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

Sidestepping the USDA

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Location
Montgomery, Al
AGRICULTURE COALITION URGES ACTION ON INTERSTATE MEAT SHIPMENT BILL
Farm Groups Launch National Grassroots Campaign to Support Passage

Washington, D.C. – A broad-based coalition of agricultural and farm organizations is urging Congress to take prompt action on legislation introduced June 15 that would allow interstate sales of state-inspected meat and poultry products. S. 3519, the Agricultural Small Business Opportunity and Enhancement Act of 2006, was introduced by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Herb Kohl (D-WI).

Agriculture coalition members said the legislation will resolve a basic inequity which has existed since 1967. Removing the current ban on interstate sales will level the economic playing field for small business, spur more competition in the marketplace, create a more uniform inspection system and further enhance food safety and consumer confidence in the food supply. The coalition is also launching a national grassroots campaign to support passage of the bill. Coalition members include: the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA); American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP); Center for Rural Affairs; American Meat Goat Association; Kansas Livestock Association; National Farmers Union; National Grange; American Sheep Industry Association (ASI); Missouri Association of Meat Processors; Montana Chamber of Commerce; National Association of State Meat and Food Inspection Directors (NASMFID); National Bison Association; North Dakota Meat Processors Association (NDMPA); North Dakota Stockmen's Association; Ohio Association of Meat Processors; R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America; Texas Association of Business; and Wisconsin Association of Meat Processors.

State and local agricultural groups have long sought to fix current law which is outdated and restricts free markets. The 1967 and 1968 Meat and Poultry Acts prohibit state-inspected products (beef, poultry, pork, lamb, and goat) from being sold in interstate commerce. However, the prohibition does not apply to "non-amenable" products—such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit, and a host of others. These products are normally regulated by state inspection programs, yet can be shipped in interstate commerce without restriction. The agricultural coalition pointed out that it does not make sense to allow these products to be shipped across state borders while beef, poultry, pork, lamb and goats cannot be shipped interstate.

S. 3519 would expand marketing opportunities for farmers and ranchers which they never had before. Without change, growing concentration in the processing sector will continue to leave smaller farmers and ranchers with fewer buyers for their livestock and poultry. Increased markets will stimulate small business sales, expand rural development, and increase local tax bases—all of which will benefit farmers, ranchers, processors, related industries, and consumers. Three USDA advisory committees have recommended that the ban on interstate sales be removed.

The agricultural coalition further noted that the legislation would also ensure fairness in trade. Foreign-produced meat and poultry products can be freely shipped and sold anywhere in the U.S. as long as that foreign country's inspection program is equivalent to U.S. federal standards—the same standard which state meat inspection programs must meet. State agriculture officials pointed out that S. 3519 would provide small businesses in the U.S. with the same marketing opportunities given to companies in foreign countries.

Coalition members emphasized that state and federal inspection programs should function together as a seamless system in both intrastate and interstate commerce. "We hope Congress will act this year because this legislation will further enhance food safety, improve competition, and benefit farmers, ranchers, and consumers."

p
 
Quote...Foreign-produced meat and poultry products can be freely shipped and sold anywhere in the U.S. as long as that foreign country's inspection program is equivalent to U.S. federal standards—the same standard which state meat inspection programs must meet.

Lets hope this is changed so state inspected meat can be shipped and sold anywhere in the USA. It is a shame that it cannot be right now.
 
Tommy said:
Quote...Foreign-produced meat and poultry products can be freely shipped and sold anywhere in the U.S. as long as that foreign country's inspection program is equivalent to U.S. federal standards—the same standard which state meat inspection programs must meet.

Lets hope this is changed so state inspected meat can be shipped and sold anywhere in the USA. It is a shame that it cannot be right now.


We have the same problem in Canada. Two levels of inspection, Federal and provincial. Funny thing is the same inspector does it all.
 
This type of structure gives advantages to federally inspected and larger national companies over small regional companies.

And they wonder why our markets are becoming more concentrated.

Someone should take off the dunce cap and think instead of hiding behind the do nothing policies that the big boys promote. Businesses want all their competitors regulated more than themselves. It gives them advantages in the marketplace.
 
Same here, BMR, but you can believe AMI is already all over this. Who this CAN help the most are states with low human populations and high cattle populations. The door will be unlocked with passage of this bill, but it will be up to producers to open the door and walk through it. There will be no advantage if producers turn their backs on these state processors because the large processors 'buy the producers off' with a few dollars more per head. There are advantages in the direct link between producer/processor/consumer...the most important; stable prices...and with good management(read marketing);profitable, stable prices. This is the new playing field...the poultry industry is fully integrated by the processor with the producer marginalized(a non-player) and the pork industry is close behind. Does it work? Remember, poultry(Tyson) bought out beef(IBP). If we(producers) miss this opportunity, then in the not to distant future, you will have to have a marketing contract with an established processor to have a market for your calves and they will have to be raised according to the protocol in that contract.

What is NCBA's position on this bill????? For it or against it?????
 
RobertMac said:
What is NCBA's position on this bill????? For it or against it?????

I have been asking the same question- and searching the net and media releases with negative results...

Apparently the AMI hasn't told them what their position is yet :???: :lol:
 
Oldtimer said:
RobertMac said:
What is NCBA's position on this bill????? For it or against it?????

I have been asking the same question- and searching the net and media releases with negative results...

Apparently the AMI hasn't told them what their position is yet :???: :lol:

Maybe they don't think it has any bearing on the cattle industry. :lol:
 
Oldtimer said:
RobertMac said:
What is NCBA's position on this bill????? For it or against it?????

I have been asking the same question- and searching the net and media releases with negative results...

Apparently the AMI hasn't told them what their position is yet :???: :lol:

I can guarantee you the big packers will balk at this bill. It is for companies with 50 or fewer employees only.
 
Hatch's Website:

US Senator Orrin Hatch

US Senator Orrin Hatch
June 15th, 2006 Contact: Peter Carr (202) 224-9854
Jared Whitley (202) 224-0134

HATCH: LIFT BAN ON INTERSTATE MEAT SHIPMENT

Washington – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today introduced legislation to overturn a nearly 30-year ban on interstate shipment of state-inspected meat, which would place Utah's ranchers on a level playing field with national and foreign meat producers.

"This ban hurts Utah's ranchers and small business owners, and there's no reason for it," Hatch said. "States are getting a bad deal. State inspection programs have proven to be just as effective as Federal programs, yet state-inspected meat can't be shipped across state lines. It's high time we update this unnecessary, unjust ban that puts Utah's small businesses at such a disadvantage."

Federal law requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to inspect all meat products slaughtered for human consumption, and in the late 1960s Congress created state inspection programs that are mandated to be "at least equal to" the Federal inspection program. Utah has 32 plants authorized to inspect meat, part of nearly 2,000 plants nationwide largely run by small businesses that cater to the needs of small, family-run farms and ranches.

Perishable products — including milk and other dairy items, fruit, vegetables, and fish — are freely shipped across state lines after being inspected by state programs. Yet certain meat products are prohibited from being sold in interstate commerce, despite decades of meeting or surpassing the Federal inspection standards. Hatch's bill would remove this prohibition.

"Three USDA Advisory Committees have recommended that we lift this ban," Hatch said. "The ban clearly disrupts the free flow of trade, restricts market access for countless small businesses, and creates an unfair advantage for big businesses."

In addition, current regulations allow meat inspected in 34 foreign countries to be shipped throughout the U.S. because the USDA has certified that the inspection programs in these foreign countries are equivalent to the Federal program. State inspection programs must meet the same Federal equivalency standard, and USDA supervises state programs far more frequently and thoroughly than foreign inspection programs.

"It's absurd that meat inspected overseas can be shipped anywhere in the United States without restriction, but Utah's small businesses are prohibited from shipping their products across state lines," Hatch said. "They meet the same food safety requirements. We shouldn't hold Utah's meat producers at a different standard than their foreign competitors."

###
 

Latest posts

Back
Top