2007 U.S. Farm Bill

[farmers_son]

The 2007 U.S. Farm Bill proposals were released last Wednesday. In reading the comments regarding the Farm Bill the message I get is U.S. agriculture is clamouring to be protected. It seems to me that what they want to be protected from is change. While U.S. producers do not specifically say they want to be protected from change they use words like “competition” instead.

One of the methods producer groups are seeking to have implemented so they do not have to change is Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL). Hundreds of U.S. producer groups are lobbying government for MCOOL because they believe if they could successfully keep competing meat products segregated and out of the retail meat coolers and (in the case of Canadian live cattle) out of U.S. packing plants they feel they would not have to change. They would not have to react to “competition”. Apparently they feel competition only occurs outside their borders and are unconcerned that chicken would be exempt from what amounts to further regulation of the U.S. primary producer and primary agriculture.

I was not able to find any specific mention of MCOOL in the U.S. Farm Bill proposals although there were a host of petitions demanding MCOOL be implemented. Maybe someone with high speed internet could find a reference and post it here for us. Is the U.S. government downplaying MCOOL in spite of producer demands for implementation? Canadian producers would be wise to follow the fate of MCOOL in this farm bill as the consequences will ultimately determine if there is a North American market for beef or if the United States wishes to have Canada become a competitor instead of a partner.

[Willowcreek]

M-COOL is already law- it was passed in the 2004 farm bill..A couple of Packer lobbyist bought Congressmen and USDA kept getting the implementation date pushed back and now its set to be implemented in 2008...It has already been implemented for shrimp and fish with great success for the US seafood folks....

But those Packer lobbyist bought Congressmen have been beaten and kicked out of Congress and all the new leadership is for implementing M-COOL sooner...In fact several of the leadership want it rewritten and the food service and restaurant exemptions removed- so that all beef has to be identified to origin...

The MT, WY, ND, and several other Senators just introduced a bill to start implementation in 2007- which USDA is fighting-- but its going to be tough to dispel the fact that this is the wishes of the US cattlemen when a new survey done by USDA showed that 92% of US cattlemen want their checkoff money used to identify and promote born, raised and slaughtered in the US BEEF...

[InAHurry]

8,002 United State's beef producers were surveyed.

[Willowcreek]

Heres part of a letter from 4 US Senators giving opposition comments to USDA on their proposal for Rule 2...

I believe that this is what will happen- either by the USDA or by Congress- that the Rule 2 will be postponed until the USDA gets M-COOL implemented...This is not only supported by the majority of US cattlemen, but by all the consumer groups...Too many folks for Congress/politicians to disregard...

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

Consumers in foreign countries should not be the only ones receiving assurances from the U.S. government about the origin of their beef. Surely, American consumers deserve the same assurances from USDA that overseas consumers receive. If you will not withdraw your proposal to expand Canadian beef imports, then at the very least it should be postponed until USDA can fully implement mandatory Country-of-Origin labeling, as directed in the 2002 Farm Bill. Before American beef is commingled with beef from a country that discovered five cases of BSE last year, American consumers should be given basic tools with which to distinguish American beef from Canadian.



Sincerely,



Byron L. Dorgan

Jeff Bingaman

Michael B. Enzi

John Thune

----------------------
the entire article:

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=103191

[farmers_son]

http://www.usda.gov/FBFComments/Files/5116881-1.pdf

You may be interested in reading the link. It is a letter from the Governor of Nebraska to Mike Johanns concerning a series of public meetings held in Nebraska. Concern was expressed at those meetings that the penalties associated with MCOOL were so restrictive that small retailers would stop hanlding beef, no matter what the country of origin was.

The gods punish us by granting our wishes, be careful what you ask for as you might just get it.

[grassfarmer]

Willowcreek, I note the move comes from "MT, WY, ND, and several other Senators" with their low populations I don't think politicians from these states will be calling the shots. Still you can always dream...

[Willowcreek]

grassfarmer-- Here is a previous article...Representative DeLauro replaced Rep Bonilla (Tx) as head of the Ag subcommitte ( he got booted)- and he is the one that almost singlehandedly blocked M-COOL implementation before by not allowing it to be funded...She also has had a running battle with USDA & FDA and would stop at nothing to undermine them...She is a big consumer advocate...

The new head of the Senate Finance Committee is Sen. Baucus from Montana that was a co-sponsor fo the bill to fasttrack M-COOL this year...He now has the power and he will see that his bill is funded and implemented....

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

CN_Today 1/23/2007 7:30:00 PM


Key US Reps Voice Support For Meat Origin Labels



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)-Key Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have voiced support in recent days for enacting a mandatory country-of-origin labeling law for beef, pork and lamb.



Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said Tuesday he is intent on seeing a labeling law enacted as early as the end of this year, but more likely sometime in 2008.



Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said Friday she strongly supports legislation to require that consumers know where the meat they buy comes from.

[Willowcreek]

Consider the purview of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., in his new role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee: Social Security. Trade agreements. Tariffs and import quotas. Revenue sharing. Health programs under the Social Security Act. Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.

[cottonpicken]

Willow-are you worried about your countries fiscal imbalances?

[farmers_son]

Willowcreek: You may be right. However we had a change in government in this country and it is surprising how much government policy has stayed the same. Even policies that the new government had lobbied against and even promised to change. I suspect it could well be the same on the south side of the border.

I note that MCOOL seems to be buried pretty deep in the 2007 Farm Bill, if is even still there at all. However the new game seems to be to tie MCOOL to Rule 2. Previously reopening of the border was supposed to be tied to Canadians allowing two serious diseases, Bluetongue and Anaplasmosis, to be introduced into our cow herd. We did that, but now it seems the Yankees are about to raise the stakes.

At some point Canada needs to realize it is an energy superpower and stop giving into the Americans on every single trade issue.

[Willowcreek]

farmers-son-- Two corrections--M-COOL is not in the 2007 Farm Bill...It has already been passed into law with the 2002 Farm Bill- all it needs is to be funded and pressure on USDA to implement it, since they've drug their feet...And the lone Congressman that before blocked funding is kicking his lunch bucket down the road....LOL

And I don't believe Canada has dropped both the Anaplas/Blue tongue rules...Still playing games.....

M-COOL will be implemented...I have no doubt about it...

[cowman]

MCOOL was never about consumer safety. It is a sneaky protectionist ploy...nothing more.
In the end I do believe it will fail for this simple reason:
MCOOL only applies to the meat case, not the restaurant trade, not the maunufacturing trade or institutional trade. Yes you will keep Canadian cattle out of American packing plants! Instead the beef will come in, in a box, slaughtered and processed in Canadian packing plants!
In Canada packing capacity can actually kill all the cattle we produce now? These aren't some old mickey mouse plants, but very modern, very efficient plants!
By making MCOOL effective...the likes of R-CALF just cut their own throats! You just created a situation where Cargill(Canada) and Tyson(Canada) will eat you for breakfast! One of the dumbest things the American cattleman ever asked for!
And please don't drivel about an "expanded" MCOOL...because it just isn't going to happen! US farmers have about as much clout as Canadian farmers? NONE! The consumer is what matters. The American consumer is going to benifit from very cheap Canadian beef.

[farmers_son]

Cowman: I would agree with your assessment of MCOOL with one comment. I do not believe the American consumer will benefit from cheaper Canadian meat. The packers and further processors will keep all the profit for themselves and sell our meat into the U.S. market at the going market prices.

The message I would like to pass on to our American neighbours is the surest way to ensure high live cattle prices in the United States is to have high cattle prices in Canada.

If American producers would like to reduce or stop trade in live cattle and beef between Canada and the United States or see the trade take place on an even basis then prices of live cattle in Canada need to be higher. If our live cattle were the same price as U.S. live cattle then live cattle and beef would not flow from one country into the other. The pressure for trade in live cattle and beef comes from the fact that Canadian live cattle are cheaper, due to U.S. protectionist policies.

R-Calf, and the U.S. government create their own problems when they pursue policies that effectively create a pool of cheaper live cattle right next door in Canada. The same packing plants that buy U.S. live cattle buy Canadian live cattle and they will buy it from where it is cheapest.

It is in all cattle producers interests to see other producers in other countries receive fair prices for their cattle as to do otherwise only benefits the global corporations that buy our livestock.

[Willowcreek]

That is why I would love to see Canada get some export markets- ANY export markets beside the US...Canadian meat has lost all identity and will be tied to the US's shirttails forever if they don't fight to regain their identity...

But Canada will not get their exports back for some time unless they offer the Japanese and the other Asian markets what they want: TESTED BEEF...

But since they are stuck to the US Packers teat, neither your industry leaders or your politicians will push for that....

Rmemember the more overseas markets Canada gets- the better for the US...It isn't coming down and depressing our markets with oversupply...

[farmers_son]

Since the incidence of BSE is the same within the United States as it is in Canada I would suggest your remarks would apply to America was well as Canada.

The truth of the matter is the United States is not an export market for Canada. The United States, Mexico and Canada are part of one and the same market. Beef moves north into Canada from the U.S. at the same time as Canada sends beef south into the United States.

Both you and I are stuck to the U.S. packers teat and one would think it wise if that is the case that we find some way to get along. When U.S. producers lobby for policies that lower the price of live cattle in Canada they are directly hurting themselves. And since the U.S. market is about 8 times larger than ours I would think it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts us.

I understand that it may seem easier to lash out at producers in another country as a simpler solution to dealing with the common packer problem. However I put it to you that when the price of our cows rises that the price of your cows will be strengthened too.