It's Like This

[certherfbeef]

Stolen from another site: But it caught my eye.

It has to be obvious to many cattlemen by now that there are people out there who don't want cattlemen to have options. Nor do they want packers and retailers to have some of their options. Rather than a free American agricultural system, they want a new system with their rules and restrictions. They want people to stay in their pigeonholes and not get involved in other sectors. They and the government would decide things like:


a) Who would be allowed to own cattle and when, b) How many packers we need in this country, c) How big is too big for a packer, d) How big is too big for a feedyard, e) How big is too big for a retail chain, or should chains be allowed at all, f) How much to restrict beef imports to protect the domestic market price, and g) How much export volume and which markets to give up, since restricting imports would cut the number of export trading partners we would have.
Banned would be: a) Alliances of ranchers, feeders, breed associations, packers and retailers b) Branded beef and c) Packer/feeder contracts and grids


A group in the drastic minority like R-CALF that wants to see the above kinds of things come to pass has to find some way to get leverage. One way is to ally with political bedfellows, who incidentally have other wish lists. These groups make R-CALF's desires look tame. But if that is what it takes to get their changes achieved, then R-CALF has indicated their willingness to go along to get to their goals. R-CALF demonstrated that earlier this year, appearing in a joint news conference with long-time industry adversarial activist groups, forming a coalition of Liberal Activist Groups (LAG). Some of these activist groups envision American agriculture like this:
a) Only "sustainable" agriculture would be permitted. This means selling only fresh food locally, not out of state and not internationally, using organic methods - no herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, feed additives or genetically modified plants or animals allowed. b) USDA and other government agencies would be run by those with no agricultural experience to "bias" their decisions. Representatives from consumer activist groups, environmental groups, faith-based groups and unions would run USDA. People who had worked for NCBA or food corporations would be considered unfit for service. c) Packing companies and retailers would become union shops. d) Foreign trade would be discouraged, since they see it taking away jobs, especially union jobs, in this country. The U.S. should just provide increased government aid to poor countries to help their economies, rather than trade with them. They feel trade with us damages farmers in poor countries. e) Corporate trading companies should be broken up and government trading agencies created to sell America's agricultural products. The large food, agricultural, drug and ag chemical companies would be broken up in favor of small non-corporate companies, government marketing agencies and local food coops. f) Large feedyards - defined as more than 1,000 head - are termed "factory farms" and would be banned as too damaging to the environment and too inhumane for animals.


The above may sound extreme but all of these positions can be documented. And these are just the beginning.

 

[Texan]

Great post, Cert! Ought to be an eye opener for some, but it probably won't. And to think you can be a part of all of that for only $50 a year!

 

[redwhiteface]

I agree Texan, where else can you get those kinda perks w/o signing your life away. Oh wait...

 

[certherfbeef]

Here are some good, plain language definations. Stolen from the same sight as the above post.



There are several organizations that are the driving forces behind an extreme makeover of American agriculture. It is important to understand that with their limited participation in terms of members or supporters and limited budgets, these groups within agriculture have shared their vision with each other, determined how they will work together and split up the task list to work efficiently. There are some interlocks in directors, agreements and contracts. But their shared general philosophies, use of similar public relations and media methods and willingness to use legal methods toward similar goals - or at least - to use each other along the way toward somewhat different goals, is what makes them more powerful than their numbers or ideas would seem.

This contrary coalition, the anti-capitalists or anti-establishment coalition, or what we have termed the Liberal Activist Groups (LAG) includes the following:


a) R-CALF, ("Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund") concentrates on trade and marketing issues and uses lawsuits to attack the system ("Legal Fund" is in the name, after all). As an alternative to long-established organizations, it disparages NCBA, USDA, big packers, big feedyards, big retailers, etc. on a regular basis. They define "big."

b) OCM, the Organization for Competitive Markets is an "agricultural anti-trust" group, focused on the packers and so-called "captive supply," using anti- trust law as a weapon for its attorneys. It is a driving force behind several lawsuits against packers and the proposed ban on "captive supplies."


c) LMA, the Livestock Marketing Assn. is a group of auction markets focused on destroying the cattlemen's national beef check off, having filed lawsuits that have landed the check off in the U.S. Supreme Court. This group fights any idea that takes business away from auction markets, as is their right. But some progressive auction markets have broken away from this group and are providing new and improved services and sales to cattlemen, innovating for new market demands, rather than using the legal system to beat up on auction market customers.

These are the most visible, fringe agricultural groups active presently. Their allies include, but certainly are not limited to:

a) The Consumer Federation of America, the group run by Carol Tucker Foreman, has historically lobbied and testified against agriculture's mainstream and attacked USDA for decades.

b) Consumer's Union, has attacked "factory farms" and CAFOs, food inspection systems, pesticide use, the BSE response and the fast food industry.

c) Public Citizen, a Nader-founded consumer activist group. Their Global Trade Watch challenges "corporate globalization," their label for the system we have now. They denigrate mainstream beef production as unhealthy and unsanitary, and its production practices as responsible for "pervasive food safety problems." They favor a transition to organic farming instead. They boast of organizing "massive protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO)." They feel labor and environmental standards in trade pacts must be based on the standards of the ILO -- the International Labour Organization, the specialized UN agency involved with social justice, human and labor rights. Public Citizen filed an extensive legal brief opposing the check off and mainstream agriculture in the Supreme Court case.

In addition to the above, there is a long list of groups that promote what they term as "sustainable agriculture." This means that consumers should only buy locally grown, fresh food from small family farms. No corporate farms or ranches, no feedyards or large packing plants, no retail chains and no chain restaurants should be involved. This approach also opposes chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and GMOs. How they expect to eat only locally grown food in northern climes, and have a balanced diet year-round, is not addressed. This group includes both secular and faith-based organizations.

GRACE (Global Resource Action Center for the Environment) has a Factory Farm Project established to "eliminate factory farming." They are also fighting antibiotic use in animals, irradiated beef and have a 35-page manual on "confronting CAFOs." They are also responsible for "The Meatrix," a animated nightmare version of farming posted on the web.

The Agribusiness Accountability Project, is an effort that promises "necessary systemic reform" of the food system, preaching that "corporate concentration and vertical integration among transnational agro-food companies" threaten the global food system. This group is faith-based.

This is just a partial list of key groups to know. The complete lineup card is much longer. The number of activist groups out there trolling for causes to justify their existence is astounding. Agriculture is a large target and the average citizen is ignorant of production methods and, therefore, susceptible to misinformation or an incomplete story. Food is essential to life. That makes the food chain a popular target for these groups - and their lawyers.

 

[Cattle Rack Rancher]

Very interesting. I really don't know what the solutions are for the farming sector. From a business perspective, farming is a very strange looking thing. You have millions of producers worldwide, all with different standards of living and different currencies. This means that there are always lower cost producers that can supply the North American market. Some of them are government subsidized, which throws off the fair price for most agricultural commodities. The whole industry is keenly affected by the weather. Often even if the weather is perfect where you are, everybody else has an abundance of the same crops as you. There is no management as far as what crops or the amount that will be produced in any given year. This causes massive price fluctuations on all agricultural commodities. Producers as a whole are an odd breed. The average age of a farmer right now is close to the age when most workers are retiring from there jobs. Many producers are hobby farmers who are farming for the lifestyle more than to make a profit. The biggest problem we have of course is that we are price takers instead of price setters. Any other business sets the price for their product and if you don't want to pay the price, you don't get the product and often there are only a few other sources that you can get that product from. In agriculture, there are so many small independant producers that don't even know if they are profitable or not because they are in it for the tax write-offs or as a hobby. In Canada we have two large packers that control the market and the price they are paying for fed cattle in no way reflects the price that they are charging the consumer. The problem is how do you get a fair price for cattle without setting some sort of price floor or supply management system. That reeks of socialism and so I am against it, but how else can you solve the problem?