|
Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
4-4-05
In a guest opinion column in the
March 28, 2005 issue of Western Livestock Journal, R-CALF
CEO Bill Bullard illustrated R-CALF's continuing lack
of understanding of the beef industry beyond the ranch
gate. And in typical liberal activist group (LAG) style,
he hammered their buzzwords over and over, lest us less
intelligent folks not get his points.
In a 12-paragraph letter, he used the
buzzwords "independent," as in cattleman or
business six times, "multi-national packer"
four times and "relax," "lower,"
or "set well below," as in import standards,
five times. The idea - as perfected by Washington, D.C.
activist-groups - is that if you repeat a buzzword often
enough - whether true or not - it will become part of
the "conventional wisdom" and enter the lexicon
of the media. Bullard evidently continues to use techniques
picked up from R-CALF's LAG associates.
As for "independent," R-CALF
evidently drums a rancher out of the organization if
he/she becomes successful enough to buy another ranching
operation. If a cattle feeder becomes successful enough
to buy another feedyard, then one must assume he jumps
from the already iffy status of a cattle feeder to a
definite bad guy. We're not sure whether leasing another
ranch or feedyard counts against you or not.
"Multi-national corporation"
is a long-time LAG epithet applied to any company that
is not strictly a "mom and pop" company. R-CALF
just adapted it to packers, making a term for them that
is a double negative, "multi-national" and
"packer." R-CALF has never suitably explained
how the vast U.S. retail and foodservice industry would
manage to efficiently assemble the over 20 billion pounds
of beef it buys annually from the biggest four packers
now. R- CALF wants to replace the four majors with hundreds
of small packers - a mind boggling efficiency obstacle
for the industry we have today. R-CALF railed in its
suit against the USDA about the environmental impact
of those semi-trucks hauling cattle in from Canada.
Wonder how the EPA would like handling the environmental
headaches of 200-300 new packing plants?
As for lowering standards, R-CALF has
referenced the OIE (World Organization for Animal Health)
as the authority on animal health issues. That's fine,
as far as it goes. Trouble is, the OIE does not set
standards, as R-CALF has claimed. Further, the OIE does
not recommend countries ban meat imported - with SRMs
removed - from countries with low or high BSE risk,
contrary to R-CALF's implication.
In addition, there are no standards recognized
for importing meat from minimal- or low-risk BSE countries.
The U.S. is trying to set standards as precedent for
trade, based on nearly 20 years of science. R-CALF wants
trade only with countries who have never had a BSE case.
They have not explained how many years they want the
rest of the world to sit around and wait until it's
okay to trust science and begin trading. Or how they
would justify keeping imports out if ever a BSE case
was discovered in the U.S. or export again ever.
I also cannot confirm the import figures
Bullard quotes in his column. Bullard claims 5 billion
pounds of imported beef into the U.S. in 2002, the year
he uses. My charts from USDA/ERS and from U.S. Commerce
Dept. both show 3.2 billion pounds, a 35- percent lower
figure and less than 12 percent of total production.
More importantly, for the year, he doesn't mention at
all the net beef imports - imports minus exports - was
roughly 750 million pounds or just 2.8 percent of the
total beef supply.
Of course, for the last two years, that
net figure has risen because of the closure of export
markets. And no group's work has done more to keep that
net figure worse longer than R-CALF. Bullard has stated
the U.S. has been doing just fine without exports, so
Japan's concern with the U.S. policy toward Canadian
cattle and international perception of beef safety must
not worry him.
Just as importantly, Bullard said that
the U.S. competitive edge in maintaining market share
is that it, "holds itself to the highest health
and safety standards." I disagree. Consumers buy
beef primarily because of the high quality, taste and
convenience. Safety and wholesomeness is assumed, a
given, the price of admission.
To operate in the belief that consumers'
primary buying motivation is not the high quality and
convenience of the product is to demonstrate a lack
of understanding of marketing - domestically or internationally.
Consumers buy quality and benefits. How many consumers
buy the model of television they do because they believe
it won't shock them when they plug it in? How many select
the recliner they do because they think they're less
likely to fall off it?
Safety and wholesomeness is a critical,
built-in assumption the U.S. must safeguard. That is
the reason for the careful methodical evaluation of
science and process that has gone on. But beyond the
importance of the actual safety is the consumer perception
of safety. And R-CALF has been attempting to damage
that perception, not protect it, all for the sake of
a turf war strategy.
Bullard is correct in his assessment of
the United States beef industry as the most successful
in the world. But it never got so big and successful
by:
- Continually attacking and denigrating
other essential players in that successful beef chain;
- Publicly assaulting the credibility
of U.S. consumers' guarantor of beef safety, the USDA
or ;
- Attempting to force international
trade policy to be conducted on the basis of protectionism
and prejudice rather than verified science and policies
fostering economic growth.
The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
promotes free market principles throughout the agricultural
food chain. The AFF believes it is possible to value
the traditions and heritage of the past while embracing
the future and the changes it brings. The AFF is a communications
and educational initiative striving to preserve the
freedom of the agricultural food chain to operate and
innovate in order to continue the success of American
agriculture.
The AFF - freedom watchdog for American
agriculture.
Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
AFF: Promoting free market principles throughout
the agricultural food chain.
Website: http://www.agribusinessfreedom.org
This article has been provided
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. This
material is provided without profit for research and
educational purposes. Prior to republication of this
material in its entirety we recommend contacting the
source for appropriate permissions. Alternatively, publication
of an abstract with a link to the originating source
page to see the full text is generally allowed.
|
