Something that is worth some serious reflection: Does anyone seriously believe—in a time of significant food inflation, high general inflation, high interest rates and recession fears—that a political administration that had more control over the beef marketing system would allow the prices and returns cattle feeders and cow/calf operators are getting now?
USDA has talked about taking away premiums and discounts for carcasses, forcing packers and feeders to sell cattle differently or in different percentages, breaking up the big packers, etc., etc.
In other words, the feds in power now don’t like the free-market system and don’t like supply and demand markets that are finalized by consumers instead of government controls.
I don’t like the fact that the markets we’re seeing now are partially caused by years of drought in the western half of the U.S., cutting the supply of cattle and, in some cases, forcing cutbacks or elimination of some operations. But having Mother Nature in control is really the way things work, regardless of what “woke” climate change zealots claim. As tough as Mother Nature can be, I’d rather have her in control than a politician, federal official or agency.
Which brings up another point: we’re supposed to have a farm bill this year. I can remember when farm bill time was the only time—every five years—that Washington politicians and agencies gave any attention to agriculture. They weren’t much interested the rest of the time.
Now, they come up with all kinds of angles to justify telling farmers and ranchers—indeed, the entire food production chain—either how they should be doing things or what mandates are next.
NCBA pointed out that every activist political movement and fringe ag group imaginable now tries to get some amendment in the farm bill. It is all designed to give the federal government more power, restrict the entrepreneurship and innovation of agriculture or mandate something different from the methods food producers themselves have evolved to produce more and higher quality food. Some continue attacks on checkoffs that have fostered today’s quality and productivity, falsely claiming they lobby for giant, non-existent “monopolies.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has told the Senate that permitting reform will be a key issue for collaboration with Republicans in July.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) traded his vote for the Inflation Reduction Act last year in exchange for Schumer’s commitment to bring a permitting reform bill to the floor. Congress passed legislation to speed up the permitting process as part of the debt ceiling bill, but Democrats want to allow more power lines and Republicans are seeking to limit lawsuits blocking infrastructure projects, according to The Hill.
The Hill also reports that environmental groups opposed to fossil fuels have sued the Environmental Protection Agency, alleging that officials have allowed the state of Colorado to persistently violate air quality standards. Concentrations of ground-level ozone, also known as smog, have surpassed acceptable air quality levels, the suit alleges, due to Colorado’s “inadequate response” to pollution generated by fracking oil and gas.
Tyson made a significant move recently, announcing it is removing its “no antibiotics ever” label on chicken in order to use ionophores to control coccidiosis. The U.S. classifies ionophores as antibiotics, although most of the world does not. Tyson made it clear it would not be using therapeutic antibiotics or antibiotics used in human medicine.
It will be very fascinating to see what the consumer reaction is. The beef industry could benefit from consumers learning that ionophores are not in the same category as therapeutic antibiotics, since we use them for growth promotants.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget have released a white paper projecting that there will be almost no economic impact from climate change by 2100. The consensus of 10 out of 12 outside economic studies showed the increase of 2.2 degrees F since 1950 has impacted the GDP by 0.5%, while the GDP grew 800%. If temperatures rise by 4.5 degrees F by 2100, the effect on GDP could be 2%.
Economic modeling combined with climate modeling is a “doubly dismal” undertaking, the Wall Street Journal quipped.
For proof, consider the inaccuracy of modeling by the Federal Reserve and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
So, if global warming is really not going to make any significant economic difference, and they’ve already admitted it’s not going to appreciably change the planet’s climate, why have we spent or are planning to spend some $5-6 trillion to diminish it by so little? — Steve Dittmer, WLJ columnist
(Steve Dittmer is the author of the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation newsletter. Views in the column do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of WLJ or its editorial staff.)
