NCBA'S Willingham Discusses
Beef Origin Labels With NMCGA

By David Bowser

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — While National Cattlemen's Beef Association President Clark Willingham and the New Mexico Cattle Growers disagree over how to handle it, they concur that beef in the supermarket needs to be labeled as to the country where the cattle were raised.

During a sometimes contentious meeting with Willingham and the NMCG, eastern New Mexico cattleman Bill Grau questioned the trading policies of the U.S and NCBA's ability to deal with it.

Grau noted that New Mexico cattlemen were able to close the border to Mexico over Australian cattle, but questioned whether anything can be done about cattle coming in across the Canadian border.

"A real problem for the United States," Willingham admitted, "is all this foreign beef coming in."

He said 1.3 million live cattle coming out of Canada are slaughtered in the United States and sold as U.S. product.

"That's wrong," Willingham said.

What the country of origin law says, however, is that when the form of the product is substantially changed it becomes a U.S. product.

"While you have Australian beef coming in, you get a U.S. hot dog or U.S. hamburger," Willingham pointed out.

When Canadian cattle come across the border and are slaughtered in the U.S., they become U.S. beef. They are counted as U.S. production, Willingham said, graded by USDA, and the consumer thinks she is buying beef grown

in the U.S. That, he continued, is why NCBA is in favor of country of origin labeling.

NCBA country of origin labeling policy calls for labeling the country of origin of muscle cuts, Willingham explained. Hamburger and processed meats would be

labeled simply "foreign" or "imported." The specific country would not be required for hamburger or processed meats, but it would have to be labeled foreign beef.

"The reason for that is a compromise to get it passed," Willingham said.

He explained that the processing industry changes the mix on many of its products about every 20 minutes.

"It's really difficult to change the label every 20 minutes," Willingham pointed out.

The New Mexico Cattle Growers marketing committee wants hamburger to be labeled by percentage of breakdown, such as 20 percent Canadian, 14 percent Australian, and so forth. Willingham contended that would be impractical and would most likely lead to the defeat of a bill requiring such labeling.

Willingham repeated his earlier statements that agriculture consistently was being used as a trading tool and always came out on the short end of the stick.

"Agriculture has always lost in trading situations," Willingham said. "The U.S. has used agriculture as a tool to help foreign policies. We get good rules on intellectual property and computer chips, but not much in agriculture.

I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton's at all, but I will say that at least Bill Clinton appointed a person as U.S. trade representative whose sole function is agriculture. That's the first time they've ever had anybody in USDR whose job

is to look out for agriculture."

Willingham said the American agriculture community has lost on every trade agreement the country has made.

"We have gotten out-traded, especially in Canada," he said. "The Canadians have done a great job of out-trading us every time. They can ship stuff south, but we can't ship the same stuff back north."

As an example, he cited instances in which the Canadians would bring overloaded cattle trucks south and the governor of North Dakota would have the trucks stopped

and some of the cattle removed. When they tried to send the excess cattle back to Canada, the Canadians wouldn't take them.

"We're working on that issue," Willingham said, "but we're continuing to get out-traded."

A New Mexico Cattle Growers resolution to close the border, Willingham claimed, would be self-defeating. Although there are more live cattle coming into the

U.S. from Canada, dollar-wise, there is a $1.8 billion trade surplus in beef going to Canada.

"As soon as we close the border, they close the border," Willingham said.

He added that while the U.S. imports more tonnage of beef than it exports to Canada, the dollar value was about the same. The difference is the $1.8 billion in hides, tallow and by-products.

If the border is closed and that $1.8 billion worth of product stays in the U.S., Willingham said the cost would be absorbed by the producer, not by the packer.

Willingham expressed confidence that a new country of origin labeling bill will be introduced next spring in the new Congress. Idaho Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth will sponsor such a bill, he said, along with Sen. Larry Craig from Idaho.

"The new chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, fortunately, is going to be Larry Combest from over in Lubbock," Willingham added. "He has already said he would hold hearings on country of origin labeling."

Willingham said in the last session there was a fight between Chenoweth and Chairman Smith from Oregon, so there was never a hearing on the bill.

Sen. Craig managed to get one passed in the Senate as part of the agriculture appropriations bill, but it didn't go anywhere in conference.

"We really got out-lobbied," Willingham said. "All the packers lobbied it. The packers' unions lobbied it. The truckers lobbied it. The hot dog manufacturers, the retailers, the governments of Australia, New Zealand and

Canada all lobbied against it.

"We didn't have anybody other than the Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, cattlemen and sheep producers who were up there supporting it."

Not even the consumers supported it.

"Now, we did a study in the first week of November that found that 78 percent of U.S. consumers would prefer U.S. products," Willingham said. "We gave that to Mrs. Chenoweth and that will help."

Willingham said he expects to be better prepared next time.

Rancher Jimmy Bason, however, pointed out that the packers are still opposed to country of origin labeling and they have the money to battle it. They also sit on the NCBA

board.

Willingham admitted that the packers show up and express their views.

"But then we out-vote them," Willingham countered. "The packers voted against mandatory price reporting on the packers, which we passed. The packers voted against country of origin labeling, which we passed. The retailers voted

against it. The guy who represented the food and marketing institute voted against it. Some of our own members voted against it.

"We don't agree on anything," he said, "but we do have a majority that passed country of origin labeling, so that is what NCBA worked on."

Still, it's one thing to pass country of origin

labeling in a board meeting at NCBA and another to get it through Congress.

One of the things that did get passed this last year in Congress was a study, due April 15, to determine the cost of country of origin labeling.

Opponents claim it will cost millions of dollars.

"Personally, I don't think it will cost them anything," Willingham said. "They're already putting a label on the meat. All they've got to do is get the

computer to put one more line that says where it came from."

Willingham noted that in Japan, the meat in the counter has flags on it denoting where it comes from, whether the U.S., Australia, or New Zealand.

"Other countries have country of origin labeling. Why can't we have it here?" Willingham asked.