McDonald’s is paying premiums, and Wal-Mart is making demands. And, with the impending reopening of the Japan market, we’re likely to see premiums equaling those producers enjoyed last fall for source- and age-verified cattle.
-Troy Marshall of Seed Stock Digest
If NAIS goes through McDonald’s and other big buyers will stop paying premiums to farmers that offer Animal ID and Trace-Back. Everyone will be required to provide that service of trace-back so there will be no incentive for buyers who want trace-back to pay for it as stands with the existing market driven system. NAIS is a great way for McDonald’s and Wal-Mart to save a lot of money. Meanwhile, back on the ranch, farmers will have to do all the work required to support trace-back without any compensation, increase in base price or premium for their beef. NAIS is a win-lose situation. McDonald’s wins. The rest of us lose.
There is also no need for trace-back for farmers who sell direct to consumers or homesteaders raising meat for their own table. NAIS simply amounts to a hidden tax on food that will drive many small farmers and ranchers out of business. That is the last thing we need in this country, the consolidation of our food supply into the hands of fewer and fewer large corporate producers.
What we do need is a market driven, 100% voluntary system for trace-back. That way those who wish to pay a premium for it can buy from sellers who wish to supply it. That is good old capitalism at its best. There is no need for government involvement.
Premium(s):
(1) The amount that a producer is charged for the purchase of crop insurance. A producer’s premium depends on that producer’s production history, the crop being covered, the county in which a covered crop is grown, and selection of coverage. Premiums are totally subsidized by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation for catastrophic coverage and heavily subsidized for additional coverage. See Catastrophic coverage (CAT), and Crop insurance. (2) The additional payment allowed by an exchange regulation for delivery of higher-than-required standards or grades of a commodity against a futures contract. (3) The amount added to a nonrecourse marketing assistance loan on a per-unit basis, relevant to the location where the loan collateral is stored at the time the loan is made. (4) An extra payment above the base price for livestock. (5) An amount paid over and above the price-support loan rate to encourage producers not to forfeit commodities under loan to the Commodity Credit Corporation. (6) An upward adjustment to a median standardized sales or contract price due to superior quality. (7) The amount paid for milk in addition to the minimum regulated price.
-National Ag Law Center
A huge ditto to this:
That is the last thing we need in this country, the consolidation of our food supply into the hands of fewer and fewer large corporate producers.
Comment Maria — May 23, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Hi Walter:
Wondering if you can explain the protocol for adding an individual to NICE Anti-NAIS?
Thanks
Comment LuAnn — May 23, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Consolidation of the food supply, sort of like consolidation of the supply of gasoline ey? Just a few major players, getting all the profits.
Comment arlene — May 23, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
If you know have someone you think should be added to the Nice/Naughty lists just email me a note, or leave a comment, with:
their position (Pro-NAIS (Naughty) vs Anti-NAIS (Nice)),
name,
state, what (e.g., Senator, Gov. Canidate, etc),
their email address and
a link to a web page showing their position.
The last could be something on their own web site (idea), or a news story, etc. If you don’t have that but have an email from them, send that with full headers.
Ask candidates and legislators to put a position statement onto their web pages to show that they are for or against NAIS so constituants know. Also ask them to link to http://NoNAIS.org to show their opposition to NAIS.
Cheers,
-Walter
Comment walterj — May 23, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
Ron Paul’s amendment just failed.
Comment Jennifer Major — May 23, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Walter,don’t forget that group of naughty Pa.senators. I just read the magazine article called “They’re watching your cows” in the sidebar, Texans should read that one and let Mr. Shane McLellan, Freestone County Ag Extension agent from there have an earfull!
Comment LEE — May 23, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Walter; I am scheduled to meet informally with a Congressman who happens to be on the House AG Committee. This congressman wants to hear my concerns re: the need for NAIS in order to help our global beef trade position.
I have noted the quotes that you have already posted for me to use during this meeting. I was going to present an argument that “Nais was a back-door subsidy for the large beef producers”. Whatever federal money they have thrown at them when NAIS becomes the law of the land, money that will naturally flow from the coffers to cover the cost of mandatory participation, will be augmented by the destruction of the domestic competition that will occur after NAIS is implemented. It’s a win-win for the large producers. They will get subsidized without asking for a subsidy, and they will eliminate most of their domestic market competition.
Now…in light of this article, I need to make reference to this latest development re: Mickey D’s and Walmart. My question is…are there any links that would tie Mickey D’s and Walmart into the supposedly public comment hearings that occurred in 2004? Can we tie these two corporations to the back room writing of the NAIS regulations?
We already know that big beef was instrumental in writing the regs so as to favor them highly over the small producer. But…if we can get proof that Mickey D’s and Walmart were parties to the writing of the regulations…then I will have even more ammo for my meeting with the congressman.
Your thoughts?
Comment Neil W. — May 24, 2006 @ 10:02 am
SPAM DELETED
Comment Herrah — February 21, 2007 @ 2:53 am
SPAM DELETED
Comment Eiser — February 21, 2007 @ 10:43 pm