No Big Mac Fast Track Attack
News from the Northern Plains Resource Council

Already, nearly 20% of the beef consumed in this nation is imported.  Apparently this isn’t enough for the McDonald’s Corporation, which recently announced plans to import even more.

This move by McDonald’s comes on the eve of the debate on whether Congress will pass Fast Track trade negotiating authority, thereby giving away its constitutional right to scrutinize new trade agreements.  Passing Fast Track would grease the wheels for the President to push through the pending Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA), which would expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to 31 countries in Central and South America.

President Bush—like President Clinton before him—wants Fast Track because it would make his job easier by taking democracy  out of the picture.  It would block all but two congressional committees from reviewing the broad range of potential impacts of FTAA and other future trade deals.  It would ban Congress from offering any amendments to future trade agreements.  And, it would limit debate on trade legislation to 20 hours each in the House and the Senate.

If you want an idea of what happens when Fast Track cuts Congress out of the trade debate, you need look no further than NAFTA and the overwhelming economic losses suffered by U.S. farmers and ranchers have since it passed.  Since NAFTA: 

McDonald’s argues that there’s a shortage of lean beef from American ranchers to justify its decision to import more beef.  Yet if there is such a shortage, why hasn’t the price of the domestic cull cow market gone up in response?  If the United States becomes even more dependent upon imported food, how much more vulnerable will our food supply be to bio-terrorists attacks?    

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) supports Fast Track.  NCBA claims we must accept more imports if we expect to export beef.  However, importing beef from South America—or anywhere else—has nothing to do with exporting beef to Japan, Korea or Taiwan.  These are two different beef markets:  the U.S. exports high quality beefsteaks for international hotel chains catering to rich tourists; we import low quality hamburger cuts for fast food chains like McDonald’s.  American ranchers never see the higher prices for those high-end export steaks, because the monopoly power of the big packers allows them to skim the profits off the top.  Meanwhile, that same monopoly power allows the packers to beat domestic cattle prices down with cheap imports.

Imported beef has already put great downward pressure on domestic cull cow prices.  This will only get worse if NAFTA is expanded to South America.  USDA estimates that the cost of Brazilian beef is 35 cents per pound, while American beef costs 76 cents.  Brazil has the largest commercial beef herd in world, and Brazil—like everyone else—is looking to the United States as the major market for its beef.  The math is simple:  importing more cheap beef will lower the price U.S. ranchers get for cull cows even further.

Brazilian beef is cheaper to produce than U.S. beef because American ranchers pay property taxes for our schools, roads, and sheriff departments.  If American ranchers didn’t pay our fair share of taxes for the infrastructure that makes this country a great place to live, then we could raise beef as cheaply as Brazil.  But then, where would that leave our rural communities?

The Senate is expected to vote on Fast Track by Memorial Day.  If it passes, it will have to go back to the House for another vote. 

Gilles Stockton
Agriculture Task Force Chairman
Northern Plains Resource Council
Grassrange, MT