Prime Act
- Thread starter slick4591
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
slick4591 said:
Think it stands a chance? Sounds pretty good.
sim.-ang.king
Well-known member
They had the same bill in 2017, and I don't think it went anywhere.
I contacted the NCBA to their stance on it, and haven't heard back from them yet.
On a side note I like that a senator named Angus King from Maine is sponsoring the senate bill. :lol:
I contacted the NCBA to their stance on it, and haven't heard back from them yet.
On a side note I like that a senator named Angus King from Maine is sponsoring the senate bill. :lol:
ALACOWMAN
Well-known member
I thought Branded had that name in patentsim.-ang.king said:
Red Bull Breeder
Well-known member
NCBA isn't going to let this happen.
sim.-ang.king
Well-known member
Response from the NCBA.
sim.-ang.king said:Response from the NCBA.
Well reasoned and thoughtful response by the NCBA . Thanks for sharing.
CottageFarm
Well-known member
No, TT, it is not a well reasoned response, though it is certainly well thought out. They are doing precisely what the claim they are not...which is protecting the large packers/processors. They are using their food safety rationale as a scare tactic, hoping that no one will use any critical thinking skills to see past the smoke screen.
1. They assume the premise that the Several States are somehow incapable and unable to establish their own safety and inspection laws that would essentially equate to the same level as federal requirements. Really....??? :bs:
2. All those small processors they claim to be protecting... A large percentage of small processors only have federal inspectors out of regulatory necessity and it costs them, and their customers, a boatload of money to do it. (will this bill) They will be able to revert to whatever their given state requirements will be if they are only selling within their states limits.
3. Any companies wishing to sell their products across state lines, will still be required to have federal inspections.
God forbid the citizenry should be able to wrench away any small measure of control over our lives and livlihoods, imposed by both federal regulations and large corporations.... :roll:
1. They assume the premise that the Several States are somehow incapable and unable to establish their own safety and inspection laws that would essentially equate to the same level as federal requirements. Really....??? :bs:
2. All those small processors they claim to be protecting... A large percentage of small processors only have federal inspectors out of regulatory necessity and it costs them, and their customers, a boatload of money to do it. (will this bill) They will be able to revert to whatever their given state requirements will be if they are only selling within their states limits.
3. Any companies wishing to sell their products across state lines, will still be required to have federal inspections.
God forbid the citizenry should be able to wrench away any small measure of control over our lives and livlihoods, imposed by both federal regulations and large corporations.... :roll:
sim.-ang.king
Well-known member
If you notice they say that it's unfair to plants that have to meet federal inspection. Kind of telling of their real thoughts.
Also they incorrectly state about there being 6000 plants, while the USDA only shows 2718 plants in the US, and only 881 of those being Federally Inspected in 2016. Down from over 10,000 in 1963.
Also they incorrectly state about there being 6000 plants, while the USDA only shows 2718 plants in the US, and only 881 of those being Federally Inspected in 2016. Down from over 10,000 in 1963.
sim.-ang.king said:
yeah, that 6000 sounded way high to me
I'd still prefer to trade with regulated food processors.
too many of the current regulations are aimed at protecting large processors (and don't do a very good job of actually protecting the public the way they claim - look at any recall, all voluntary and MASSIVE when it happens)
read some of Joel Salatins writings on regulations.
read some of Joel Salatins writings on regulations.
CottageFarm
Well-known member
TennesseeTuxedo said:
If you prefer to deal with a USDA facility, knock your socks off, that wont ever go away.
Where is anybody suggesting that there should be no regulations or oversight?
With what aspect of state level control do you take issue?
Why does the possibility of an actual local butchers shop frighten you? Federal regulations are the reason that trade is essentially non existent in this Country today.
Why do you trust a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington more than your state and local bureaucrats who are generally far more accountable to their electorate.
Thank you for understanding.
cow pollinater
Well-known member
If you glance at who owns the plants, who owns most of the stockers and where said stockers come from, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out NCBA has thrown most of us under the bus and charged us to do it. When pressed several years ago they said that they support all beef... Not American ranchers, but beef as a product. It doesn't take a whole lot of smarts to start thinking maybe they're greasing their palms a little.
greybeard
Well-known member
Very good questions and I hope everyone uses the aforementioned critical thinking skills to see thru the smokescreen being tossed up in that well thought out denial that is actually no denial at all.CottageFarm said:
