• 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 on COOL

Help Support Ranchers.net:

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "Sandhusker, I will grant that I do not absolutely KNOW who did what "behind closed doors".....but have to wonder how you KNOW that information. And, no, I don't know who you are saying is that individual who gets all the agribusiness "donations", nor how one individual could kill something without a vote. Please enlighten me."

I know what happened because I read the papers and watch the news. Anybody who does the same knows what I know. It's all out there and easily available, MRJ. Henry Bonilla is the chairman of the Ag. Committee. He is the single largest recipient of "donations" from agribusiness. The entire congressional body does not vote on every segment of the farm bill. The Ag. committee puts it together and then Congress votes on the entire package as presented. Bonilla removed funding for COOL before he sent the bill to be voted on. Congress did not get to vote on whether COOL would be funded or not. Several lawmakers were furious with Bonilla and voted against the entire farm bill because of what happened.

MRJ, "As for the Senators and the President signing the bill, I am glad we finally have Senators and a President who will support business, big and small, as these guys do. I thought you were involved in a business. And those of us who make our living raising cattle darn well better realize we are businessmen or we will soon be out of business."

Well, that's nice, MRJ, but their efforts to support business was undercut in committee.

MRJ, "Poll responses are not reliable unless the questions are designed so as to elicit an honest response, and many people give the answers they believe are desired and popular rather than what they really believe. Unless the consumer KNOWS that COOL exempts the majority of imported beef from the labeling, and that there is no provision for tracing US beef, which after all, is the majority of beef consumed, they are not able to give an informed answer to those polls."

If polls did not have some degree of reliablity, they would not exist and politicians would not spend millions on taking them.

MRJ, "Yes, the exemption of most imported beef probably could be "fixed" somehow. What do you suppose it will cost the industry, beyond the packer?"

I think it will cost a heck of a lot less that M-ID.

MRJ, "I wouldn't deny that SOME importers and SOME in exporting countries will be eying our market, but do have to wonder, since most do not produce the grain fed, higher end beef we want, just how successful they will be in selling their beef to us."

We're the money market, MRJ. EVERYBODY is eying our market. Australia does not product a great deal of grain fed beef, and I'd have to say they have had success here. You also have to ask yourself what will stop countries from producing grain fed beef when our door is wide open.

MRJ, "The market that REALLY grabs my attention is the 94% of the world population living outside the USA that is rapidly gaining in purchasing power and wanting our US beef, one we get the BSE questions and biases solved. THAT is the growth opportunity for the future, an opinion I share with many others."

The market that really grabs MY attention is the US market. The US market is the most lucrative market in the world and we're here. I don't think it makes any sense to risk losing any ground in the best market to be in to chase pastures that clearly are less green. Why in the world would you go across town to make a buck when you can make two bucks out your back door?

MRJ, "The problem with COOL and trade laws, as I understand it, is that if imported beef must be labeled as to origin, so must the domestic beef. I do not believe we can simply assume all "other" beef than that known to be imported is USA "bred, born, and raised" unless there is verification. Traceability back to the rancher was prevented in the COOL law, wasn't it?"

Tracability was NOT prevented in the COOL law.

MRJ, "Are you sure that other those "developed nations" have COOL? I believe what they have is M-ID, which I support. Don't they require permanent ID at birth with a system that remains with the animal/carcass/cut of beef from producer to consumer? Anything less than that is fooling the consumer, IMO. "

Do some homework on the EU, MRJ.

MRJ, "What will be the benefit of COOL when we have M-ID of ALL animals and meats? IMO, it will be redundant, at best."

How can you question the cost of COOL but not M-ID? COOL only requires knowing where the animal was born, M-ID requires knowing where the animal spend every hour of it's life. Which do you think would be cheaper.

My question about getting the cows in was COOL related. I'm saying that just like one would get the cows in the winter pasture or close to shelter if you knew a big storm was on the way, we should get prepared today for the storm of foreign beef that is headed our way. It's coming.

We have one of the best deals on water in the world. In many places you can dig to water with a shovel - and it's good water.

Sandhusker, you were so cryptic in your "behind closed doors" and money comments, I didn't realize you were refering to such common knowledge........yes, I understand the power Bonilla has in that committee.

Re. consumers, and polls, and claims of them wanting THIS law, COOL..... if that were really true, why are the branded, source verified beef products not growing faster and selling out their product faster than any other beef?

I'm not discounting the value of the US market.......I'm saying that the potential for the most growth in market for beef is the other 94% of the world population.

No, traceability from the Packer to the Consumer was not, but from the packer BACK to the producer was, wasn't it?

Please show me where M-ID requires "knowing where the animal spends every hour of its life".

We simply cannot have an effective means of tracking beef and cattle to solve animal disease or human health problems if we do not require record of every owner of theat animal/carcass. To imply that will require hour to hour recordings of where the animal was grazing each day is fearmongering, IMO.

What good is it going to do knowing ONLY that the animal was born in the USA......but preventing knowing WHERE in the USA it was born if the need to trace that animal arises?

I suppose the world marketing situation is risky......but protectionism is risky as well. And I don't believe international trade is going to be a free for all give away of US markets.

Yes, I know about your easy water situation in the Sandhills.......and could get envious.......until I notice all that haying necessary for ranching there. Each area has pluses and minuses, it seems.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Do you care to differentiate between Senators voting based on facts and reasoning presented by businesses believing implementation of COOL would place onerous burdens on them (such as having to prove where they got the cattle.....and producers protected from having to provide that information to the packers) and "underhandedly killing COOL in committee" due to "donations"?

Surely you, as a businessman, can see that there are legitimate business reasons for reluctance on the part of packers, retailers, et. al to embrace COOL with the flaws that make it virtually worthless. In case you forget those flaws most glaring are, IMO, the fact that so little beef is actually imported and sold in the USA as compared with our domestic product, the fact that identifying imported beef does absolutely NOTHING to make the domestic beef safer for consumers, the fact that trade rules my be violated by labeling ONLY the imported beef, the fact that it isn't health reasons, nor is it consumer demand driving this law........I could go on if you still are not convinced by reason and facts of the matter!

MRJ

MRJ

MRJ,
It looks to me that the push on M-ID with NCBA control is just an attempt for some packers (Tyson) to get more market info. on the cattle in the U.S. for people like Agman to do his number crunching and figure out how to get cattle at a lower price. I have no "proof" of that but that is what it seems. We will see in time. If Cool is going to get pushed through, then this looks like this is their argument for M-ID and it is being pushed through the levels of control that are available.

Econ, what do you not understand about the words "run by a non-profit consortium of representing ALL the SPECIES affected by M-ID"? That is what NCBA is asking for regarding the operation of M-ID?

Repeatedly leaders of NCBA have made that statement in words very close to mine. The work that the current NCBA led group, including representatives from other associations and organizations, and even other species, is doing now is to see if it is feasible and if they can get it going really soon. I do believe you are dreaming up conspiracies where none exist! The plans I've heard discussed are for the information to be very secure, with ONLY the info necessary for animal and human health available to government. Some ranchers will choose to give ONLY that information. Some ranchers will choose to provide other info for which they will be rewarded and that will go ONLY where the owners say it may. How is that going to benefit anyone, let alone Tyson.

Why do you persist in saying and/or implying that Tyson has ANY control over NCBA? How about surprising us with some facts to back your claims, for a change?

MRJ

MRJ, I don't know if you notice how things work in the world but I sure do. When you consolidate power, it can be exercised. When you consolidate infomation, it can be used. Part of the reason the Patriot Act and some of the other anti-terrorist measures are being questioned is because of the abuse of this power. Governments have historically done it and I can see no reason why they would not continue. Remember the whole travelgate with the Clintons? Just because someone is prudent, it does not make them a conspiracy nut. I do worry about the consolidation of information and of power and how it affects the freedoms we all have. You are a little niave not to do so yourself. Questioning why someone wants more information or more authority is a good thing.

On the M-ID: I question why anyone would want to push M-ID and not be for Country of Origin Labeling. You keep saying the current law is flawed yet you have no alternative except M-ID. Why is that? Do we need to know where all of the citizens of the U.S. are before we have control of our international borders? There is something in that reasoning that needs to be explained first. If you can't explain it then something is wrong. What is it? I am very reluctant to give any information over to anyone or give any authority over anyone without proper checks and balances. If you don't understand that then you need to spend a little time in a big city. You will smarten up real quick.

I persist in tying NCBA with Tyson interests because the USDA is packed with NCBA people at all of the bottlenecks of power and I see abuses of Tyson not being stopped. When any action is taken, it is because there was enough political push that something had to be done. That is no way to run regulatory agencies. They should not be a "whoever has the most political power wins" agencies. They should be run on principle. From what I see right now, they are not. If NCBA people do not change the situation, then they are part of the problem. Some of these things I am not at liberty to talk about on this forum at this time. Maybe later. I believe that when someone has the reigns of power, they are responsible for the way the horse goes. These politically appointed positions carry a lot of influence, power, and responsibility. The people that are in those positions must be accountable for their actions.

I can not beleive that you take the position that labeling imported meat does not provide any more safety to the U.S. beef supply. Did you not read the New Zealand deal? You are just ignoring facts. Not everyone in the world has the same USDA inspection service or education to producers or manufactorers that the U.S. has. COOL allows consumers the power to make sure other governments are doing the job they need to do for food safety. No manditory COOL allows the cheapest product to rule instead of the ones with the most safety. While I am not so worried about Canadian beef except its use as captive supply and market manipulation, I am worried about some of the other countries we may import meat from. Look at the Japanese, they are too. It is not an irrational amount of information to be known on a food label. My question to those who do not want it is, "What have you got to hide?"
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ,
It looks to me that the push on M-ID with NCBA control is just an attempt for some packers (Tyson) to get more market info. on the cattle in the U.S. for people like Agman to do his number crunching and figure out how to get cattle at a lower price. I have no "proof" of that but that is what it seems. We will see in time. If Cool is going to get pushed through, then this looks like this is their argument for M-ID and it is being pushed through the levels of control that are available.

Econ, what do you not understand about the words "run by a non-profit consortium of representing ALL the SPECIES affected by M-ID"? That is what NCBA is asking for regarding the operation of M-ID?

Repeatedly leaders of NCBA have made that statement in words very close to mine. The work that the current NCBA led group, including representatives from other associations and organizations, and even other species, is doing now is to see if it is feasible and if they can get it going really soon. I do believe you are dreaming up conspiracies where none exist! The plans I've heard discussed are for the information to be very secure, with ONLY the info necessary for animal and human health available to government. Some ranchers will choose to give ONLY that information. Some ranchers will choose to provide other info for which they will be rewarded and that will go ONLY where the owners say it may. How is that going to benefit anyone, let alone Tyson.

Why do you persist in saying and/or implying that Tyson has ANY control over NCBA? How about surprising us with some facts to back your claims, for a change?

MRJ

MRJ, I don't know if you notice how things work in the world but I sure do. When you consolidate power, it can be exercised. When you consolidate infomation, it can be used. Part of the reason the Patriot Act and some of the other anti-terrorist measures are being questioned is because of the abuse of this power. Governments have historically done it and I can see no reason why they would not continue. Remember the whole travelgate with the Clintons? Just because someone is prudent, it does not make them a conspiracy nut. I do worry about the consolidation of information and of power and how it affects the freedoms we all have. You are a little niave not to do so yourself. Questioning why someone wants more information or more authority is a good thing.

On the M-ID: I question why anyone would want to push M-ID and not be for Country of Origin Labeling. You keep saying the current law is flawed yet you have no alternative except M-ID. Why is that? Do we need to know where all of the citizens of the U.S. are before we have control of our international borders? There is something in that reasoning that needs to be explained first. If you can't explain it then something is wrong. What is it? I am very reluctant to give any information over to anyone or give any authority over anyone without proper checks and balances. If you don't understand that then you need to spend a little time in a big city. You will smarten up real quick.

I persist in tying NCBA with Tyson interests because the USDA is packed with NCBA people at all of the bottlenecks of power and I see abuses of Tyson not being stopped. When any action is taken, it is because there was enough political push that something had to be done. That is no way to run regulatory agencies. They should not be a "whoever has the most political power wins" agencies. They should be run on principle. From what I see right now, they are not. If NCBA people do not change the situation, then they are part of the problem. Some of these things I am not at liberty to talk about on this forum at this time. Maybe later. I believe that when someone has the reigns of power, they are responsible for the way the horse goes. These politically appointed positions carry a lot of influence, power, and responsibility. The people that are in those positions must be accountable for their actions.

I can not beleive that you take the position that labeling imported meat does not provide any more safety to the U.S. beef supply. Did you not read the New Zealand deal? You are just ignoring facts. Not everyone in the world has the same USDA inspection service or education to producers or manufactorers that the U.S. has. COOL allows consumers the power to make sure other governments are doing the job they need to do for food safety. No manditory COOL allows the cheapest product to rule instead of the ones with the most safety. While I am not so worried about Canadian beef except its use as captive supply and market manipulation, I am worried about some of the other countries we may import meat from. Look at the Japanese, they are too. It is not an irrational amount of information to be known on a food label. My question to those who do not want it is, "What have you got to hide?"

Econ, why don't you want identification of US beef producers available to better protect the US cattle herd, and the ALL consumers from animal or human diseases? What do you have to hide? If a communicable cattle disease breaks someplace in the USA, I want it found FAST in order to protect my cattle as well as everyone elses. What do you have against that? Same if there is a foodborne illness. I want traceability to protect my family and all consumers of beef. Why are you against that? Is it that you do not believe US beef could be the problem and it is only foreign beef we need to worry about? Maybe you are using health issues as a screen for keeping imported beef out???

What do you believe are the benefits of COOL aside from stating the country of origin of the imported beef? Why are consumers told that COOL improves beef safety when that label does nothing to promote safety?

I believe we NEED M-ID in case of accidental or intentional animal disease epidemic, or foodborne illness outbreak, in order to find sources of infection as quickly as possible. The COOL law offers NO opportunity for doing that. Unless you can show me where in the COOL law it says that animals will be traced back to farm of origin if necessary for those two reasons, I cannot accept it and believe it to be deceptive at best.

I have explained that many times. You are seeing conspiracies where there are none, it appears. No one is asking you to give any information that isn't needed for security and food safety. Did you not read that the proposed value added information will be controlled by the owner of the cattle? The information needed for security and food safety will be used ONLY by government IF necessary in event of a food safety or security problem, is how I read the proposals.

So, you think I'm incapable of understanding the "evil empires" you see inhabiting the business world........and I think you are way too self-important in hinting of your connections in "high places" that you "are not at liberty to talk about". You see co-conspirators in former NCBA staff being hired away by USDA. I see excellent people dedicated to US agriculture and food production who have no obligations or hidden agenda to work behind the scenes for former employers. I see NCBA as an organization whose members understand the value in having good relationships with ALL segments of the beef industry. You see a conspiracy to control others. My view of the cattle/beef industry and US agriculture is positive.......yours is negative. Guess that's life in the USA today!

Oh, I did read about the New Zealand problem beef........and dozens of beef recalls of domestic beef. I believe the system was working, or none of those cases would have made the news, would they? I just wonder how much faster they were able to find the NZ beef than the US beef due to M-ID there and not here?

Exactly how does COOL "allow consumers the power to make sure other governments are doing the job the need to do for food safety"? Show us the mechanism in that law that allows consumers to do that. The closest it can come is that consumers can choose to assume foreign beef is not safe and avoid it. No proof. Just assumption that may well be wrong. While they are encouraged to assume that all US beef is safe......and that could be wrong and there is no mechanism to trace the US beef back to the farm of origin effectively if there is a need to do that. That is not being honest with consumers, IMO. COOL places NO responsibility on the US beef producer, but passes it all to the packer and/or the country of origin, if other than the USA.

My question to those who do not want M-ID is "what have you got to hide"?

MRJ
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
When you consolidate infomation, it can be used

And watch for the Canadians to use it! As you in the US are selling commodity beef as "US born and raised" (95% or less)

We'll be selling Candadian beef as "age, source and management verified', on the same shelfs.

Maybe SH says the consumer isn't ready for it, but I think they are, when it comes to a commodity product!

Export markets are already showing their preference!

GO RCALF and COOL.
 

Latest posts

Top