News from Monday, July 26

 

DEMAND FOR U.S. BEEF IMPROVING RAPIDLY IN SOUTH KOREA

 

     A major South Korean supermarket chain recently launched a promotion for U.S. T-bone steaks in 85 stores. This marks the first time this cut has been offered in the retail sector since Korea resumed imports of U.S. beef.

     The U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF), with support from the beef checkoff, began promoting high-end steaks to South Korean retailers several months ago. Part of the promotion involved USMEF hosting nine representatives from Lotte Mart for a tour of the U.S. beef industry. Lotte Mart officials were impressed enough not only to initiate the T-bone promotion, but also to feature U.S. beef tenderloin and strip loins. The retailer now carries six chilled U.S. beef cuts and eight frozen beef items.

     “Lotte Mart will focus on increasing sales of T-bone steaks with consistent in-store promotions such as intensive tasting demonstrations at high-demand outlets and distributing a steak recipe brochure to help consumers know how to prepare the product,” said Ji-young Yoon, the company’s imported meat merchandiser.

     Through May, Korea climbed to third place in 2010 U.S. beef export volume at nearly 82 million pounds. This is a 66% volume increase over last year. More recent weekly data from the USDA Foreign Ag Service shows Korea has been importing nearly the same amount of U.S. beef as Mexico , currently the largest U.S. beef customer. 

# # #

News from Tuesday, July 27

COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED ON CONTROVERSIAL GIPSA RULES

 

     USDA has responded to requests from NCBA, the National Pork Producers Council, Congress and other ag interests to extend the comment period on controversial livestock marketing rules proposed by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). The comment period will be extended until November 22 on proposed rules that will make major changes in how ranchers and feeders can market their cattle.

     NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs Colin Woodall said the extension will give industry stakeholders additional time to analyze this complex rule and its potential implications on the beef sector.

     “On the surface, this rule has the potential to take the beef industry back 30 years by stifling the innovative efforts of U.S. cattle producers to add value and enhance the quality and safety of their products for consumers in the United States and abroad,” said Woodall.

     The USDA GIPSA proposal is a result of language in the 2008 Farm Bill requiring the agency to conduct rulemaking that “improves fairness in the marketing of livestock and poultry.” Industry analysts, including legal counsel for KLA, suggest the GIPSA rule goes much further than congressional intent.

     Cattle producers will have several opportunities, starting this week, to hear more about the proposal and provide input. A special policy forum Friday (7/30) at the NCBA Summer Conference in Denver will discuss the impact of the proposed rule. NCBA members also will have an opportunity to discuss the rule during the Live Cattle Marketing Committee meeting later that day.

     The GIPSA rule likely will be addressed during a livestock industry competition workshop hosted next month by USDA and the U.S. Department of Justice. NCBA and KLA members will provide input during the August 27 event at Ft.Collins,CO.

# # #

News from Wednesday, July 21

U.S. REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNED WITH GIPSA PROPOSAL

     Members of a U.S. House agriculture subcommittee expressed deep concern with USDA’s proposed rule on livestock and poultry contracts and marketing arrangements. The regulation would limit pork producers’ options in selling pigs to processors, according to the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).
      U.S. Reps. David Scott (D-GA) and Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House Agriculture Committee’s Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee, said during a hearing yesterday they are troubled the proposed rule amending the Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA) goes beyond the congressional intent of the 2008 Farm Bill. The legislation authorized USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to issue rules clarifying certain provisions of PSA and implementing new ones related to capital investments, arbitration and poultry contracts.
     House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), who attended the hearing, and other subcommittee members also voiced concerns with the broad scope of the rule and its likely adverse effects on the livestock and poultry industries. One panel member said the rule would put livestock producers in his district out of business. Some lawmakers who participated in crafting the 2008 Farm Bill pointed out Congress chose not to act on some proposals now included in the GIPSA rule because they would disrupt the U.S. livestock industry.
     "Several of the rule’s provisions go further than what was required by the Farm Bill," said NPPC President Sam Carney. "NPPC believes the proposed rule is overly broad and very vague, with many terms not well defined. As written, it appears the rule would have a negative effect on the ability of pork producers to enter into arrangements to produce hogs under contracts and to sell hogs through marketing arrangements."
     Panel members also expressed concern that GIPSA – so far – has refused to extend for the "most significant regulation on livestock markets in nearly 100 years" the 60-day period for submitting comments on the rule. The current deadline is August 23.
     NPPC, in a July 6 letter to GIPSA Administrator J. Dudley Butler, requested a 120-day extension of the comment period. It said the scope of the proposed rule and the lack of an adequate economic analysis of its impact on the livestock industry warrant an extension.
     Last week, 22 members of the House Agriculture Committee signed a letter to U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack requesting an extension of the comment period for 120 days past an August 27 "workshop" on competition in the livestock industry in Ft. Collins, CO.

# # #

News from Thursday, July 22

PROPOSED GIPSA RULES DRAW FIRE FROM NCBA, CONGRESS

 

     NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs Colin Woodall says ranchers and feeders ultimately would be hurt by sweeping changes USDA is proposing in the Packers and Stockyards Act. He said the requirement for packers to report and justify contractual purchases from cattle producers could result in packers taking a position of risk avoidance by discontinuing marketing agreements with producers.

     Marketing agreements are the foundation for producer financing and profitability. Without these agreements, which cover about 60% of the beef marketed, all cattle would be valued on the average, regardless of quality, resulting in a generic market and generic product.

     “History has proven generic products do not meet consumer demand,” said Woodall. “Without consumer demand, prices to producers fall.”

     Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of U.S. House members expressed deep concern with the marketing rules proposed by USDA. U.S. Reps. David Scott (D-GA) and Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House Agriculture Committee’s Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee, said during a July 20 hearing they are troubled the proposed rule amending the Packers & Stockyards Act (PSA) goes beyond the congressional intent of the 2008 Farm Bill. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), who attended the hearing, and other subcommittee members also voiced concerns with the broad scope of the rule and its likely adverse effects on the livestock and poultry industries.

# # #

 

News from Friday, July 23

 

STUDY FINDS BENEFITS OF ORGANIC OVERHYPED BY NEWSPAPERS

 

     News reports about organic food are likely to be favorable and inaccurately claim organic items are safer than conventionally produced food, according to media analysis conducted by Kansas State University Associate Professor of Food Safety Doug Powell. He and two other colleagues conducting the study from 1999 to 2004 found 41.4% of the articles had a neutral tone toward organic agriculture and food, 36.9% had a positive tone, 15.5% were mixed and only 6.1% were negative.

     The study explored how organic food and organic agriculture topics were covered in 618 articles appearing in five North American newspapers. Researchers also found 50% of food safety statements in news articles about organic agriculture were positive, while 81% of the health statements and 90% of the environmental statements were positive. According to Powell, this indicates an “uncritical press.”

     “Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices,” said Powell.

# # #