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

Vilsack sets Priorities

A

Anonymous

Guest
Vilsack also said he would seek to implement the 2008 farm bill "promptly and consistent with congressional intent."

I wonder if he could be talking about M-COOL :???:


Vilsack to prioritize energy as agriculture secretary

By Janie Gabbett on 1/14/2009


Former Iowa Gov. TomVilsack listed energy independence, global climate change, food safety, conservation and rural development among his priorities should he be confirmed as the next secretary of agriculture.

In remarks prepared for his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday, Vilsack said he would work "to place America at the forefront of efforts to aggressively address energy independence and global climate change.

"I will also take steps to enhance the role of the farm sector and rural communities in solving the great environmental and energy-related challenges our country faces. Toward that end, I will work with [Congress] to expand opportunities for farmers, ranchers and rural communities to promote renewable energy technologies like biofuels, wind, solar and geo-thermal, and to deliver environmental benefits like clean air, clean water and fish and wildlife habitat," he said in written remarks provided in advance to the Des Moines Register.

Vilsack listed other priorities as working to:

enhance the safety of the food supply and reduce the incidence of foodborne illnesses

administer a robust farm safety net and create real and meaningful opportunities for farmers and ranchers to succeed

guarantee that the communities where farmers and ranchers live can grow and prosper

help families that struggle to make ends meet put food on the table

seek programs and practices that lead to more nutritious food produced in a sustainable way preserve and protect national resources of land, water and forests.
Vilsack also said he would seek to implement the 2008 farm bill "promptly and consistent with congressional intent."

Finally, Vilsack said he would work to upgrade the use of technology at USDA and to resolve outstanding civil rights claims in its program and employment practices. "If I am confirmed, the message will be clear: discrimination in any form will not be tolerated."
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Vilsack also said he would seek to implement the 2008 farm bill "promptly and consistent with congressional intent."

I wonder if he could be talking about M-COOL :???:


Vilsack to prioritize energy as agriculture secretary

By Janie Gabbett on 1/14/2009


Former Iowa Gov. TomVilsack listed energy independence, global climate change, food safety, conservation and rural development among his priorities should he be confirmed as the next secretary of agriculture.

In remarks prepared for his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday, Vilsack said he would work "to place America at the forefront of efforts to aggressively address energy independence and global climate change.

"I will also take steps to enhance the role of the farm sector and rural communities in solving the great environmental and energy-related challenges our country faces. Toward that end, I will work with [Congress] to expand opportunities for farmers, ranchers and rural communities to promote renewable energy technologies like biofuels, wind, solar and geo-thermal, and to deliver environmental benefits like clean air, clean water and fish and wildlife habitat," he said in written remarks provided in advance to the Des Moines Register.

Vilsack listed other priorities as working to:

enhance the safety of the food supply and reduce the incidence of foodborne illnesses

administer a robust farm safety net and create real and meaningful opportunities for farmers and ranchers to succeed

guarantee that the communities where farmers and ranchers live can grow and prosper

help families that struggle to make ends meet put food on the table

seek programs and practices that lead to more nutritious food produced in a sustainable way preserve and protect national resources of land, water and forests.
Vilsack also said he would seek to implement the 2008 farm bill "promptly and consistent with congressional intent."

Finally, Vilsack said he would work to upgrade the use of technology at USDA and to resolve outstanding civil rights claims in its program and employment practices. "If I am confirmed, the message will be clear: discrimination in any form will not be tolerated."

"Vilsack also said he would seek to implement the 2008 farm bill "promptly and consistent with congressional intent." "



I am a little worried about that. We have to get the bribes out of Congress before Congressmen will do the public interest......because they seem to have the best integrity money can buy.

If Thad Cochrane can be bought off so he doesn't fund MCOOL after it is passed, who else can they buy off? Obviously there is a lot of people in the USDA who are either incompetent or unable to carry out good public policy. They have to have support from Congressmen (or the executive branch) who are on the take and use their influence to water down good public policy.

It is time we had a real change in our government and not just change rhetoric.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If Thad Cochrane can be bought off so he doesn't fund MCOOL after it is passed, who else can they buy off?

The Cochranes , Gonzales, etal that before killed the funding for M-COOL no longer are in control of those committees anymore.. :D

Luckily- many of the biggest backers of M-COOL for the past 10 years now are (ex. Conrad, Baucus,Harkin, Grassley, Peterson, Boswell).... :D
 

Kato

Well-known member
While working at the local vet clinic I completed many export permits for a large number of isowean pigs. Iowa was by far the most Canada friendly state we dealt with. North and South Dakota the worst, and Montana non existent.

I understand Mr. Vilsack is from Iowa..................... :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
While working at the local vet clinic I completed many export permits for a large number of isowean pigs. Iowa was by far the most Canada friendly state we dealt with. North and South Dakota the worst, and Montana non existent.

I understand Mr. Vilsack is from Iowa..................... :wink:

So is Grassley and Harkin that I get weekly e-mails from--- and they are bent on getting M-COOL implemented the way producers, consumers, and Congress intended it to be-- not the way the Multinational Corporate sold out Bush USDA has been doing.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Last night C-SPAN replayed Vilsacks confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Ag committee that was held yesteday.

One thing that became very apparent is the committee- both Repubs and Dems are very upset at the Bush Administration and its interpretation and implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill...It was brought up that the committee members spent too many hours working on compromises and wording--to just have the Bush crew/Schafer throw it all out and reinterpret/rewrite the law the way they want it...(Nothing new :( :mad: )
Vilsack assured all the members that he would work with the committee to get the Farm Bill implemented the way Congress intended it to...

Altho I never heard him speak directly to M-COOL (I missed the first part of the hearing) I did hear him speak to such terms as "organic" and "all natural" and said he opposed letting the Packers/Factory Farm types water down the definition...
He commented that "he wanted to get back to when USDA puts its stamp or label on a product- people can be assured that whatever the stamp/label says is exactly what they are getting--not a watered down version." :)
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Last night C-SPAN replayed Vilsacks confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Ag committee that was held yesteday.

One thing that became very apparent is the committee- both Repubs and Dems are very upset at the Bush Administration and its interpretation and implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill...It was brought up that the committee members spent too many hours working on compromises and wording--to just have the Bush crew/Schafer throw it all out and reinterpret/rewrite the law the way they want it...(Nothing new :( :mad: )
Vilsack assured all the members that he would work with the committee to get the Farm Bill implemented the way Congress intended it to...

Altho I never heard him speak directly to M-COOL (I missed the first part of the hearing) I did hear him speak to such terms as "organic" and "all natural" and said he opposed letting the Packers/Factory Farm types water down the definition...
He commented that "he wanted to get back to when USDA puts its stamp or label on a product- people can be assured that whatever the stamp/label says is exactly what they are getting--not a watered down version." :)

I hope you are right. The past few Sec. of Ag. have not been Secretary for the public interest but rather a secretary for big Ag. They just opened the piggy bank for their political handlers to rob the little guy.

I don't know how they can keep a straight face.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex said:
Oldtimer said:
Last night C-SPAN replayed Vilsacks confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Ag committee that was held yesteday.

One thing that became very apparent is the committee- both Repubs and Dems are very upset at the Bush Administration and its interpretation and implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill...It was brought up that the committee members spent too many hours working on compromises and wording--to just have the Bush crew/Schafer throw it all out and reinterpret/rewrite the law the way they want it...(Nothing new :( :mad: )
Vilsack assured all the members that he would work with the committee to get the Farm Bill implemented the way Congress intended it to...

Altho I never heard him speak directly to M-COOL (I missed the first part of the hearing) I did hear him speak to such terms as "organic" and "all natural" and said he opposed letting the Packers/Factory Farm types water down the definition...
He commented that "he wanted to get back to when USDA puts its stamp or label on a product- people can be assured that whatever the stamp/label says is exactly what they are getting--not a watered down version." :)

I hope you are right. The past few Sec. of Ag. have not been Secretary for the public interest but rather a secretary for big Ag. They just opened the piggy bank for their political handlers to rob the little guy.

I don't know how they can keep a straight face.

Yep-- I agree- I hope the impressions I got were right....He made numerous references to the importance of PRODUCERS at all levels-- from the 50 cow seedstock man- to the 100 cow "organic" direct marketer and the roadside vegetable/truck farm seller , to the 2,000+ acre wheat farmer in Kansas--as to the importance of them to agriculture-- but no word of the mulitnational corporations or Packer conglomerates- or importers....

He commented more than once about having been an attorney in Ag country and doing the taxes for producers- and how little producers actually bring in- in comparison to the cost that ends up to the consumer- and how producers need to be given every opportunity and advantage to make a fair living....

This is the first Ag Secretary in years that I have heard talk of the PRODUCERS- and their importance-- and not all about the multinational corporates....

Vilsack will be easily confirmed- as I never heard any opposition from either party-- and nothing but praise...Some of the Repub Senators were sharing Minnesota/Iowa jokes with him...I think most of them too are tired of the fiascal of the Bush regimes rule of USDA--especially when they talked about the Administration not implementing the farm bill as Congress intended- after all their hard work and compromise....

He, to me, is still one of Obama's questionable picks- mainly because I know little about the man....It was quite clear that he intends to use Agriculture as an alternative fuel source- and clean air/enviro tool- which may not be good for the feeders relying on cheap grains for feeding out cattle- but could be a boon for grain producers and folks that have the genetics or position to grass fatten/fast finish their cattle...

Makes me thankful I stayed diversified-grain and cattle- and have headed toward the easier to finish genetics with cattle- rather than the old "bigger, better, faster high performance cattle pushed by the semen pimps and some of the big breeders the last few years... :)
 

PORKER

Well-known member
2/5/2009 9:59:00 AM


Agsight: Much Ado About COOL



An already long, contentious, arduous process just went into overtime. Inauguration day brought issuance of a memorandum targeting country-of-origin labeling (COOL) and all other Bush-administration legislation still pending implementation. The move allows USDA to potentially extend the effective date of COOL’s final ruling just eight days after release of the final ruling. The industry now finds itself wondering what’s next.



Mandatory COOL was the primary item of concern for many cattlemen at NCBA’s Annual Convention in Phoenix. Much of the conversation, though, is simply a rehashing of arguments batted around for some time now. This year’s convention marks the 6-year anniversary of an article I authored in Feedstuffs outlining fundamental principles of the issue (COOL Has Implications For The U.S. Beef Industry, Feedstuffs, Jan 27, 2003, 75:4). Despite being promoted as consumers’ right-to-information, COOL represents some especially important connotations with respect to trade relations. The current uncertainty compounds those ramifications.



Canada declared the new regulations acceptable and backed away from its original stance by withdrawing a complaint filed with the WTO. The complaint, which also enjoined Mexico, was contingent upon steep costs and disproportionate discounts assigned to imported animals due to segregation requirements; some estimates peg the impact upwards of $90/head. The Bush administration was careful to implement changes in the final rule allowing for some additional flexibility thus making COOL more conducive towards maintaining normal trade relations.



To understand the dispute further, it’s critical to provide some background of COOL’s three primary categories:



A: “Product of the U.S.” – meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S. or from animals present in the U.S. on or prior to July 15, 2008; the label represents origin of the U.S. only.



B: “Product of the U.S., Country X” – meat from animals born in Country X and raised and slaughtered in the U.S. Meat from these animals were not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. or imported for immediate slaughter; the label denotes multiple countries of origin.



C: “Product of Country X, U.S.” – meat from animals imported into the U.S. for immediate slaughter.



The interim rule was vague and left some the industry having to muddle through legal interpretation – especially as it relates to commingling of “A”, “B”, and “C” animals by a processing facility. Most notably, it dealt with scenarios in which “A” and “B” animals were commingled but failed to specifically address intricacies involving the third category. USDA provided the following guidance (COOL: Frequently Asked

Questions; Sep 26, 2008):



Q. Can a packer or intermediary supplier that processes whole muscle meat products derived from both mixed origin animals (e.g., product of U.S., Canada and Mexico) and U.S. origin animals commingle and label these products with a mixed origin label?



A. If meat covered commodities derived from U.S. and mixed origin animals are commingled during a production day, the resulting product may carry the mixed origin claim (e.g., Product of U.S., Canada, and Mexico). Thus it is not permissible to label meat derived from livestock of U.S. origin with a mixed origin label if solely U.S. origin meat was produced during the production day.”



As a result, general interpretation was that distinct and dedicated harvest and fabrication schedules would need to be facilitated for C-category animals. Therein enters the concern over costs and discounts. Operational continuity would have to be altered to accommodate C-category cattle and mandate dedicated shifts to maintain segregation integrity. In other words, qualitatively speaking, the “A” and “B” labels were to represent a very different connotation than product carrying the “C” label. The Canadian government took issue with that stance contending “B” and “C” product is not substantively different.



The final rule now reads as follows (Federal Register; Vol. 74, No. 10; p 2659):



“For muscle cut covered commodities derived from animals that are born in Country X or Country Y, raised and slaughtered in the United States, that are commingled during a production day with muscle cut covered commodities that are derived from animals that are imported into the United States for immediate slaughter…the origin may be designated as product of the United States, Country X, and (as applicable) Country Y….the countries of origin may be listed in any order.”



The provision helped to placate concerns of the Canadian government going forward. (It should be noted, the law as written does not let processors and retailers off the hook in terms of label integrity and/or record keeping. For example, plants that may designate operations as “A” only, solely processing such cattle, will still be required to maintain records for verification purposes.)



However, the final rule doesn’t appease COOL proponents. (Remember, the law covers a multitude of food products but politically sources from the beef industry.) Supporters argue the final rule is disingenuous: American consumers are the priority and possess the right to increased information about the food they purchase. That’s especially true when considering the “any order” statement: the final version fails to designate product derived from animals imported for immediate slaughter versus being raised in the United States. Relative availability of “A” product has been diluted by opportunity to utilize a mixed-source schedule and label the product accordingly. Such ideology cites recent polls such as that from Consumer Reports (Nov 21, 2008): “…nearly half say their confidence in the safety of the nation’s food supply has decreased, and many are concerned with the safety of imported food.”



On the other hand, cattlemen from Canada and Mexico (which is pressing ahead with its WTO complaint due to negative economic ramifications impacting their producers) argue that country-of-origin labeling violates NAFTA requirements. Primarily, NAFTA must regard all meat as U.S. origin if it results from animals harvested in the United States. That’s especially true considering there’s no substantive difference among the categories in terms of food safety and/or eating quality – it all falls under the same grading and inspection regulatory guidelines. At the very least, the law represents discrimination by establishing distinction among “B” and “C” categories. Therefore, any effort to segregate or differentiate “C” cattle from “B” cattle represents an unsubstantiated non-tariff trade barrier and thus establishes damaging and restrictive policy. Legislating differentiation is misplaced and not congruent with NAFTA policy – domestic producers desiring an A-category premium should leverage the free-market system, e.g. the voluntary Born-and-Raised in the U.S.A.



The 2003 Feedstuffs article outlined the ultimate evaluation of COOL’s success. It will be dictated by the ability to provide consumers with meaningful information and create value at a reasonable cost while also establishing U.S. producers with a comparative advantage over foreign competitors. But that’s the long-term perspective. In the short-run, the industry is burdened with implementing a law that is extremely complex and burdensome from a logistical, notification and record-keeping standpoint. What about the benefits? Domestically, COOL provides no assurance of additional consumer revenue; internationally, it creates animosity and potentially impedes sales to our two largest export partners – markets which can’t be taken for granted. Given the adverse cost/benefit considerations, not to mention potential for unintended consequences along the way, COOL represents a steep and tenuous risk/reward proposition. Reopening COOL for comment will likely only serve to worsen that scenario.



Source: Nevil C. Speer, PHD, MBA, Western Kentucky University
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Bullard said that current trade policy hides the impact of millions of live cattle imports on the U.S. beef supply by not considering beef and cattle as like/kind products.

“As a result, we have beef-industry trade associations and the government claiming that the U.S. maintains a positive beef trade balance between and among Canada and Mexico, but this isn’t true because we import beef in two distinct forms -- pre-slaughtered beef that is imported in the form of live cattle and then converted to a beef commodity upon entering U.S. slaughtering plants, and the beef commodity itself derived from cattle slaughtered in a foreign country,” he explained. “For example, the U.S. imported 2.4 million live cattle from Canada and Mexico in 2007 and about 850,000 of these cattle were imported for immediate slaughter.

When the beef from these imported cattle are included in our trade balance, the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada and Mexico of 550 million pounds. The deficit is actually much greater because there were an additional 1.6 million cattle imported for some additional feeding before slaughter that likewise added to the supply of U.S. beef.

Not all of the imported cattle are from Mexico ! They are from parts unknown south.
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Bullard said that current trade policy hides the impact of millions of live cattle imports on the U.S. beef supply by not considering beef and cattle as like/kind products.

“As a result, we have beef-industry trade associations and the government claiming that the U.S. maintains a positive beef trade balance between and among Canada and Mexico, but this isn’t true because we import beef in two distinct forms -- pre-slaughtered beef that is imported in the form of live cattle and then converted to a beef commodity upon entering U.S. slaughtering plants, and the beef commodity itself derived from cattle slaughtered in a foreign country,” he explained. “For example, the U.S. imported 2.4 million live cattle from Canada and Mexico in 2007 and about 850,000 of these cattle were imported for immediate slaughter.

When the beef from these imported cattle are included in our trade balance, the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada and Mexico of 550 million pounds. The deficit is actually much greater because there were an additional 1.6 million cattle imported for some additional feeding before slaughter that likewise added to the supply of U.S. beef.

Not all of the imported cattle are from Mexico ! They are from parts unknown south.

Talk about a bald faced lie. The trade associations who mislead Congress and the public should get in trouble--big trouble.

There is no credibility when things like this occur.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
USDA's Vilsack favors single food safety agency
Fri Feb 6, 2009 5:18pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack believes a single U.S. agency should be created and put in charge of the food safety work now handled by a variety of agencies, said a spokesman on Friday.

The spokesman was not immediately able to say if Vilsack's view was shared by the Obama administration.

Earlier this week, a House subcommittee chairwoman introduced a bill to split apart the Food and Drug Administration to create a separate agency that would take over FDA's oversight of fruit, vegetables and processed foods. It would not affect USDA's meat inspection agency.

Creation of a single agency in charge of all food safety work, or lodging the duties in an existing agency, has been proposed repeatedly in Congress.

(Reporting by Charles Abbott; Editing by David Gregorio)
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Vilsac says money is to be spent on developing cellulosic ethanol. The stimulus bill's support for other green energy -- weatherizing buildings and tax breaks for wind and solar -- is big, amounting to $45 billion. I need a windmill...
 

Latest posts

Top