|
| |
The Prairie Star – Wednesday – December
6, 2006 – 12:28 p.m. MST
Cattlemen discuss industry's trade
deficit (at MCA Cattlemen’s Day)
By SHANNON BURKDOLL, The Prairie Star
editor
BILLINGS, Mont. - Mandatory
country-of-origin labeling wouldn't be necessary if the beef market were
healthy, according to a central Montana rancher.
“If we had a healthy market, we wouldn't need mandatory country-of-origin
labeling,” said Dan Teigen who operates the family's 122-year-old ranch near
Teigen, Mont. “The mandatory country-of-origin labeling law was passed by the
federal government, which was great for the moment, has been backsliding since.”
Teigen joined six other ranchers in discussing the challenges faced by cattlemen
in today's cattle and beef industries at the Montana Cattlemen's Association's
annual Cattlemen's Day on Nov. 4 in Billings, Mont.
The current trade deficit is to blame
for the nation's unhealthy beef market, according to Leo McDonnell, a Columbus,
Mont., rancher and co-founder of the R-CALF USA organization. “Go back to the
1980s and 1990s, when the big thing was to give access to gain access,” he
recalled. “We're winning in the global marketing game - we're the biggest
importer of beef in the world. They've turned the agriculture industry from
having a surplus to a deficit in trade. We went from being the No. 1 exporter of
beef to No. 7 or No. 8.”
The United States imported 4.5 billion pounds of beef in 2002, prior to the
nation's first bovine spongiform encelopathy discovery. The price of fed cattle
then was $67. McDonnell said the nation got a peek at what its beef industry
could do with decreased beef imports after it closed the Canadian borders to
beef cattle imports. “The United States began using domestic beef instead of
foreign beef,” he said. “Then, we found out there was no quota on cooked beef
and the companies began importing foreign cooked beef rather than domestic beef
- once again we gave access.”
Today, the United States has lost its tools to trade as the nation's trade
policymakers have given up the nation's safeguards and thrown the markets open.
“We are told we can compete with anyone if we had a level playing field,” said
McDonnell. “That's the same speech the automakers gave in the 1970s and 1980s.”
The trade tools the U.S. cattlemen and
beef producers need to be competitive in the global market include
country-of-origin labeling, a punitive clause for those who are hurt by foreign
countries that break trade contracts, a check-off that promotes U.S. beef
instead of a commercial product, labor laws for the products produced and
enforced quality standards. The industry currently has country-of-origin
labeling and the punitive clause available as trade tools to protect the
industry's best interests, but these tools have not been implemented.
“We're going to lose the punitive clause in a year or two because the
international courts have ruled it isn't legal - they call it double-dipping,”
said McDonnell. “I'd like to say we are winning with all the tools put in place,
but we're not because there is nobody honoring those tools. If trade is so good,
why not put in those special rules because we'd never use them anyway. We have
got to stick with the basics and find new markets. Right now, we're a supply
industry rather we like it or not.”
U.S. trade policymakers have allowed Peru to get safeguards for their beef
industry, and the third world countries were awarded safeguards, but the U.S.
cattlemen and beef producers were given nothing in return. “They're tilting the
playing field away from you,” said McDonnell.
Improving the competitiveness of the U.S. cattlemen takes little steps, said
Chuck Kiker, R-CALF USA president. “Improvement in the beef check-off is going
to have to be done legislatively,” he said. “We have to get more people on the
inside to do that and bring the check-off back to business. In addition, I
believe we need to get a matching clause put in the farm bill to get the federal
government to match the dollars the cattlemen contribute to the check-off. We
want the beef check-off to promote U.S. beef instead of the commercial beef
sector.”
Right now, branded product companies can bypass the domestic beef by importing
beef to inject into their branded products, said Kiker. “It's going to continue
happening until we get control of the check-off,” he said.
Montana has taken a lead in country-of-origin labeling meat products. The
state's 2005 Legislature passed a statewide mandatory country-of-origin labeling
law proposing rulemaking to label meats using placards rather than actual
labels, said Teigen. “We found out there is a legal difference between labels
and placards,” he said. “In short, the states can do placards but not labels.
Labels have to be done on the federal level.”
Montana's Mandatory Country-of-origin Labeling Act requires publicizing with
placards the country-of-origin of beef, poultry, pork and lamb meats in the
retail markets. The act excludes prepared and ready-to-eat meat products. “We're
limited because there is only so much a state can do,” said Teigen. “The law
only addresses foreign meat, but wouldn't you want to promote the meat if you
knew it was USA or Montana beef? Most of it is U.S. beef.”
The act also includes a disclosure allowing retailers to voluntarily promote
anything to help the individual businesses and list whether the
country-of-origin was not provided by the supplier or if it is of mixed origin.
“We're (Montanans) are stepping up and saying it matters,” said Teigen. “We're
saying somebody has got to do this job - we shouldn't have to but we will if we
have to.”
http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2006/12/06/ag_news/livestock/live01.txt
|
