Double Standards and The Press

[Willowcreek]

pandiana- I agree with most of what you said about the pending court actions. I question whether any of the multinational packers really care about the Japanese trade as this article points out.

-------------------

Today 7/4/2005 10:22:00 AM


Jolley: Does Japanese Beef Trade Hinge On The Board Room Or The Back Room?



How serious are the Aussies about keeping their share of the beef market in Asia? Dead serious. They’re putting more international marketing money on the table as we wrestle in the courts over funds to just cover the U.S.



Here’s a quote from an article in the Adelaide Advertiser called Mad cow campaign needs beefing up. “The transaction levy paid by beef cattle farmers is set to rise by more than 40 per cent to fund a marketing campaign to shore up export markets, following confirmation of a second case of mad cow disease in the US.”



The article mentioned Australian beef imports to Japan had jumped 41% to a record $2.2 billion and 90% of Japan’s beef imports – more than half of Australia’s export business.



Beef Industry Funding Steering Committee Chairman Don McDonald said, "Because Australia is free of this disease (BSE), there could be opportunities for us to take and hold more of the Japanese market, because the US will be kept out for a while longer. But while there could be some short-term benefits, disease in any food chain doesn't inspire confidence," he said.



McDonald’s double-sided comment, at once both aggressive in expressing his intent to retain Asian market share and conciliatory in his desire to retain a solid relationship with his friends in the U.S., speaks to the common corporate ownership of the majority of the processing industry in both countries.



The key issue might not hinge on a pending Japanese decision about reopening trade with the U.S. It might not come from that proverbial smoke-filled back room where deals are traditionally made but from a few board rooms; can the world’s largest packers supply Japan more profitably from North America or Australia?

[cowman]

Willoe Creek: I assume by the hostile comments you get on this site you are probably R-CALF or at least sympathetic to their cause?
I have a couple of questions? Do you ever feel a little nervous about your secretary of agriculture? Especially his statement "The cow was from Texas....WE DON"T EXPECT TO FIND ANOTHER"!? What does that imply?
Also do you ever wonder, how come the US and Canada have BSE...but not Australia? If you believe grassfarmer you might suppose all the Aussie cows are running around eating whatever nature might provide and therfore are pristine? Or do you ever think...if you don't ever test anything...you will NEVER find a positive?
It would seem that the old three S approach is alive and well in many parts of the world? Maybe old Ralph was just stating reality when he suggested it?

[grassfarmer]

Hey Cowman when did I say Aussie cows only ate grass? I am aware they have a growing feedlot sector there as well as their extensive grazing operations. Not that feedlot age animals will be contracting BSE regardless of what they are eating - it just aint going to happen.
I just don't think we can accuse Australasia of having BSE just because North America and Europe have it - there is no proof or logic to do so. It may well be that their soils and other environmental factors do not give rise to the initial sporadic cases of BSE. I don't know how much, and from where, they may have imported MBM in the past. I thought, maybe wrongly, that because of their isolation they have maintained fairly high health status and haven't imported a lot of live cattle from Europe.

[farmers_son]

Willowcreek: Are you trying to say that the U.S. opening the border to our live cattle still depends upon Japan first resuming trade with the U.S.? American producers would be well advised to remember that 90% of their product is destined for their own domestic consumer. The number one priority is not trade with Japan but retaining consumer confidence at home. Calling Canadian beef and live cattle unsafe is counterproductive to maintaining consumer confidence in your own product now that it is accepted within the U.S. that you have BSE too. Outside of the U.S., the rest of the world has been going forward on the basis that BSE was a North American problem since December 2003.

Pandiana: Mexico has taken an identical position as Canada. Canada and Mexico are continuing trade in both beef and live cattle with the United States on the same basis as before the Texas Brahma.

I recognize that up to this point in time the sage advice has been that the border is not going to open. I do think there has been a fundamental change in the dynamics and politics as a result of the Texas Brahma. How can the Appeals Court uphold the injunction on Canadian beef and live cattle without raising red flags about the safety of U.S. beef? The Appeals Court could delay making a decision public until after the July 27 hearing in Montana with Judge Cebull but consider the consequences of such a move. The U.S. administration cannot have a Montana judge saying beef from a country that has a BSE positive is a danger to consumers. R-Calf’s argument that allowing live cattle into the U.S. from a country that has had a BSE positive will have economic impacts on U.S producers just does not hold water any longer. The U.S. has BSE now and the initial economic impact was minimal.

The logic of a North American market will not be considered in an American court room. However the logic of needing to make it clear to the U.S. consumer that BSE is not a cause for alarm will not be lost. The only question will be not be whether to allow Canadian live cattle into the United States but how quickly can Canadian cows and cow beef come across too. Part of the process involved with keeping consumers eating beef in the wake of this BSE positive will be a moderation of retail beef prices. Canadian live cattle will factor into that solution.

Further to the bronze statue of the Brahma cow I dubbed “Open Sesame”… Failing the statue idea, how about we erect a shiny new packing plant and we show those good old boys down south how we can kill cows up here. We could call the plant OSBC. If some wanted to think the initials stood for Ostercamp and Big C, that is OK. No one would need to know that the initials stood for Open Sesame, the Brahma Cow.

[Willowcreek]

cowman- I am an R-CALF member and supporter. Mainly because of the fraud involved with not having Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling- I supported NCBA when they also were pushing M-COOL, but they did too good a job with me- when they got bought out by the Packers and flip-flopped, I didn't. Its fraud to bring in products from another country and relabel them to pass them off as native product-PERIOD.
I can't believe Candadians haven't become aware of what is and will happen since we (US) signed AFTA, and are now full speed ahead to sign CAFTA, and FTOA.
Even tho Canada signed onto only NAFTA--Without M-COOL all this beef coming from these countries will be allowed to come into and thru the US and go to Canada unmarked or marked with the USDA stamp to pass off as a US product.

Can you in Canadda compete with $1.00 a day ranch labor, $2.00 a day slaughter house labor, and cattle raised in temperate climates that feed NO days of the year- especially when Cargill, Monsanto, Tyson Foods, etc. are investing billions to build up their crop, beef, feedlot and slaughter industries?

Over years the Texas Feeders (just another name for Tyson and boys) subsidiaries have bought US and Canadian genetics to improve their cattle- Leachman even had a South American office.

Go to the Cargill- Australia website--look at the investments they have and are making in all these countries with NO corporate, labor, and enviromental laws--Then tell me that you don't think that the "Big Boys" have been telling USDA and CFIA exactly what to do and say. Why have both fought so hard to test to export. They're making their profits off Australia now the same way they've made profits off Canada- and before that used Canada's lack of packer ownership and monopoly laws to manipulate the US cattle market..

[silverback]

And that has what to do with why our cows are not allowed to be slaughtered in the US??

If you want to ship your animals up here to slaughter, why didn't you just say so 2 years ago?

[pandiana]

I agree Farmers_son that there has been a change in that we feel there is more justification for our belief that BSE is on both sides of the border and that R-calf can no longer make the claims they have been making.

On the other hand, my concerns are that, with regard to the lawsuits, they can only rule on what is before the court. The issue is USDA's rule only and whether this rule represents due diligence in protecting their consumers and producers. They could continue to argue that Canada has a higher incidence of BSE and therefore their imports should be restricted.

[farmers_son]

Pandiana: Anything is possible. The courts will only consider what is before them but it will be considered in light of the fact that the U.S. has BSE too. Yes the issue is the USDA rule but the result is American consumer confidence in their beef or lack thereof.

Willowcreek: Then it would be fraud for GM to pass its cars and trucks off as American made when they contain parts from all over the world, a lot from Canada. There would be no such thing as an American car or truck. I agree that beef imports into the U.S. from Australia or a South American country could find its way into Canada or Mexico too. The fact that it was stamped USDA would not be taken as proof that it was grown in any particular country but that the USDA certified the product met certain standards just like GM warrants their cars even though the parts may not be GM.

You need to realize that the cost of production of that imported beef is a non issue. The packers will sell it for all the market will bear irregardless of what they had to pay for it. Trust me, Canadian producers know from first hand experience. Packing plants only pay producers enough to keep them producing more. They keep all the difference between what they pay for live cattle and what they sell the beef for as profits for themselves. They pass neither profits back to producers or savings along to customers.

If there was a message I would like to pass along to R-Calf it is that producers will not be successful in raising the price of their live cattle if those efforts drive down the price of live cattle in another country. Doing so only creates a pool of cheap cattle that packers can then use to drive down the domestic live cattle price. Given that the packers are global in scope it then follows that producers will need to form alliances with producers in other countries to raise the price of live cattle over the widest possible geographic area thereby forcing packers to pay fair prices to all.

[Willowcreek]

pandiana- You are right- the court has to decide on whats before them- and that is the current USDA's border proposal, which includes the USDA's credibility which R-CALF raised when it was filed...Before they can change the issue and/or before USDA changes the border proposal they need to go back thru the complete review process which also probably means the comment period- which then has to be approved by Congress- which half of (the Senate) previously voted against....

Ms. Vennaman, in her stumbling bumbling undying support of the open border committed error after error- her whole program was/is still flawed- starting with her overriding her TSE committees recomendations that were made only months before BSE was found, to getting caught allowing banned beef to come in, then being overruled on the OTM rule by her successor Johanns because he could see it had no chance of flying, to a now unknown credibility in testing procedure, etc. etc....

farmers_son- bringing in products from another country and letting them pass as a US product may not be fraud--- But bringing in products that are already marked to the country they came from (COOL) and then removing that labeling and relabeling as a US product is FRAUD...Except in the case of beef with the multinational packers owning the USDA and many of the politicians it is now a government accepted and supported fraud...

[rkaiser]

It's just not going to help to fight the multinationals over globalization Oltimer. It is here, and we have to find a way to deal with it.

Asking Canadian ranchers to see your point of view after the BS Rcalf has helped to cause the Canadian producer is a lot to ask.

Yes I said helped. I also beleive that the border closure is about a lot more than Judge Cebull, but the rhetoric coming from the Rcalf heirarchy has been horrendous.

The treatment that the producers of Canada have received from the packers for the last two years has proven the theroy of an integrated beef industry is a bunch of bull. We are in this by ourselves, and it's too bad that "ourselves" could not be American and Canadian producers together.

I'm not suggesting a war on the packers, but I am suggesting that Rcalf may have a place protecting the rights of producers, IF THEY DROPPED THE PROTECTIONIST CRAP, that will get you guys nowhere.

I think you Rcalf guys will be lucky to have much credibility left after the packer driven USDA gets through with you. Drop the protectionist crap NOW, and focus on truth when it comes to BSE and maybe even your COOL agenda. Cool will not really hurt either country as far as I am concerned, and may even sell more Canadian beef in America and around the world.

Rcalf could make a lot more headway as well if they took a look at BIG C's producer owned packing proposal. Take the packers on with your 18000 members. Use the rules they are using to filter some post slaughter profits back to your membership.

OR stay the course until the course is overrun with beef from every country in the world that Cargill and Tyson invade. Your hot climate Brahman beef in the south 1/2 of the States has no better quality than Australian or South American product, especially when Cargill sets up their corn and barley operation in those countries. Globalization is here Oldtimer, and before you get much older your short term victory over Canada will look pretty small.

[greybeard]

Save your breath F_S. R-calfers don't want to hear reasonable arguments.

[Willowcreek]

rkaiser- I agree with a lot of what you say- and have thought that BIG C is maybe the only Canadian cattlemens group that really sees the big picture..They are definitely the only group that appears to have not been bought out by the big corporate packers- like CCA and ABP, who as an outside observer, look to be like NCBA and nod "yessa mastah" when ever AMI or a corporate packer speaks.....

I've said before, I truly think the border would be open if the M-COOL law was in effect- many of the arguments that the Judge cited would have been null and void...That said the multinationals are spending unheard of amounts of lobbying $ now to again postpone or kill M-COOL and derail R-CALF...I talked with a legislative aide the other day that said he's never seen the money being spent by the meat industry to kill M-COOL and pass CAFTA...He says the lobbyists are sleeping on the Capitol steps- that scares me, because I recognize they are doing this to help out the corporate interests which are not always in the best interest of the cattleman.. They got Australian beef opened up- now they want South American..And they don't want it to have to be labeled so anyone knows where it comes from...

This is a much larger battle and Canada just provided the opportunity and/or got caught in the middle...