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

We need imports labeled and illegals deported.

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Location
Texas
Tens of thousands of U.S. farmers and ranchers have gone out of business over the past five years as agricultural imports have soared. Hundreds of tomato growers in Florida, to name just one example, have folded because of cheap imports from Mexico.

COOL would give U.S. farmers and ranchers a way to distinguish their products from those coming from other countries. About half of U.S. states already have marketing programs for locally produced foods, including "California Grown" and "Missouri Pride," capitalizing on consumers' interest in supporting homegrown products.

Surveys consistently show that over 80 percent of Americans want to know where their food comes from. Polls of consumers also show that they don't trust the meat, grocery, and food processing industries to provide this information voluntarily – in one 2007 poll, 82 percent said they thought COOL should be required, rather than a voluntary guideline. More than 200 farming, ranching, food safety and consumer groups support country-of-origin labeling and have been working together for years to get mandatory COOL established nationwide.
I have heard all the BS stories the multinational food giants threaten US citizens and producers with,cheap imports equal cheap food,without imports and illegals, food prices will sky rocket,etc.
This is all a smoke screen,by the food giants so can they can keep reaping the enormous profits.
Imports need to be labeled and illegals need to be deported,they are both a drain on our system.
We need M COOL and we need it now!,let the consumers decide where their food comes from,as a cattle producer M COOL will allow you to identify your product .........good luck
 
HAY MAKER said:
Tens of thousands of U.S. farmers and ranchers have gone out of business over the past five years as agricultural imports have soared. Hundreds of tomato growers in Florida, to name just one example, have folded because of cheap imports from Mexico.

COOL would give U.S. farmers and ranchers a way to distinguish their products from those coming from other countries. About half of U.S. states already have marketing programs for locally produced foods, including "California Grown" and "Missouri Pride," capitalizing on consumers' interest in supporting homegrown products.

Surveys consistently show that over 80 percent of Americans want to know where their food comes from. Polls of consumers also show that they don't trust the meat, grocery, and food processing industries to provide this information voluntarily – in one 2007 poll, 82 percent said they thought COOL should be required, rather than a voluntary guideline. More than 200 farming, ranching, food safety and consumer groups support country-of-origin labeling and have been working together for years to get mandatory COOL established nationwide.
I have heard all the BS stories the multinational food giants threaten US citizens and producers with,cheap imports equal cheap food,without imports and illegals, food prices will sky rocket,etc.
This is all a smoke screen,by the food giants so can they can keep reaping the enormous profits.
Imports need to be labeled and illegals need to be deported,they are both a drain on our system.
We need M COOL and we need it now!,let the consumers decide where their food comes from,as a cattle producer M COOL will allow you to identify your product .........good luck

But ,but, Haymaker that might cut in to some of those 100 million to 1 billion annual salaries of the CEO's, surely you wouldn't want that to happen.
 
Haymaker, where is it currently illegal for US produers to identify their own USA produced, locally grown tomatoes, or beef, for thta matter????

Farmers' Markets abound in this country. Fresh, home grown tomatoes are in such high demand, and much of the continental USA has a long enough growing season (unfortunately ours nearly ended last night with 28% for several hours) that, with a little extra care, produce can be grown and marketed locally for many months. Many Farmers' Markets I've been most happy to patronize in the upper central/western USA certainly do not have bargain prices, either. That would be even more so in cases where they made the effort to extend the season a bit on both ends. Too few us have gardens these days, which is a boon to FM's.

However, where in the COOL law is produce covered. Guess I missed that....along with the 90+% of beef that is exempted in that law.....and the fact that it doesn't address consumers desires to know far more than simply "product of USA", etc. Many want TRACE-BACK to farm of origin, as well as better food safety, and believe they will get that with COOL. Wonder who led them to that belief????

mrj
 
MRJ, " Many want TRACE-BACK to farm of origin"

You're telling me that which farm the steak came from is an issue to people who don't know the difference between an Angus and a Holstein? That makes no sense. Who told you that?
 
Sandhusker, first, the comment by Haymaker is focused on produce, and implies incorrectly that the current COOL law will require labels on ALL food. It will not!

Who told you it makes any difference to a majority of consumers whether their steak is from Angus or from Holstein, IF the eating experience is what they want it to be, and IF it isn't claimed to be something it is not, (Angus, for instance)?

From what I've heard, you would most likely deny, after eating some Holstein steaks, that the origin could be correct!

You promoters of COOL have told consumers that the law it is for the purpose of assuring safe beef. How can such assurance be possible if you cannot know the ORIGIN and 'trail' of the meat from farm gate to producer plate, not JUST the country of origin? You would either have to test every morself or pathogens and seal into a pathogen fee atmosphere package before selling to make an absolute safe product possible.

TSR, I suppose it would be fun and make some people feel pretty good to set a cap on all salaries/income/assets any person may earn (or be paid, whichever the case may be). But, are you very sure that is what you want? Maybe it would have to be BELOW what you earn/have to be equitable to all people!!! What then? Do you really want to stifle creativity and effort that way? BTW, which CEO's get that kind of compensations, the "100 million to 1 billion" you stated? Some of us might like to refuse to buy from those companies.

mrj
 
Haymaker
Tens of thousands of U.S. farmers and ranchers have gone out of business over the past five years as agricultural imports have soared. Hundreds of tomato growers in Florida, to name just one example, have folded because of cheap imports from Mexico.

COOL would give U.S. farmers and ranchers a way to distinguish their products from those coming from other countries. About half of U.S. states already have marketing programs for locally produced foods, including "California Grown" and "Missouri Pride," capitalizing on consumers' interest in supporting homegrown products.




mrj said:
Sandhusker, first, the comment by Haymaker is focused on produce, and implies incorrectly that the current COOL law will require labels on ALL food. It will not!

mrj

Wrong Maxine-- the current bill includes fruits, vegetables, and peanuts--its just there was no argument or opponents over them, because all the fruit and veggie producers want the bill- and don't have Packer stooges like the NCBA putting out false info about and fighting it....

The agreement only applied to meats, but the law would also govern fruits, vegetables and peanuts. Those labeling programs have been far less controversial.

US Meat Labels to Note Country of Origin
By MARY CLARE JALONICK 07.20.07, 12:13 AM ET




WASHINGTON - The House Agriculture Committee voted Thursday night to require country of origin labels on meats beginning next year, striking a compromise as reports of tainted food from China raise consumer awareness about imported food safety.

After days of negotiations between both sides, the committee agreed on to allow the mandatory labels but soften penalties and burdensome record-keeping requirements that had concerned many food retailers and meatpackers who opposed the law. The committee adopted by voice vote the labeling changes just before it approved a five-year farm law that would govern agriculture programs.

The Agriculture Department never put in place the 2002 law requiring the labels because then-majority Republicans repeatedly delayed it, most recently to 2008.

"I think that both (sides) gained momentum in the news of recent weeks," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, a South Dakota Democrat who has long pushed for the labeling, which would help smaller, independent ranchers in her home state who face competition from Canadian beef.

China is working to clean up its drug and food industries, which are under international scrutiny after substandard Chinese goods have been rejected around the world as dangerous.

Herseth and others, including consumer groups, were most concerned that meats could not be given a USA label unless the animals were born, raised and slaughtered in the United States.

"There has to be some reflection of the fact that these animals were born elsewhere," Herseth said after the vote.

The agreement maintains that standard, but it also allows the labels to list the United States as one of several countries of origin if the meat is mixed.

Virginia Rep. Robert Goodlatte, the top Republican on the Agriculture panel and a lawmaker who has never supported a mandatory labeling law, helped broker the agreement. He said the "overwhelming majority" of interests are behind it now.

"It has much greater flexibility that is needed," he said.

The agreement only applied to meats, but the law would also govern fruits, vegetables and peanuts. Those labeling programs have been far less controversial.

The law's leading opponents have been grocery stores and large meatpacking companies, many of whom mix U.S. and Mexican beef, and other businesses involved in getting products to supermarkets. They have said the tracking and the paperwork needed to comply with the law is too burdensome and would lead to higher prices.

Processed foods are exempt from the labeling requirements, as are restaurants and other food service establishments.

The labeling program was not delayed for seafood. The former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, put it in place to promote his state's lucrative fishing industry.
 
The labeling program was not delayed for seafood. The former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, put it in place to promote his state's lucrative fishing industry. Yes at www.alaskacertified.org
 
Well maxine,I see you got your questions answered,and proved to the readers without a doubt,you know very little about the most important issue facing the cattle man today.
As one of the most vocal opponents of M cool on the board,I suspect this must be very embarassing.
I have long suspected you was blindly following the AMI/NCBA,propaganda,believe you proved this nicely............good luck
 
HAY MAKER said:
Well maxine,I see you got your questions answered,and proved to the readers without a doubt,you know very little about the most important issue facing the cattle man today.
As one of the most vocal opponents on the board,I suspect this must be very embarassing.
I have long suspected you was blindly following the AMI/NCBA,propaganda,believe you proved this nicely............good luck

Got to be the gin, Haymaker. There's no other plausible excuse. :lol:

If I've told her once, I've told her a thousand times to get herself a good bottle of wine, or at least drink "Beefeaters" gin..................
 
MRJ, "You promoters of COOL have told consumers that the law it is for the purpose of assuring safe beef. How can such assurance be possible if you cannot know the ORIGIN and 'trail' of the meat from farm gate to producer plate, not JUST the country of origin?"

This supporter of COOL has said no such thing. OT is one other vocal supporter and his message has been to label it so people can decide.

You said you supported M-ID for food safety purposes. Is NCBA advocating M-ID for imported beef as well?
 
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "You promoters of COOL have told consumers that the law it is for the purpose of assuring safe beef. How can such assurance be possible if you cannot know the ORIGIN and 'trail' of the meat from farm gate to producer plate, not JUST the country of origin?"

This supporter of COOL has said no such thing. OT is one other vocal supporter and his message has been to label it so people can decide.

You said you supported M-ID for food safety purposes. Is NCBA advocating M-ID for imported beef as well?

She's in a hole Sandy. A deep hole.

Get your foot off her neck. :lol:
 
Mike said:
HAY MAKER said:
Well maxine,I see you got your questions answered,and proved to the readers without a doubt,you know very little about the most important issue facing the cattle man today.
As one of the most vocal opponents on the board,I suspect this must be very embarassing.
I have long suspected you was blindly following the AMI/NCBA,propaganda,believe you proved this nicely............good luck

Got to be the gin, Haymaker. There's no other plausible excuse. :lol:

If I've told her once, I've told her a thousand times to get herself a good bottle of wine, or at least drink "Beefeaters" gin..................

Well Mike,she is either pushing the AMI/NCBA propaganda wagon,or your Gin theory is correct.
Either way, it must be very embarassing for the ole girl :D
good luck
PS Of course ,it could be both :wink:
 
outrigger said:
would states be better, or just US grown?

Outrigger,the Cool bill is still being decided,there are lots of opinions on what the final version should look like.
I would be very happy to just see the imports label as imported,and the US ranchers beef be labeled as US beef .
As you probaly know there are already some state programs........good luck
 
HAY MAKER said:
outrigger said:
would states be better, or just US grown?

Outrigger,the Cool bill is still being decided,there are lots of opinions on what the final version should look like.
I would be very happy to just see the imports label as imported,and the US ranchers beef be labeled as US beef .
As you probaly know there are already some state programs........good luck

We've had some ranchs/ranch groups invest millions into programs that not only identified country- but state (under the states COOL program)-- and they all said that the biggest problem is that there are no Federal truth in labeling rules to designate that the Tyson- Cargill beef shipped in from Canada/Mexico/Timbuktu is actually not only from that state, but from that country- and they sell it cheaper as USDA inspected beef...

So folks see the USDA inspected Omaha Beef and think they are buying Nebraska raised beef and it could come from anywhere as Omaha Beef is not a source verifier, but sells beef from Mexico/Canada/Timbuktu -- which they can source cheaper....

Makes it tough to compete when you are DECEIVING the consumer...

The M-COOL law solves much of that problem....
 
You all wont have to worry about "cheaper " Canadian imports for long with your dollar dropping the way it is! We will probably be at par by october.
 
elwapo said:
You all wont have to worry about "cheaper " Canadian imports for long with your dollar dropping the way it is! We will probably be at par by october.

1.00 Mexican pesos = 0.09 US dollars
1.00 Australian dollars = 0.83 US dollars
1.00 Canadian dollars = 0.95 US dollars

Nearest Canadian Market-- Assiniboia
D1 & D2 Cows Avg. 0.36 And Sold Up To 0.40
D3 Cows Avg. 0.30 And Sold Up To 0.36
Slaughter Bulls Avg. 0.38 And Sold Up To 0.42

http://www.assiniboiaauction.com/

Local (Glasgow Mt.) Market
Utility & Commercial Cows $50.00-$57.25
Cutter & Canner Cows $40.00-$50.00
Bulls $58.00-$68.75
http://www.glasgowstockyards.com/php/marketreport.php


Dick Britzman Glasgow 1650 lbs. Cow $57.00 = $940.50
Canuck cow 1650 lbs Cow $40.00 (CDN) $38 (US) =$627

$313 difference....

That ain't an effect :???: :roll: To me $313 is an effect......
 
Brooks Bow Slope Shipping
3022 HD Yearlings sold. Steady to Strong Demand. 253 Cows & Bulls Friday, September 14th. Slaughter Cows traded $1 Higher Bulls Steady. Prices quoted are on good to top quality cattle.



D1 & D2 COWS: 40.00-45.50

D3 COWS: 36.00-40.00

HEIFERETTES: 55.00-62.00

FEEDER BULLS:

BUTCHER BULLS: 38.00-43.00

STRS: 300-400 lbs.

400-500 lbs.

500-600 lbs.

600-700 lbs. 106.00-118.00

700-800 lbs. 107.00-119.50

800-900 lbs. 105.00-114.00

900-1000 lbs. 101.00-107.75

1000 lbs. + 97.00-103.75

HFRS:300-400 lbs.

400-500 lbs.

500-600 lbs.

600-700 lbs. 95.00-106.40

700-800 lbs. 98.00-107.80

800-900 lbs. 97.00-105.75

900-1000 lbs. 92.00-97.25

1000 lbs. + 88.00-91.7

The canadian dollar is at .9704 usd today.
Dont forget OT that all animals must be age verified before export and transported south which all but eliminates your current price advantage.
The sky is not falling even though the local experts would disagree
 

Latest posts

Back
Top