I have heard a number of things from retailers. One chain told me they are probably going to have to end up laying off many meatcutters because more of it will be prepackaged. I mentioned that in my remarks. I have retailers telling me they are going to advertise less for beef. One fellow said: I don't want a lot of beef if I have this potential liability. I will simply advertise more for chicken. It will hurt the smaller stores in the more rural areas, and the bigger unionized stores to some extent. In fairness to the Senators who supported this, and in good faith still support it, I want to say a lot depends on how exactly these companies interpret the law and what risk level they are willing to go to. My concern as a lawyer--and I think the Senator would probably agree--is that their general counselors are going to say: We are not going to take a chance. Tell everybody all up and down the production chain, this is what we want from them, and they are going to have to bear the cost.
James M. Talent: “I have heard a number of things from retailers. One chain told me they are probably going to have to end up laying off…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of potential liability on the meat industry during a floor speech.
Share
More from James M. Talent
The military must also, going forward, engage the entirety of American society.
It is unacceptable that now nearly 10 years after September 11, we do not have a comprehensive National strategy to counter the threat that WMD poses to our country.
I think if we don't do that, then the other things that you are working on legislatively--as important as they are, are likely to fail in execution.
My understanding of the science--and I will certainly invite Dr. Cairns and the deputy commissioner to weigh in here--is that probably, of the three, the weaponizing it would be the most difficult but, nevertheless, within the capability…





