Livestock Title

<a href="http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2007/10/29/headlines/midwest_producer/news/regional_news/regional43.txt">I see</a> that there is now a Livestock Title in the Senate version of the Farm bill which has moved out of Committee. Some of the things in it are:<br />n<br />n<blockquote> — Banning packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter;<br />n<br />n — Creation of an Office of Special Counsel at <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym> that would enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act and Agriculture Fair Practices Act;<br />n<br />n — House compromise on country of origin labeling;<br />n<br />n — Allowing the shipment of state inspected meat.</blockquote><br />n<br />nThese things are interesting. I didn't understand the Special Counsel at <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym> until I attended a meeting of the <acronym title="United States Cattleman's Association">USCA</acronym> last night. It's simple. In the whole almost 100 year existence of the Packers and Stockyards Act, there has never been a way the <acronym title="United States Department of Agriculture, Bought and Paid for by The Big Meat Packers">USDA</acronym> could prosecute any violations. All they could do was recommend the Justice department to prosecute something. Packers and Stockyard stuff was never important to the Justice Department so not much happened. The Special Counsel will be able to prosecute violations of the Packers and Stockyards act. I've always said that we don't need more laws controlling what the packers do, we just need to enforce the laws all ready in place. This might do that.<br />n<br />nSo, do we really need the ban on Packer ownership of livestock? This is creating a lot of controversy in the industry. A lot of feeders forward contract to the packers or sell on a formula basis and they feel this might violate this provision and feeders will no longer be able to forward contract to packers. I'll be right up front and say I don't know. Maybe there needs to be provisions in the Title about how forward contracting can be done and not violate the ownership ban.<br />n<br />nThe house <acronym title="Country of Origin Labeling">COOL</acronym> provision is included. Actually I heard there is a wording change to tighten up the mandatory aspect of it but <acronym title="Country of Origin Labeling">COOL</acronym> is there. Everybody knows my opinion of it, I've talked enough about it. This is going to happen. Help the beef industry? I'm not so sure.<br />n<br />nAllowing the shipment of state inspected meat. this one is interesting. I can't find all the provisions now but this is a compromise. There will be some limited Federal oversight of these plants and the plants have to have over 25 employees but if they meet all the requirements they will be able to ship over state lines. I find this one heartening. I personally am not looking to ship state inspected meats over state lines but there are a lot of people who could use this flexibility in their business. Hell, a rancher like me could even start selling grass fed beef straight to the public if they wanted and not have to worry about transporting the critter to a federally inspected facility which are few and far between in this area.<br />n<br />nI will point out that the Farm Bill is up for debate on the Senate floor and these things aren't a done deal. Even if they live through the floor vote then these things have to be comprimised with the House bill which is even a bigger problem. Compromise bills are usually a hodge-podge of stuff that never makes anybody happy. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Forward progress happens but slowly. The question becomes, is progress a good thing for all?<br />n<br />n<strong>The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson</strong>