Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Chairman, it is time members of Congress take positive action to remedy this situation. This is why I have co-sponsored the Beef Research and Consumer Information Act. The Act would create a beef board composed of representatives from the beef industry. The Board will have the opportunity to investigate middleman profit taking in the beef industry and require records to be kept and opened for inspection so that meaningful investigations can be made. Should such investigations reveal improprieties, we in Congress can direct appropriate action.

Mr. Chairman, the beef producers in this Country have been asking me why they are receiving so little for their product and consumers want to know why they are paying so much. I must confess I cannot answer either question. By passing the Beef Research and Consumer Information Act, we can answer both.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C., March 25, 1975.

Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

US. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN TALMADGE: In connection with your forthcoming hearings on your bill, S. 772, I am pleased to forward the supporting resolution of the Montana Stockgrowers Association of Helena, Montana,

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR METCALF: For your information we are enclosing a copy of a resolution recently adopted by the Executive Committee of the MONTANA STOCKGROWERS ASSOCIATION. This resolution was adopted in support of S. 772 now before the United States Senate.

We respectfully request your support of this important piece of legislation. Sincerely yours,

Enclosure.

RESOLUTION

REG DAVIES, President.

Whereas Montana Beef producers recognize the need to greatly expand beef promotion, education, research and foreign market development, and

Whereas the Beef Development Taskforce has developed a national uniform collection plan for monies for these purposes; now therefore be it

Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the MONTANA STOCKGROWERS ASSOCIATION supports the uniform collection plan as recommended by the Beef Development Taskforce.

Dated this 20th day of March, 1975, at Helena, Montana.

MONS L. TEIGEN, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF C. T. "TAD" SANDERS, GENERAL MANAGER, COMPETITIVE LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, KANSAS CITY, MO.

Mr. Chairman and committeemen: My name is C. T. "Tad' Sanders. I am General Manager of the Competitive Livestock Marketing Association, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.

Competitive Livestock Marketing Association is a corporate, stock business trade association with over 950 livestock mearketing businesses as shareholders. It is primarily a service corporation for the livestock marketing sector of the industry. It likewise provides representation of its shareholder marketing businesses of all types as located in some 45 states in matters of common interest and concern to them.

I am submitting this statement in support of the Beef Research and Consumer Information Act, (S. 772) on behalf of the trade association and its shareholders.

INVOLVEMENT WITH BEEF DEVELOPMENT TASKFORCE

Our trade association has been pleased to be represented on the Beef Development Taskforce since its inception, through my appointment as a member of that industry body. In addition, the organization has supported the Taskforce through the direct involvement of its executive officers in its day by day work. Consequently, we have been privileged to have contributed to the development of the overall concept and the specific mechanics embodied in the Beef Research and Consumer Information Act now before the Committee.

We can, therefore, assure you that the impact of the Act on the marketing sector of the industry-those businesses responsible for the movement of livestock from one production level to the next at a fair profit to each seller, and a fair value to each buyer-has been carefully and continuously evaluated. As a result, I am able to state that, overall, the plan as provided by the Act can be received with confident enthusiasm by marketing businesses generally.

I believe this is particularly significant in view of the fact that the great majority of stocker and feeder cattle transactions, and a major portion of finished cattle transactions, will be handled by these businesses-and, therefore, the administrative work involved in properly recording the beef development deduction, necessarily, will fall on their shoulders.

FORMAL ORGANIZATIONAL APPROVAL

Competitive Livestock Marketing Association formally endorsed the concept of such a uniform collection plan in January of this year when the board of directors approved the following resolution which was adopted at the annual shareholders' meeting:

"Be it resolved by the Competitive Livestock Marketing Association that: "(1) It hereby declares its confidence in the Beef Development Taskforce under the chairmanship of O. J. Barron, Jr., its makeup of individuals and the supporting executive officers from established trade groups, as the cattle and beef industry body asserting the leadership that it does;

"(2) It pledges its full support to the market development plan of the Taskforce involving the effective product and service research, education and promotion funded by a uniform collection plan through enabling legislation by the United States Congress; and

"(3) It commits its available resources of experience, talent and finances toward fulfillment of the objectives which the Taskforce has established."

A SELF-HELP MERCHANDISING PLAN

While the acceptance by marketmen of the administrative responsibilities involved, and the formal approval by the shareholders are important and tangible illustrations of our support of the Beef Research and Consumer Information Act, I believe it is of equal, if not perhaps greater, importance to emphasize the fact that the plan embodied in the Act parallels the fundamental business principle of product merchandising long embraced by the marketing sector.

Our belief is that individual livestock men will grow and enjoy reasonable financial returns only as they are able to effectively merchandise their products. Outside factors may limit or enhance the degree of financial return, but through merchandising of the live animal or meat product, cattlemen are provided their best opportunity for self-determination of profit levels. And, of course, full research and fulfillment of the buyer's needs-whether cattle buyer or meat consumer-are a basic and major element of effective merchandising.

The plan outlined by the Beef Research and Consumer Information Act would provide cattlemen, collectively, with a vastly expanded, immensely improved merchandising tool. That in itself is enough to win the endorsement and support of the vast majority of livestock marketmen.

COMPATIBLE WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

Another aspect of the plan which marketmen strongly favor is the fact that it is a self-help program, and is, therefore, in the best tradition of private business enterprise. Through the plan, the industry seeks the establishment of a structure to make it possible to collect and invest its own funds in a manner it determines

by referendum to be effective. It seeks no public funds, and, in fact, will pay whatever government expense is entailed in its administration.

AN AMERICAN CATTLE INDUSTRY MILESTONE

It is the opinion of the leadership of our trade body that the Beef Research and Consumer Information Act, when enacted and approved in referendum by the nation's cattle producers, will be one of the milestones in the development of the American cattle production/marketing industry. At one time, the Beef Development Plan can contribute to a more stable economic base for cattlemen, while providing consumers with the greatest possible quality, variety and efficiency in meat products. It is, in that respect, the ideal type of legislationfrom which every citizen stands to gain.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. COPELAND, PRESIDENT, SWIFT FRESH MEATS Co., CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: My name is John A. Copeland. I would like to offer a statement to this subcommittee as an executive of the meat industry. In 1948, I joined the Swift Fresh Meat Company and now serve as President of the company. Since 1964, I have been a Director of the National Live Stock and Meat Board, representing the American Meat Institute and I am the immediate past Chairman of the Meat Board.

I support the "Beef Research and Consumer Information Act." It is my hope that Congress and the Administration will promptly pass and sign this legislation.

I believe this Act, when approved by cattlemen through a referendum, will mark a major step toward strengthening and stabilizing America's beef industry.

The industry now depends on individual state programs and the voluntary investments to the Meat Board to generate needed funding for research, education and product promotion programs. This revenue development procedure, although an admirable one, in my opinion, no longer is adequate to meet the growing needs of the beef industry.

Today, beef production, processing and marketing are national in scope, spanning the entire United States. A calf can be born in Mississippi, fed in Nebraska, processed in Iowa and consumed in Connecticut.

The beef industry now needs an adequate program of research, education and proomtion that is not limited to state or regional areas, but which recognizes the national reality of the industry.

In 1973, while I served as Meat Board Chairman, the beef industry was taught a dramatic lesson on the need for national consumer education programs. A few isolated "consumer boycotts" fueled by mass media communications, promptly developed into a nationwide boycott against beef. The industry tried to get its side of the story across to consumers, but was hampered by inadequate resources and the lack of coordinated, national industry program. I personally have long appreciated the need for adequate research, education and promotion on behalf of beef. I am proud to say my company, Swift Fresh Meats, has this same feeling. When the National Live Stock and Meat Board was created more than 50 years ago, Swift was one of the first industry firms to recognize the Board and participate in its financial support.

I believe the Meat Board, with its Beef Industry Council, has done an excellent job of research, education and promotion, considering the limited resources with which they had to work. But it has always been my feeling that the beef industry needed more and could do more.

I do not expect this Act to automatically eliminate every problem or difficulty which may confront the beef industry. I do, however, expect the unified collection system of the proposed Act to provide the beef industry with the means to secure its national needs and goals.

The Act now being considered by the subcommittee is an opportunity to produce the major national program needed by beef, a major national industry.

STATEMENT OF EARL E. HARRISS, HARRISS FEED YARD, BRAWLEY, CALIF. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: My name is Earl Harriss. I am a cattle feeder from Brawley, California and Chairman of the National Live Stock and Meat

Board. I have also served as Past President of the California Cattle Feeders Association and as a former Director of the American National Cattlemen's Association.

The Meat Board is a non-profit organization representing the entire livestock and meat industry. The Board works for the benefit of all red meat products while a division of the Board, the Beef Industry Council, works strictly for beef.

At a recent meeting, the Meat Board Directorate, which includes Beef Industry Council Directors, voted to fully support and urge the prompt passage of the "Beef Research and Consumer Information Act."

The key words in the Act's title, "Consumer Information" and "Research," are major concerns to the beef industry.

We believe that a well-informed consumer is the strongest ally the beef industry can have. We believe that beef, with its excellent nutritional qualities and palatability, is, and deserves to be, a desirable part of the average diet. We do not want to see beef's role diminished through an inability to adequately present itself to the consumer, especially in the face of increasing promotional activity from competing food sources.

The Meat Board does not expect enactment of this proposal to be the answer to all the problems which face the beef industry. However, the funds raised through this proposed Act will provide the necessary tools to help us solve some of our problems.

Members of the beef industry are well aware that research needs to be done in many areas. Development of new products, marketing research, information on beef's role in nutrition and health and improvements in cattle breeding and raising are just some of the broad areas where work must be initiated and accomplished.

The developments obtained through research will be made known to consumers through expanded education and promotion activities. The Meat Board, after more than 50 years of experience, has learned that informing the public is vital, especially in contemporary society. We have seen our own efforts at consumer education and promotion seriously curtailed by limited resources.

The proposed Act could raise $30 to $40 million for the beef industry. I would like to stress that this money comes from investments by individual cattlemen and will finance projects that ultimately benefit both cattlemen and consumers. Although the potential funds seem like a large sum, and it is more than the industry has had available to it in the past, the industry faces some big tasks. Consider potential education programs alone. There are some 37 million elementary students, 15 million high school students, and 8 million college students in this country. We need to reach these young people, informing them about beef.

We also need to reach the growing adult education field in high schools, colleges, professional societies and extension services.

I'd like to cite one example of opportunity in this important educational endeavor. For the 1974-75 school year, the Meat Board produced an award-winning filmstrip, teacher's guide and education kit on Meat Economics. Teachers and students have been very enthusiastic in the acceptance of the kit, but, because of our limited funds, the Board could only distribute the kits to 4,000 high schools in the Northeastern part of the United States. A few state organizations assisted in limited distribution in the areas. Additional financing as generated by this Act would make educational materials like this available to all students. S. 772 is keeping with the "Pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps" philosophy which is widely held by cattlemen. We are coming to the government only for the necessary legislation to enact our program.

Successful passage of S. 772 and subsequent approval by cattlemen in referendum will be the first steps in dramatically advancing our self-help approach to solving industry problems and forging a stronger bond between the beef producers and the beef consumers of America.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION The National Independent Meat Packers Association is the trade association representing over 300 meat packers and processors in the United States. As our name implies, our membership consists of plants engaged primarily in the meat business. NIMPA represents approximately 65 percent of the beef packing indus

try. For this reason, the proposed Beef Research and Consumer Information Act is of significance to our members.

The beef industry during the past few years has experienced the price freeze, wildly volatile markets, and consumer meat boycotts. Each of these events has left an indelible mark not only on the live cattle market, but on the packers and processors also. In some instances, misunderstanding and lack of market knowledge were major factors in damaging the red meat industry.

The proposed Beef Research and Consumer Information Act, as outlined by the Beef Task Force is a meaningful approach toward easing some of the peaks and valleys lately experienced by our industry. There is a real need for additional channels of communication between industry and the buying public. Increased understanding of the role of meat in the diet is a worthy step in offsetting misinformation. It is here that the proposed legislation could be beneficial. For instance, it is a popular notion that if we quit feeding grain to cattle, more grain will then be available for feeding the hungry world. What is overlooked in this popular misconception is that (1) cattle are ruminants and forage on land not normally arable; (2) in the feedlot stage, cattle utilize feed grains that are inedible as human food; (3) meat and meat products are valuable sources of protein for the major part of our population.

Additional research is needed to establish the nutritional role of meat protein in our daily diet. More and more new meat products will have to be developed as our technology advances. Pure research in the production of different cattle strains as well as in the meat science industry is needed. We must find new approaches to marketing. Each of these areas could conceivably be expanded under the proposed legislation.

NIMPA, in approaching the proposed legislation believes that the basic concept of a beef check-off program to support the previously mentioned ideas, is a sound one. We do believe, however, that the needs of this country and the meat industry can be best served strictly through private enterprise.

Assuming that this proposal goes forward, there are certain areas of concern to our members. Even though it is intended that participation in the program be voluntary, and provisions have been incorporated in the bill for rebates to producers, no such system exists for the packer. We raise this issue because to us our time is valuable. It is the slaughterer who must keep the records, write checks to the Beef Board and, in general, serve as the bookkeeper for the entire added value mechanism. Yet, there is no packer representation on the Beef Board. And, let's not forget-it is primarily meat that is sold to the buying public-after it leaves the producer level.

As we mentioned, the packer must participate on a mandatory basis, unlike the producer, who can, by applying to the Beef Board, receive refunds. Is this equitable? We think not.

We've noted that, as with all national check-off programs, extensive authority exists in the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture. We believe this could lead to increased bureaucratic interference in the free market system. We would expect to receive fair and equitable treatment under the Secretary of Agriculture. Traditionally, the meat industry has been, and still is, highly regulated by the Department. This proposed legislation could possibly result in conflicts of interest in which the Department could not win. In such a situation, the cattlemen, the packer, and the consumer would all lose.

Meat slaughtering plants operate on a quick-in, quick-out premise. For this reason we try, as an industry, to keep our records and books complete, but relatively simple, and obviously in compliance with government regulations. We're concerned that the mandatory labor and additional bookwork necessary for the carrying out of this program should not become burdensome through additional red tape. Too, there should be strong provisions for confidentiality of business records. The vesting of extensive authority in the Secretary and the lack of packer representation on the Beef Board have us apprehensive about future regulations and requirements that may be imposed on the meat packing industry.

SUMMARY

In short, we view this proposed legislation as a worthy concept.

We are apprehensive about (1) the lack of packer representation on the Beef Board; (2) the vesting of extensive and often final authority in the Secretary of Agriculture, and (3) that the mandatory packer bookkeeping with subsequent regulations not become burdensome and overly time consuming.

We appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the members of The National Independent Meat Packers Association.

« PreviousContinue »