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

Senators Oppose USDA Beef Import Rule

A

Anonymous

Guest
CattleNetwork_Today 2/3/2007 10:16:00 AM


Enzi, Senators Say ‘Whoa’ To USDA Beef Import Rule



Washington, D.C. – The United States Department of Agriculture should hold up on its proposed plan to expand beef imports from Canada, according to U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and John Thune, R-S.D.



Permitting the importation of live Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999 and beef from animals of any age, would harm American producers economically and further endanger the U.S. market with the threat of mad cow disease.



The senators sent a Feb. 2 letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, urging him not to implement the rule. The text of the letter follows.



Feb. 2, 2007



The Honorable Michael Johanns

Secretary

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Avenue

Washington, DC 20250



Dear Secretary Johanns:



We are writing to express our concern with USDA’s proposal to expand live cattle and beef trade with Canada. Your proposed rule published on January 9, 2007 would permit the importation of live Canadian cattle born after March 1, 1999 and beef from animals of any age. We, and the cattle ranchers we represent, believe expanding imports of Canadian livestock and beef will have serious repercussions for the American cattle industry, and we urge you to withdraw the proposal.



Increasing U.S. imports of Canadian cattle and beef at this time would have a significant negative impact on the economic well-being of American cattle producers and could seriously disrupt our efforts to expand U.S. beef exports overseas.



USDA has, in the past, underestimated the financial impact on American cattle producers of increased Canadian beef imports. In the months immediately following the implementation of USDA's 2005 Final Rule, which allowed the importation of live Canadian cattle less than 30 months of age, prices for U.S. fed cattle dropped nearly three times more than USDA had anticipated. American ranchers, who have already experienced a severe summer drought, punishing winter snowstorms, and rising feed prices, should not have to endure another such drop in cattle prices.



Furthermore, expanding Canadian cattle imports increases the possibility that a future case of BSE in a Canadian animal may be found in the United States. Three of Canada’s nine BSE cases occurred in cattle born long after the March 1, 1999 date proposed in the rule as an appropriate age for importation. There is a very real possibility that USDA’s proposal would lead to the importation of additional BSE-infected animals from Canada, which would destroy years of hard work by the American cattle industry, the Administration, and Congress to restore the confidence of our trading partners in the safety of American beef.



American beef is the healthiest and safest in the world, which is why USDA goes to great lengths to assure our trading partners that they will receive only American beef when they allow imports from the U.S. If older Canadian animals and beef from animals of any age enter our beef supply, it will make it harder for our trading partners to accept those assurances, and the already challenging work of regaining our lost export markets will be made even more difficult.



Consumers in foreign countries should not be the only ones receiving assurances from the U.S. government about the origin of their beef. Surely, American consumers deserve the same assurances from USDA that overseas consumers receive. If you will not withdraw your proposal to expand Canadian beef imports, then at the very least it should be postponed until USDA can fully implement mandatory Country-of-Origin labeling, as directed in the 2002 Farm Bill. Before American beef is commingled with beef from a country that discovered five cases of BSE last year, American consumers should be given basic tools with which to distinguish American beef from Canadian.



Sincerely,



Byron L. Dorgan

Jeff Bingaman

Michael B. Enzi

John Thune
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Wonder if these Senators have the same feeling about our tained oil from the dinosaurs that died many years ago with MAD DINO disease. I bet they dont....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I truly believe that implementation of M-COOL will be one of the tradeoffs that USDA will have to give up in order to get the Border Rule thru...But USDA is saying they can't get the rules and procedure put together fast enough to implement it in 2007....

M-COOL not only has the support of a large majority of US cattle producers, but is supported by all the major consumers groups...Too big a group when combined for the Congressmen/politicians to overlook....
 

Bill

Well-known member
Gee with all the R-Xperts on the site today and not one knows how Country of origin labeling works on chicken and pork?

Can anyone answer the question?
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
I live in the Pacific Northwest, those senators all live in areas,where the cattle numbers are greater than they are here. If it were not for the imported cattle(fats and feeders) from Canada, we would not have enough cattle to support a major packer in the Northwest. So when those senators talk about the damages US producers, would have, they are not thinking about the cattle producers in the Northwest portion of the United States.


M-COOL, I'm sorry,I just don't see the significance in having it. We have many more issues in this industry,that are far more important that need to be addressed. How many years,how many dollars,have been spent on M-COOL? If I had the power though,I would implement M-COOL today, then in six months, one year, two years or five years from now,when they see that our market is no better off, what or who, are they going to blame then. Any cattle proudcer,that is hanging his hat on M-COOL for more profitabilty,is a fool.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BR: "I live in the Pacific Northwest, those senators all live in areas,where the cattle numbers are greater than they are here. If it were not for the imported cattle(fats and feeders) from Canada, we would not have enough cattle to support a major packer in the Northwest. So when those senators talk about the damages US producers, would have, they are not thinking about the cattle producers in the Northwest portion of the United States."


Damn straight Ben!

These Senators are catering to the import blamers with the inability to see this issue past the back of a Canadian potload of fats.


~SH~
 

Bill

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
I live in the Pacific Northwest, those senators all live in areas,where the cattle numbers are greater than they are here. If it were not for the imported cattle(fats and feeders) from Canada, we would not have enough cattle to support a major packer in the Northwest. So when those senators talk about the damages US producers, would have, they are not thinking about the cattle producers in the Northwest portion of the United States.


M-COOL, I'm sorry,I just don't see the significance in having it. We have many more issues in this industry,that are far more important that need to be addressed. How many years,how many dollars,have been spent on M-COOL? If I had the power though,I would implement M-COOL today, then in six months, one year, two years or five years from now,when they see that our market is no better off, what or who, are they going to blame then. Any cattle proudcer,that is hanging his hat on M-COOL for more profitabilty,is a fool.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Hey Ben, any idea how M-Cool works in the pork and chicken biz.?

You see constant references here to shrimp and fish but what about meats that are in more direct competition with beef?

Thanks.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Bill, In the COOL legislation proposed some years ago, Pork is treated the same as cattle. To my knowledge there is no mention of poultry. (They don't have ears large enough for tags)

Text of Legislation:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Consumer Right-to-Know Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING.

The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Subtitle C--Country of Origin Labeling

`SEC. 271. DEFINITIONS.

`In this subtitle:

`(1) BEEF- The term `beef' means meat produced from cattle (including veal).

`(2) COVERED COMMODITY- The term `covered commodity' means--

`(A) muscle cuts of beef, lamb, and pork;

`(B) ground beef, ground lamb, and ground pork; and

`(C) a perishable agricultural commodity.

`(3) FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT- The term `food service establishment' means a restaurant, cafeteria, lunch room, food stand, saloon, tavern, bar, lounge, or other similar facility operated as an enterprise engaged in the business of selling food to the public.

`(4) LAMB- The term `lamb' means meat, other than mutton, produced from sheep.

`(5) PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY; RETAILER- The terms `perishable agricultural commodity' and `retailer' have the meanings given the terms in section 1(b) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499a(b)).

`(6) PORK- The term `pork' means meat produced from hogs.

`(7) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Agricultural Marketing Service.

`SEC. 272. NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

`(a) IN GENERAL-

`(1) REQUIREMENT- Except as provided in subsection (b), a retailer of a covered commodity shall inform consumers, at the final point of sale of the covered commodity to consumers, of the country of origin of the covered commodity.

`(2) UNITED STATES COUNTRY OF ORIGIN- A retailer of a covered commodity may designate the covered commodity as having a United States country of origin only if the covered commodity--

`(A) in the case of a covered commodity (other than a perishable agricultural commodity), is exclusively from an animal that is exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States; and

`(B) in the case of a perishable agricultural commodity, is exclusively produced in the United States.

`(b) EXEMPTION FOR FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to a covered commodity if the covered commodity is--

`(1) prepared or served in a food service establishment; and

`(2)(A) offered for sale or sold at the food service establishment in normal retail quantities; or

`(B) served to consumers at the food service establishment.

`(c) METHOD OF NOTIFICATION-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The information required by subsection (a) may be provided to consumers by means of a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the covered commodity or on the package, display, holding unit, or bin containing the commodity at the final point of sale to consumers.

`(2) LABELED COMMODITIES- If the covered commodity is already individually labeled for retail sale regarding country of origin, the retailer shall not be required to provide any additional information to comply with this section.

`(d) AUDIT VERIFICATION SYSTEM- The Secretary may require that any person that prepares, stores, handles, or distributes a covered commodity for retail sale maintain a verifiable recordkeeping audit trail that will permit the Secretary to ensure compliance with the regulations promulgated under section 274.

`(e) INFORMATION- Any person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer shall provide information to the retailer indicating the country of origin of the covered commodity.

`SEC. 273. ENFORCEMENT.

`Section 253 shall apply to a violation of this subtitle.

`SEC. 274. REGULATIONS.

`(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out this subtitle.

`(b) PARTNERSHIPS WITH STATES- In promulgating the regulations, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, enter into partnerships with States with enforcement infrastructure to carry out this subtitle.

`SEC. 275. APPLICATION.

`This subtitle shall apply to the retail sale of a covered commodity beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this subtitle.'.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ben,

Poultry was exempted from the law. Hence we absorb the costs of this absolutely unjustifiable law while poultry doesn't giving poultry another competitive advantage.

I'm glad you can see who is leading this industry down the primrose path.



~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Ben,

Poultry was exempted from the law. Hence we absorb the costs of this absolutely unjustifiable law while poultry doesn't giving poultry another competitive advantage.

I'm glad you can see who is leading this industry down the primrose path.

~SH~

If the consumer takes well to "Country Of Origin Labeling" it might put poultry at a disadvantage because their products wouldn't be labeled.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "If the consumer takes well to "Country Of Origin Labeling" it might put poultry at a disadvantage because their products wouldn't be labeled."

Takes well to it?????

95% OF THE BEEF WILL BE LABELED PRODUCT OF THE US. WHAT'S TO TAKE TO????

I used to think you were fairly intelligent Mike but you have bought into this R-CULT mantra hook, line, and sinker.

THINK FOR YOURSELF!

How much advantage do you think there is to labeling US BEEF if 95% of the beef that is labeled is already US BEEF????

Good grief!

THERE'S NOTHING TO TAKE TO! Pretty soon "US PRODUCT" on beef will look like a common styrofoam cup.

GEE, I GOTTA GET ME SOME OF THAT. HEY WAIT, IT'S ALL THE SAME!


~SH~
 

Tam

Well-known member
Maybe all those that think the M'COOL label will be the save all of the US industry should stop and think!!!! What is going to happen if the US has another BSE Positive, and they will it is only a matter of when? What if that next investigation shows as little to your consumers as say the Alabama cows investigation did? Do you think they will be chomping at the bit to buy US beef then? That imported beef might look very tempting to them, if your industry doesn't step up to the dinner plate and take responibility for the animals you raise. Just think about the dangers of what you are asking for. :roll:
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Bill said:
Ben Roberts said:
I live in the Pacific Northwest, those senators all live in areas,where the cattle numbers are greater than they are here. If it were not for the imported cattle(fats and feeders) from Canada, we would not have enough cattle to support a major packer in the Northwest. So when those senators talk about the damages US producers, would have, they are not thinking about the cattle producers in the Northwest portion of the United States.


M-COOL, I'm sorry,I just don't see the significance in having it. We have many more issues in this industry,that are far more important that need to be addressed. How many years,how many dollars,have been spent on M-COOL? If I had the power though,I would implement M-COOL today, then in six months, one year, two years or five years from now,when they see that our market is no better off, what or who, are they going to blame then. Any cattle proudcer,that is hanging his hat on M-COOL for more profitabilty,is a fool.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Hey Ben, any idea how M-Cool works in the pork and chicken biz.?

You see constant references here to shrimp and fish but what about meats that are in more direct competition with beef?

Thanks.

Bill, poultry is---ex-empt \ig-'zempt\ adj :free from some liability to which others are subjectexemptvb: to make exempt: EXCUSE

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Tam said:
Maybe all those that think the M'COOL label will be the save all of the US industry should stop and think!!!! What is going to happen if the US has another BSE Positive, and they will it is only a matter of when? What if that next investigation shows as little to your consumers as say the Alabama cows investigation did? Do you think they will be chomping at the bit to buy US beef then? That imported beef might look very tempting to them, if your industry doesn't step up to the dinner plate and take responibility for the animals you raise. Just think about the dangers of what you are asking for. :roll:


That makes no sense to me! If we get another bse case and no cool they will eat our beef, but if we get a bse case and cool they won't eat our beef. Hmmmm
 

Bill

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Bill said:
Ben Roberts said:
I live in the Pacific Northwest, those senators all live in areas,where the cattle numbers are greater than they are here. If it were not for the imported cattle(fats and feeders) from Canada, we would not have enough cattle to support a major packer in the Northwest. So when those senators talk about the damages US producers, would have, they are not thinking about the cattle producers in the Northwest portion of the United States.


M-COOL, I'm sorry,I just don't see the significance in having it. We have many more issues in this industry,that are far more important that need to be addressed. How many years,how many dollars,have been spent on M-COOL? If I had the power though,I would implement M-COOL today, then in six months, one year, two years or five years from now,when they see that our market is no better off, what or who, are they going to blame then. Any cattle proudcer,that is hanging his hat on M-COOL for more profitabilty,is a fool.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Hey Ben, any idea how M-Cool works in the pork and chicken biz.?

You see constant references here to shrimp and fish but what about meats that are in more direct competition with beef?

Thanks.

Bill, poultry is---ex-empt \ig-'zempt\ adj :free from some liability to which others are subjectexemptvb: to make exempt: EXCUSE

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Thanks Ben.

I was wondering why the Klanners kept rolling out SHRIMP as the model for M-Cool. :lol: :lol:

Poultry which is actually one of beef's major competitors for consumer food dollars is exempt from M-Cool as it stands to day? Do you know if it is planned to be included whenever beef is added to the list? If it is exempt and beef isn't won't that be another economic disadvantage against beef and all for what less than 5 % of the US beef supply? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Canadians can whine, moan, and groan about M-COOL because it loses them their free ride on the US industry- and they won't be able to fraudulently market their product anymore...It would have to stand on its own---- ~SH~ and the NCBAers can whine about the meat percentages that are covered-- but I still think it will be implemented this year or next- and I think that many folks in Congress will look at tying the Rule 2 old cow/beef Border rule date to until only after the implementation of M-COOL...If USDA starts playing implementation games- then for sure the border rule will be tied to it.....We haven't even began hearing from the consumer groups yet the way we will if USDA doesn't heed the public comments to postpone the rule...

CN_Today 1/23/2007 7:30:00 PM

Key US Reps Voice Support For Meat Origin Labels

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)-Key Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have voiced support in recent days for enacting a mandatory country-of-origin labeling law for beef, pork and lamb.

Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said Tuesday he is intent on seeing a labeling law enacted as early as the end of this year, but more likely sometime in 2008.

Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said Friday she strongly supports legislation to require that consumers know where the meat they buy comes from.

Representative DeLauro replaced Rep Bonilla (Tx) as head of the Ag subcommitte ( he got booted)- and he is the one that almost singlehandedly blocked M-COOL implementation for the Packers before, by not allowing it to be funded...She also has had a running battle with USDA & FDA and would stop at nothing to undermine them...She has in the past proposed doing away with the USDA and making one big Agency under FDA( a tide that is growing in D.C.)...She is also a big consumer- consumers groups advocate...

The new head of the Senate Finance Committee is Sen. Baucus from Montana that was a co-sponsor of the bill to fasttrack M-COOL this year...He now has the power and he and DeLauro will see that his bill is funded and implemented....

Consider the purview of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., in his new role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee: Social Security. Trade agreements. Tariffs and import quotas. Revenue sharing. Health programs under the Social Security Act. Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill said:
Ben Roberts said:
Bill said:
Hey Ben, any idea how M-Cool works in the pork and chicken biz.?

You see constant references here to shrimp and fish but what about meats that are in more direct competition with beef?

Thanks.

Bill, poultry is---ex-empt \ig-'zempt\ adj :free from some liability to which others are subjectexemptvb: to make exempt: EXCUSE

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Thanks Ben.

I was wondering why the Klanners kept rolling out SHRIMP as the model for M-Cool. :lol: :lol:

Poultry which is actually one of beef's major competitors for consumer food dollars is exempt from M-Cool as it stands to day? Do you know if it is planned to be included whenever beef is added to the list? If it is exempt and beef isn't won't that be another economic disadvantage against beef and all for what less than 5 % of the US beef supply? :roll:

"Poultry dealers" (in 1999, I believe) were inserted into the Packers and Stockyards Act but failed to be included as "livestock" which effectively stopped enforcement activity by GIPSA that livestock has.

Tyson would never allow their poultry to be competitively disadvantaged through equal treatment with beef. Why would they? They make more margin on poultry.

Not having poultry in MCOOL is not coming from domestic producers, it is coming from Tyson and the poultry industry the same way they have run around the PSA.

MCOOL will allow domestic producers to use advertising for domestic producers. It will provide the same benefits for quality Canadian beef.

Big packers don't want to lose the competitive advantage they have over smaller packers who don't mix cheap trimmings from overseas with their product.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Canadians can whine, moan, and groan about M-COOL because it loses them their free ride on the US industry- and they won't be able to fraudulently market their product anymore...It would have to stand on its own---- ~SH~ and the NCBAers can whine about the meat percentages that are covered-- but I still think it will be implemented this year or next- and I think that many folks in Congress will look at tying the Rule 2 old cow/beef Border rule date to until only after the implementation of M-COOL...If USDA starts playing implementation games- then for sure the border rule will be tied to it.....We haven't even began hearing from the consumer groups yet the way we will if USDA doesn't heed the public comments to postpone the rule...

CN_Today 1/23/2007 7:30:00 PM

Key US Reps Voice Support For Meat Origin Labels

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)-Key Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have voiced support in recent days for enacting a mandatory country-of-origin labeling law for beef, pork and lamb.

Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said Tuesday he is intent on seeing a labeling law enacted as early as the end of this year, but more likely sometime in 2008.

Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said Friday she strongly supports legislation to require that consumers know where the meat they buy comes from.

Representative DeLauro replaced Rep Bonilla (Tx) as head of the Ag subcommitte ( he got booted)- and he is the one that almost singlehandedly blocked M-COOL implementation for the Packers before, by not allowing it to be funded...She also has had a running battle with USDA & FDA and would stop at nothing to undermine them...She has in the past proposed doing away with the USDA and making one big Agency under FDA( a tide that is growing in D.C.)...She is also a big consumer- consumers groups advocate...

The new head of the Senate Finance Committee is Sen. Baucus from Montana that was a co-sponsor of the bill to fasttrack M-COOL this year...He now has the power and he and DeLauro will see that his bill is funded and implemented....

Consider the purview of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., in his new role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee: Social Security. Trade agreements. Tariffs and import quotas. Revenue sharing. Health programs under the Social Security Act. Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.

No whining here. Cool? BRING IT ON as it will likely be tied to the border opening AND an MID system for y'all!

Everyone knows you need one!
 
Top