Overtime with Mike Adams

USDA's response to a WTO complaint to our Country of Origin Labeling program is getting a cool reception on both sides of the border.  The change modifies the labeling provisions for muscle cut covered commodities to require the origin destinations to include information about where each of the production steps occurred and removes the allowance for commingling of muscle cuts. NCBA fears retaliatory tariffs and loss of markets.  Canada says the changes make COOL worse rather than better.  I understand and respect the opinion of those who believe consumers have the right to know what country their meat comes from.  However the right to know seems to be outweighed by the want to know.  While some consumers feel strongly about buying American and try to do so, it doesn't seem the majority is willing to put their money where their mouths are.  I think most consumers assume that as long as the meat in their store's meat case is USDA inspected it is safe and price has more influence on their purchase than origin. So far COOL hasn't seemed to increase U.S.beef sales so why risk losing important export markets? I know many still question following WTO rules but as long as we are part of that group and enjoy the benefits that go with it, then we can't expect others to abide by rules we ignore.  COOL seems to offer more downside risk than upside potential.

Well here we go again.  The Senate and House ag committees have passed their versions of the next farm bill.  Sound familiar? While both are significant accomplishments, as we saw last year, this is the easiest part of the farm bill process.  While the Senate will probably pass its bill rather quickly, expect a real battle on the House floor.  Of course just having that battle is progress over last year.  Chairman Lucas and ranking member Peterson face quite a challenge to keep their bill intact as amendments will be coming from all directions.  Perhaps the biggest challenge, both on the House floor and in conference committee, will be over cuts in nutrition spending.  The Senate ag committee proposes 4 billion in cuts while the House ag committee proposes 20 billion.  That's quite a difference.  Some want even bigger cuts while others want no cuts at all.  For all the debate over dairy reform, crop insurance and target prices, nutrition programs will once again take center stage. Many in agriculture still feel nutrition programs are needed to get a farm bill passed but last year they helped prevent passage.  Hopefully this time will be different.

You've probably seen the ads on TV asking you to send money to the Humane Society of the United States. Supposedly that money helps save and protect abused animals but that depends on your point of view.  In Tennessee HSUS helped defeat a bill that would require reporting of animal abuse within 48 hours.  If you really care about the welfare of animals wouldn't you want to stop abuse as quickly as possible?  HSUS is holding up the opening of a horse processing plant in New Mexico with the threat of lawsuits.  Meanwhile the number of abandoned and starving horses increases.  In New Jersey HSUS is pushing a bill to keep pork producers from using production systems proven to protect sows.  The list goes on and on.  Those monthly donations seem to be helping save and protect jobs and salaries more than they are animals.  HSUS wants people to believe they know what's best for animals but they sure have a strange way of showing it.

It's often been said that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  The American Meat Institute hopes their " Glass Walls Project" will keep some people from throwing so many stones at them.  AMI has released a video tour of a pork slaughter plant hosted by animal welfare expert Temple Grandin.  There seems to be a lot of interest about what goes on in a packing plant.  Along with a similar video released last year of a beef plant, thousands have already had a look inside the industry.  Also used as a classroom teaching tool, these videos are another example of agriculture trying to educate consumers and respond to attacks by activist groups.  One of agriculture's biggest challenges is negative public reaction to even the best practices but it's a chance worth taking.  Activists, sometimes aided by some bad actors, have created an image of abuse in people's minds.  Hopefully these videos will help take away the mystery and misperceptions that exist.  Of course some people make a lot of money by throwing stones and these videos won't stop them but maybe this project will slow the avalanche.  Check them out at www.AnimalHandling.org.

If the rest of Congress could work together as well as Frank Lucas and Collin Peterson do we might see a lot more accomplished in Washington D.C.  As the House ag committee gets ready to take up the farm bill next week, the committee's chairman and ranking member seem on the same page and optimistic about the outcome.  Both agree on reducing spending by about 38 billion dollars and feel the bill they get out of committee will get floor time.  That of course would be an accomplishment in itself.  Despite their shared optimism, both know there will be battles ahead.  Cuts in nutrition spending, a deal breaker last year, will be a major hurdle again this year not only in the House but with the Senate as well.  Other hurdles both from within as well as outside agriculture loom but the bipartisan leadership on the House ag committee is a refreshing approach missing from most political debates these days.