are losing. You are supporting a policy of telling a country they can't have what they want, their requirements are foolish, and they must change their food safety laws so they can take your product - a policy that CLEARLY IS NOT WORKING! What a sad joke!


Sandblaster: "However the USDA and their parrots say trade MUST be based on "sound science". Religion has nothing to do with "sound science"!"

SH, "Oh for crying out loud. That's so backwards it's really not even worthy of a response. The implication is clearly that science should apply WHEN SCIENCE IS RELEVANT TO THE DECISION, NOT WHEN IT'S NOT. Good grief!"

I see how this works - you get caught not applying thr rules evenly, so then you add to the rule? The USDA says trade must be based on "sound science". Period. Not when it is "revelant".


Sandblaster: "If products have to be measured by the"sound science" yardstick, that requirement had better be evenly applied, and clearly it is not and never has been."

SH,"The science on BSE is applied evenly and consistantly WHEN SCIENCE APPLIES not when it doesn't as in the case of your ridiculous kosher kill comparison. How in the world would BSE research apply to a religious practice?"

Who mentioned anything about BSE and religion? I'm simply pointing out where the USDA fails to follow the "sound science" they preach.



~SH~[/quote]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandblaster: "It has never been used as a basis for marketing, as it is now."

Science isn't being used as a basis for marketing, it's being used as a basis for understanding food safety risks.


Sandblaster: "Using tobbacco is not based on sound science therefore, how can selling it be? You just said "Science has always been the basis for food safety decisions" Where is the science that support tobbacco use?"

What a spin job!

The science in question is used to determine the dangers of tobacco use not to support tobacco use.


Sandblaster: "THe USDA says "sound science" must be used in trade negotiaations, but then they didn't do it when negotiating with Japan. They went with "Japan's requirement" as you say. You can't say "sound science" must be followed and say you will follow it, and then agree to "another countires requirement" without being a hypocirt."

Using your ridiculous logic, we should tell Japan to pack it because we either send them all cattle less than 30 months or we send them none?

HOW STUPID WOULD THAT BE?


Sandblaster: "I would of been moving beef and getting that $175 the NCBA says we are losing. You are supporting a policy of telling a country they can't have what they want, their requirements are foolish, and they must change their food safety laws so they can take your product - a policy that CLEARLY IS NOT WORKING! What a sad joke!"

You have yet to prove that Japan would take our beef with the "FOOD SAFETY ILLUSION" of testing. Until you can, YOU GOT NOTHING!


SH (previous): "Oh for crying out loud. That's so backwards it's really not even worthy of a response. The implication is clearly that science should apply WHEN SCIENCE IS RELEVANT TO THE DECISION, NOT WHEN IT'S NOT. Good grief!"

Sandblaster (in response): "I see how this works - you get caught not applying thr rules evenly, so then you add to the rule? The USDA says trade must be based on "sound science". Period. Not when it is "revelant".

WHERE IS THE SCIENCE IN KOSHER KILL FOR CYING OUT LOUD????


Sandblaster: "I'm simply pointing out where the USDA fails to follow the "sound science" they preach."

By telling Japan "it's either cattle 30 months or less or nothing"????

What could be more stupid?



~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rancher said:
Do any of you know the per capita income of Costa Rica? It's $9,100.00 per person. Mexico? $9,000.00 per person. Costa Ricans are beef eaters, as are Mexicans.

Then how can they afford our beef?

They want our top of the line beef for their tourist trade, and my guess is, for the wealthy people who also are citizens of their countries.

They also want some of the products that people in our country do not traditionally eat.

Additionally, their incomes are increasing and as they can afford more luxury, they will spend more on beef.

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top