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

US Packers/Importers Eye Cheap Brazilian Pork

A

Anonymous

Guest
While they're killing litters of pigs in Canada because they are worth nothing--the multinationals are out sourcing a new cheap source of pork to take the place of Canadian and US product!!! The danger of swine fever or Foot and Mouth Disease be damned by our globalist administration and USDA....If history is an indicator- USDA will be fasttracking this... :(

We need M-COOL now- and the ability to identify, market, and promote Beef/Pork that is born, raised, and slaughtered in the US....

AND WE NEED IT NOW!!!!!!



Brazil pork industry eyes U.S. market as exports rise

By Arnaldo de Sousa on 1/22/2008 for Meatingplace.com


U.S. inspectors may visit Brazil to determine whether its pork exports are fit to enter U.S. commerce, the president of the Brazilian Pork Industry and Exporter Association (ABIPECS) told Meatingplace.com.

"We've entered 2008 with optimism," said Pedro Camargo Neto. "We hope to receive in the first half of the year a mission of the United States to initiate a risk-analysis study, which represents the first step in the process of opening that market."

However, Neto noted that his U.S. counterparts have not yet accepted Brazil's invitation to visit. "If the U.S. mission arrives in Brazil, the process of opening takes one to two years to evaluate the situation of risk to classical swine fever, for example, and recognition of the state of Santa Catarina as free of foot-and-mouth without vaccination," he said, adding that Brazil hopes to receive a similar visit by Mexico.

Brazil's optimism comes as its worldwide pork and pork variety meat exports rose to 606,512 metric tons from January through December of 2007, a nearly 15 percent increase from 528,190 metric tons in the same period in 2006. Value grew almost 19 percent to $1.23 billion, according ABIPECS.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Free trade allows merchants to arbitrage the differences in money values between countries at the detriment of the profitability of domestic producers.



When we lose sovereignty over our food supplies because we have run everyone out of the business or allowed the industry to be controlled by a few companies or countries overseas, we put our country at a big risk.

I don't like seeing the same people making the money all the time. Instead of the traders making all the money, how about allowing the people who own the assets that are producing the goods making the money? The traders don't mind going anywhere in the world to make a buck, but they want to sell in the U.S. market. What about allowing the domestic producers to make a buck instead of allowing traders to go overseas for supplying the domestic market? If we keep suppressing domestic or local production like this, we might just lose it. It is not in the best interest of the U.S. from a strategic point of view, for this to happen. Traders with sorry trade deals can and do sell out domestic producers to foreign supplies when the money values (which have nothing to do with the cost of production or comparative advantage) change due to fiscal and or monetary policy differences between countries.
 

andybob

Well-known member
The consumers in Britain have been increasingly supporting locally produced beef and pork, based mostly on the welfare standards, with two major supermarkets now not stocking any exported produce other than that not available locally (tropical fruits etc). The drive now is for fairer pricing; http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/16894/new-ad-campaign-launched
 

Tex

Well-known member
andybob said:
The consumers in Britain have been increasingly supporting locally produced beef and pork, based mostly on the welfare standards, with two major supermarkets now not stocking any exported produce other than that not available locally (tropical fruits etc). The drive now is for fairer pricing; http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/16894/new-ad-campaign-launched

The recent argument by Tyson with the USDA shows that Tyson wants to make the argument that human antibiotic resistance is the only reason they can't label their product antibiotic free when they contain ionophores.

I think your animal welfare issues take this a step further. Ionophores are also used because of the close proximity corporate agriculture uses for efficient animal production. The population levels are just too lage and close together to take the risk of not feeding antibiotics to those animals.

I really don't care what the reason for their lie. They should be held accountable for it and have to pay the other market participants for competitive advantage lying gave them. Instead, the USDA tells them to stop publically but they pay no price. They don't even stop in some markets, but compete with those who don't feed antibiotics unfairly. It is because they have learned that they can lie with impunity.

Our government has the justanomics wrong--- unless you call the paying off of politicians to do nothing just.

There are way too many bad eggs at the USDA who need to be cracked but someone needs to do it.
 
Top