Lambs 2001

Originally from: Rosemary Thompson
                        
please understand about the lambs they are not new born they are now up to six months old. This is the time they would normally enter the food chain.the lambs on our farm have not been able to return to their summer grazing ie moor land we will shortly have nothing for them to eat. we have not been able to make hay as the sheep are in the meadow land we would usually crop so feeding them this autumn/winter would be impossible We have spent far more than £10 on each lamb Please understand this is not an easy way out for us and many more farmers but what are the options Rosemary Thompson 01833 650414

Originally from: Joyce
                        
I wrote of the options for these lambs yesterday, may have been on another group....Why can't they be used in Britain....small family joints, pies and pet food....we must be importing tons of meat for these items...how about badgering the supermarkets, the forces who supposedly eat South American meat, and BAN IMPORTS immediately. What we normally import could go to those that we usually supply.
If there is any point in having a 'common market' surely this is the time it should be used. Joyce

Originally from: Bryn Wayt
                        
Hello Rosemary,

This government sickens me every second of the day !

When the USA thought its "market" was being threatened by NZ and Australian lambs they reacted by restricting IMPORTS.

Tell your MP to get his finger out and tell tiny brain Blair to do the same to protect OUR bloody market, and stuff this IMPORT crap.

Here's the reference material.

Best of luck, and best wishes,

Bryn
01435 864937
...

*EPF403 07/08/99
TEXT: U.S. RESTRICTS IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND LAMB
(New schedule of tariffs, quotas applicable for three years) (1520)

Washington -- The White House announced July 7 that it is imposing penalty tariffs and quotas in order to protect the U.S. lamb meat industry from the threat posed by increased imports from countries such as New Zealand and Australia.

The White House has set a three-year schedule of new tariffs and quotas to go into effect starting July 22, 1999: for the first year, the first 31,851,151 kilograms (kg) of lamb will be subjected to a 9 percent tariff; for the second year, the quota will be raised to 32,708,493 kg of lamb and the tariff reduced to 6 percent; for the third year, the quota will be raised to 33,565,835 kg of lamb and the tariff reduced to 3 percent.

Above-quota imports will be subjected to tariffs of 40 percent in the first year, 32 percent in the second year, and 24 percent in the third year.

Imports of lamb meat from New Zealand and Australia are the primary targets of the new schedule. The White House announcement specifically excludes lamb imports from Canada, Mexico, Israel, beneficiary countries under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, beneficiary countries under the Andean Trade Preference Act, and other developing countries that have accounted for a minor share of lamb meat imports to the U.S.

The President has taken this action under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974. The Trade Act of 1974, enacted by the U.S. Congress in late 1974 and signed into law on January 3, 1975, granted the President broad authority to protect American industry and workers against unfair or injurious import competition; and to provide "adjustment assistance" to industries, workers and communities injured or threatened by increased imports.

Criteria for import relief, found under sections 201–204 of the act, are based on those in article XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), as further defined in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Safeguards. Article XIX of the GATT is sometimes referred to as the "escape clause" because it permits a country to "escape" temporarily from its obligations under the GATT (and WTO) with respect to a particular product when increased imports of that product are causing or are threatening to cause serious injury to domestic producers. Section 201 provides the legal framework under U.S. law for the President to invoke U.S. rights under article XIX.

Sections 201–204 of the act do not require a finding of an unfair trade practice, as do U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. However, the injury test under sections 201–204 is considered to be more difficult than those of the unfair trade statutes. Sections 201–204 require the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to investigate whether an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to a domestic industry. The President has discretion to follow the USITC's recommendation on relief, which cannot exceed a total period of eight years, including extensions. Relief normally takes the form of temporary import restrictions (tariffs, quotas, or tariff-rate quotas) or trade adjustment assistance. During the relief period, USITC will continue to advise the President on the effects of reducing, modifying or terminating the relief actions.

Following is the official text of the White House statement:

(begin text)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Rapid City, South Dakota)

July 7, 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL

SUBJECT: Action Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 Concerning Lamb Meat

On April 5, 1999, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) submitted a report to me that contained: (1) a determination pursuant to section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the "Trade Act"), that imports of lamb meat are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of threat of serious injury to the domestic lamb meat industry; and (2) negative findings made pursuant to section 311(a) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the "NAFTA Implementation Act") with respect to imports of lamb meat from Canada and Mexico.

After considering all relevant aspects of the investigation, including the factors set forth in section 203(a)(2) of the Trade Act, I have implemented actions of a type described in section 203(a)(3). I have determined that the most appropriate action is a tariff-rate quota on imports of lamb meat with an increase in currently scheduled rates of duties for imports within and above the tariff-rate quota level. I have proclaimed such action for a period of 3 years and 1 day in order to facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.

Specifically, I have established a tariff-rate quota for lamb meat in an amount equal to 31,851,151 kg. in the first year (July 22, 1999, through July 21, 2000), an amount that is equal to imports of lamb meat during calendar year 1998. The tariff-rate quota amount will increase by 857,342 kg. annually in the second and third years of relief. I have also established individual country allocations for product imported from Australia, New Zealand, and an "other country" category within the tariff-rate quota, which reflect the actual shares of each country in calendar year 1998. I have established increased rates of duty for imports within the tariff-rate quota amount: namely 9 percent ad valorem for imports in the first year of relief; 6 percent ad valorem for imports in the second year; and 3 percent ad valorem for imports in the third year. I have established increased rates of duty for imports above the tariff-rate quota levels: namely, 40 percent ad valorem in the first year of relief, 32 percent ad valorem in the second year, and 24 percent ad valorem in the third year.

I have also determined that implementation of adjustment assistance measures based on authorized programs of the Department of Agriculture will facilitate efforts by the domestic lamb meat industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition. In this regard, I instruct the United States Trade Representative (the USTR), the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director of the National Economic Council, in consultation with the U.S. industry, to transmit to me a set of substantial adjustment assistance measures that would improve the competitiveness of the U.S. industry and facilitate efforts by the industry to adjust to import competition.

I further determine, pursuant to section 312(a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act, that imports of lamb meat produced in Canada and Mexico do not account for a substantial share of total imports of lamb meat and are not contributing importantly to the threat of serious injury. Therefore, pursuant to section 312(b) of the NAFTA Implementation Act, the safeguard measure will not apply to imports of lamb meat, whether fresh/chilled or frozen, that are the product of Canada or Mexico. Similarly, the safeguard measure will not apply to imports of lamb meat that are the product of Israel, beneficiary countries under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act or the Andean Trade Preference Act, or other developing countries that have accounted for a minor share of lamb meat imports.

I have determined that the actions described above will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs. These actions will provide the domestic industry with necessary temporary relief from increasing import competition as well as assistance from existing U.S. Government programs, while also assuring our trading partners continued access to the United States market. The over-quota tariff rates I have established will provide substantial certainty to the domestic lamb industry regarding import levels.

Pursuant to section 204 of the Trade Act, the USITC will monitor developments with respect to the domestic industry, including the progress and specific efforts made by workers and firms to make a positive adjustment to import competition. The USITC will provide to me and to the Congress a report on the results of its monitoring no later than the date that is the mid-point of the period during which the action I have taken under section 203 of the Trade Act is in effect. In this regard, I instruct the USTR, in consultation with the Secretary, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to transmit to the USITC no later than 30 days from today a list of benchmarks that the USTR recommends that the USITC use in connection with its monitoring and in preparing its report. These benchmarks are to be focused on industry efforts to adjust to import competition and on price trends for domestic and imported lamb meat.

The United States Trade Representative is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

(end text)
                        

Originally from: dianadawn
                        
How I agree with you Joyce. I think that we need to ban imports immediately and then there would be a market here for our own animals. Would have thought it to be common sense. We are not able to export any meat at this moment, so why in heaven's name are we still importing it? Excuse the 'french' but what a bloody stupid situation. If someone gets back to me and says 'if we stop importing now, we shall never get those markets back', my answer to that is 'SO WHAT!' Vaccinate and to hell with the export market. Then everybody would have to eat British meat and a good job too!
Love 'Angry Di'

Originally from: jon
                        
Dear Rosemary

The problem is more complicated than it appears on the surface to most people. The fact that your compensation will not match your investment, the fact that Uk's hands are tied on imports as trade agreements are bound by law is terrible. I spoke to Bernard Mathews, Asda, Safeway and TEsco last year about why they should not support the domestic lamb market and the concensus of opinion was that the packing industry was not willing to provide the cuts of lamb, and they didn't want the unfinished carcass. I've still got the letters and am going to produce a pack which I will be send to NFU/Defra.

What I am also concerned about is the method of slaughter. Defra's own guidance and the Humane Slaughter Assoc. both state that young lambs should not be slaughtered with captive bolt as their skulls are still soft and will not provide the concussive affect. I am going to check with the HSA later from what stage in the animals life the captive bolt can be used.

I think that there should be some major campaigning to bring in more meat packing industry to take on the domestic market and then supply to supermarkets – it seems illogical that NZ lamb with all the transport costs included is easier for the end market to source and cheaper to buy. There are apparently Eu grants available to provide meat packing training/investment here. As far as Bernard Mathews were concerned and I have this in writing, they approached 7 Uk suppliers and were either laughed at or never got a quotation.

There is also the drop in animal welfare standards to be considered once the Uk lambs leave our shores.

There is a considerable debate at the moment towards a Swedish system where there are local abbatoirs, no imports, no exports, local movements, more organic and same price.

Regards
Jon

From: ...

Originally from: rosemary thompson <...> Reply-To: ...

Originally from: David
                        
Joyce,

You have hit the nail on the head! The reason it is not happening is because there is no political will to make it happen. The underlining reason is, it is probably cheaper to import

David

Originally from: jon
                        
Dear Rosemary

The problem is more complicated than it appears on the surface to most people. The fact that your compensation will not match your investment, the fact that Uk's hands are tied on imports as trade agreements are bound by law is terrible. I spoke to Bernard Mathews, Asda, Safeway and TEsco last year about why they should not support the domestic lamb market and the concensus of opinion was that the packing industry was not willing to provide the cuts of lamb, and they didn't want the unfinished carcass. I've still got the letters and am going to produce a pack which I will be send to NFU/Defra.

What I am also concerned about is the method of slaughter. Defra's own guidance and the Humane Slaughter Assoc. both state that young lambs should not be slaughtered with captive bolt as their skulls are still soft and will not provide the concussive affect. I am going to check with the HSA later from what stage in the animals life the captive bolt can be used.

I think that there should be some major campaigning to bring in more meat packing industry to take on the domestic market and then supply to supermarkets – it seems illogical that NZ lamb with all the transport costs included is easier for the end market to source and cheaper to buy. There are apparently Eu grants available to provide meat packing training/investment here. As far as Bernard Mathews were concerned and I have this in writing, they approached 7 Uk suppliers and were either laughed at or never got a quotation.

There is also the drop in animal welfare standards to be considered once the Uk lambs leave our shores.

There is a considerable debate at the moment towards a Swedish system where there are local abbatoirs, no imports, no exports, local movements, more organic and same price.

Regards
Jon

From: ...

Originally from: rosemary thompson <...> Reply-To: ...