It was with much interest that I read about President Clinton’s regulations designed to insure the safety of the beef consumer in America. I think all of America should be concerned for the safety of their families. These new regulations fall short of completely insuring consumer safety because they do not require that all meat be labeled with the country of origin. The foreign market was completely left out of these more stringent regulations.

The cases of E. coli and salmonella bacteria that had such a devastating effect on the families in the Midwest that lost their children were traced to IMPORTED MEAT from Australia which was mixed with Canadian meat. Before this boxed meat was shipped into the U.S., a USDA inspector tried to open the boxes for inspection and was told that he couldn't because of the free trade agreement between the two countries (Canada and USA). When the inspector reported this, to whomever, he was immediately relieved of his job. At the present time he is trying to be reinstated under the "Whistle Blower" law.

It makes perfectly good sense to me that the imported meat be labeled with the country of origin. Clothing, toys, machinery, tools and many other consumer goods are labeled. Why should the meat we eat not also be labeled as such? In my opinion, the answer is because USDA standards cannot be forced on other countries and the packing industry has successfully lobbied for legislation that allows all imported boxed beef to come with a USDA stamp of approval on it. I think that this meat should be labeled "Eat at your own risk!" Who knows the inspection standards of other countries? More lenient standards result in more profit to the importer.

Let’s look at the economic pressure put on these countries that have our American packers operating in them. The sole presence of these giant corporations adds many dollars to these countries, thus providing jobs and stability to the area. If the host country confronts these mega-giant packing industries with USDA-quality regulations, these industries can threaten to move their plant to a more friendly environment, such as the country right next door that would love to have them.

Who benefits from imports? The CEO of the company with a million-dollar salary and the shareholders in the company through dividends declared. Who suffers from these imports? The consumer because of lax inspection, the cow-calf operator, independent feedlot owner, independent packer, banking institutions because cow-calf operators and all the above have a hard time meeting financial obligations to banking institutions, the U.S. trade deficit (we import twice as much beef as we export), the rural community because of tax losses to the schools, hospitals, car dealers, implement dealers, local stores, unemployed laborers, and many other rural-related businesses. The losses to the states that are dependent on agriculture are tremendous. Texas doesn’t have a state income tax, but because of the financial loss to the agriculture industry, our city dwellers might have an income tax before they know it. Therefore, the survival of agriculture in Texas is just as important to their livelihoods as it is to us.

How can our President and most state officials not see that it will be to the American consumer’s benefit to have meat labeled with the point of origin, not just USDA inspected? LET THE AMERICAN CONSUMER DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO EAT AMERICAN BEEF OR IMPORTED BEEF.

Stayton C. Weldon
Cuero, Texas