• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

AGRI-BUSINESS BUYS COOL IMPEMENTATION

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agri-Business Buys Cool Vote


Don't know how to copy this onto this forum but read the following article. Anyone who can copy it please do to make it easier. It seems funny to me that I can look at the back of my shirt and tell where it is made but I don't know where my meat really comes from.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2045
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,256
Reaction score
41
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Econ101 said:
It seems funny to me that I can look at the back of my shirt and tell where it is made but I don't know where my meat really comes from.

If it looks and tastes like beef, it came from a cow.
If it looks and tastes like mutton, it came from a sheep.
If it looks and tastes like pork, it came from a hog.
If it looks and tastes like chicken, it could be from a chicken, or it could be from any number of other critters, from rabbits to rattlesnakes.

Hope this helps. :wink:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Econ101 said:
Agri-Business Buys Cool Vote


Don't know how to copy this onto this forum but read the following article. Anyone who can copy it please do to make it easier. It seems funny to me that I can look at the back of my shirt and tell where it is made but I don't know where my meat really comes from.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2045





Entire Site ---------------- Health ResearchTrade WatchCongress WatchLitigation GroupCritical MassAuto SafetyCaliforniaTexas

For Keyword(s)

advanced search


Keep up with Public Citizen through
your E-mail!


JOIN US! |Take Action | Publications | Contact Us





Sept. 13, 2005

As Senate Nears Vote on Agriculture Agency’s Appropriations, Industry Cash Speaks Louder than Consumers’ Voices

New Analysis Shows How Millions of Dollars Spent in Lobbying and Elections Has Helped Thwart Key Food Labeling Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the Senate prepares to vote this week on its version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) budget, a new Public Citizen investigation released today illustrates how big agribusiness used millions of dollars in lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, and a network of Washington insiders with close connections to the Bush administration and Congress, to thwart a consumer-friendly provision mandating country-of-origin labeling, popularly known as COOL.

Mandatory country-of-origin labeling would require beef, pork, lamb, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, fish, and peanuts to be labeled with where they were raised, grown or produced. Although the 2002 Farm Bill stipulated that the new program be implemented by September 2004, mandatory COOL has been postponed by Congress – where lawmakers are under intense pressure from the meat and grocery industries – for two years. In June, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to once again delay COOL’s implementation for meat until 2007. Industry is strongly lobbying the Senate to either delay the funding for the USDA to work on COOL or turn it into a “voluntary” program.

“If you ask consumers, they’ll tell you they want COOL, but it’s apparent that Congress isn’t listening. We’ve already watched members of the House dismiss their constituents by voting to delay this important consumer act. We urge the Senate not to follow in their footsteps,” said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s food program. “Consumers deserve to know where their meat is produced, and in light of all the problems our food system faces on a daily basis, COOL would serve as a vital precautionary measure.”

Public Citizen analyzed donations from 19 companies and trade associations, each of which has announced opposition to mandatory country-of-origin labeling and has registered to lobby against COOL. They have contributed a total of $12.6 million to candidates for Congress and in soft money to the Republican and Democratic parties since 2000.

These companies have focused their giving on 65 members of Congress who have sponsored a bill to replace the mandatory country-of-origin requirement with a voluntary one, which is considerably weaker and does not empower consumers with the right to know where their food is from. Instead, it offers industry a way to hide critical information from the public. These 65 members, accounting for only 12 percent of Congress, have received 29 percent of contributions to candidates from the COOL foes.

Among the investigation’s other findings:

Twenty-one companies and trade organizations that outspokenly oppose the mandatory COOL law and have registered to lobby against it have spent a total of $29.2 million to lobby Congress and the executive branch on COOL and other issues from 2000 to 2004. These groups are some of the biggest names in agribusiness and include the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), Wal-Mart, Cargill, Tyson Foods, the American Meat Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
These companies have marshaled an army of at least 160 lobbyists to oppose COOL. Among these lobbyists, at least 45 – or 28 percent – previously held positions in the federal government, many working on key agriculture issues such as COOL.
Key lobbyists from the meat industry who fought COOL before it became law later were hired in strategic positions at the USDA, which was charged with crafting the regulations to implement COOL. Under their watch the agency estimated an initial one-year implementation cost of up to $3.9 billion, with few benefits, which served to bolster critic’s views that COOL would be too expensive to warrant implementing.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the voluntary COOL bill. He has received $38,250 from the COOL opponents, all of which was contributed during his inaugural 2002 Senate race. COOL foes may have relied on a special connection to lasso their man. Among the lobbyists employed by the NCBA to work on the COOL issue in the second half of 2004 was Colin Woodall. Until April of that year, Woodall worked for Cornyn on agriculture appropriations issues. The voluntary COOL bill Cornyn introduced in June 2005 appears to match the NCBA’s demands.
Well-placed Reps. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) have been the two ringleaders in the effort to delay, and ultimately derail, COOL. And they have been well supported by agribusiness interests. Bonilla has received more than $167,000 from COOL opponents in the last three election cycles, making him their top beneficiary. As the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, he has twice delayed the start date for the COOL program. Bonilla’s delaying tactics have enabled Cornyn and Goodlatte, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, to build support for their legislation, which would make the mandatory labeling program voluntary – at least for meat products – effectively killing it. Goodlatte’s actions have greatly pleased industry, which has given him more than $103,000 in the last three election cycles, ranking him No. 3 in the amount of contributions COOL opponents gave to sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation.
One revealing example of the influence of money in politics lies in Arkansas, where lawmakers strongly supported country-of-origin labels for all food because of the state’s catfish industry, which has suffered in recent years by an influx of a catfish-like species from Vietnam. But once the delegation got its way on fish labels, support disappeared for broader COOL legislation. All six members of the delegation are co-sponsoring a bill that would end the requirement for COOL labeling of meat. They received $338,500 from COOL foes in the last three election cycles. Also, among sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation, the Arkansas delegation accounted for the only three Democrats among the top 30 recipients of contributions from COOL opponents: Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Reps. Marion Berry and Mike Ross.

“It is easy to understand how money works against consumers’ interests in politics by considering that the COOL legislation made it through Congress with a strong show of support a few years ago, only to be corralled by a strong industry lobbying effort capped by a cornucopia of campaign cash,” said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.

To read the report, Tabled Labels: Consumers Eat Blind While Congress Feasts on Campaign Cash, click here.

###





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Pressroom Index>>






» pressroom



Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight, click here.


Join | Contact PC | Contribute | Site Map | Careers/Internships| Privacy Statement
 

Twotimer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Location
north of Texas
Soapweed said:
Econ101 said:
It seems funny to me that I can look at the back of my shirt and tell where it is made but I don't know where my meat really comes from.

If it looks and tastes like beef, it came from a cow.
If it looks and tastes like mutton, it came from a sheep.
If it looks and tastes like pork, it came from a hog.
If it looks and tastes like chicken, it could be from a chicken, or it could be from any number of other critters, from rabbits to rattlesnakes.

Hope this helps. :wink:

It is funny that I said the same thing as Econ101. As consumers, the fact that we noticed over the last 5 - 8 years that our clothing increasingly had "Made in China" "Made in Hong Kong" "Made in Mariana Islands" labels has accustomed us to think we SHOULD know where goods come from. It has also made me concerned about the trade deficit in a very concrete way. When I heard that they were proposing labelling meat, I could not believe that clothes were labelled and meat was not...
 

Clarence

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central Sd
Frog legs taste like chicken, Turtle tastes like chicken. I don't know what rattlesnake tastes like, probably like rattlesnake. If it tastes like chicken, I'll just eat chicken.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Clarence said:
Frog legs taste like chicken, Turtle tastes like chicken. I don't know what rattlesnake tastes like, probably like rattlesnake. If it tastes like chicken, I'll just eat chicken.

Clarence,

Rattlesnake tastes like chicken necks.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Yep, and if you ask the average consumer in the big cities, where their milk comes from, they will tell you "the carton", or the "supermarket"

They may tell you "cool" matters, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, it doesn't matter two hoots. (if it did, they wouldn't buy foreign made products)

How many US consumers are checking the tags in the back of their shirts, might be the 10%, that are worried about the Rain forest depletion.

A US made shirt doesn't last any longer than a Chinese made shirt. The advantage is the cost of labour that went into the consumer good. (actuall, one sewn by hand might even last longer)

And as liberal orgs. like Unions maintain to keep us hostage, we'll pay more for American/Canadian consumer goods.

Why pay someone for what they produce and how they perform? Let's just pay them for being present at role call? Motivation goes out the window, production and efficiency goes out the window, and we lose price competitiveness with the bath water.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Murgen said:
Yep, and if you ask the average consumer in the big cities, where their milk comes from, they will tell you "the carton", or the "supermarket"

They may tell you "cool" matters, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, it doesn't matter two hoots. (if it did, they wouldn't buy foreign made products)

How many US consumers are checking the tags in the back of their shirts, might be the 10%, that are worried about the Rain forest depletion.

A US made shirt doesn't last any longer than a Chinese made shirt. The advantage is the cost of labour that went into the consumer good. (actuall, one sewn by hand might even last longer)

And as liberal orgs. like Unions maintain to keep us hostage, we'll pay more for American/Canadian consumer goods.

Why pay someone for what they produce and how they perform? Let's just pay them for being present at role call? Motivation goes out the window, production and efficiency goes out the window, and we lose price competitiveness with the bath water.

I would say you are right about most of that but there are some problems with producer's surplus when it comes to fiscal policy. I did some research on international exchange rates and commodity purchases way back in the ole college days. At that time, the exchange rates did not matter that much. It was a question as to what the U.S. wanted to sell to someone else to dump extra commodites. They subsidized the exports and essentially paid countries to buy our commodities. With the U.S. federal deficit being financed internationally- and a lot by the Chinese, the U.S. is selling out its producers when they do not make the yuan float. China is essentially using its government totalitarian structure and international exchange policy to buy U.S. and Canadian production. Cheap labor is a part of that but not all. I am interested in the producer surplus for all producers: Canadian producers, U.S. Producers, and Chinese producers.

I do not think that it is necessarily a good thing when the U.S. engages in this type of policy when it runs up huge deficits. Basically it says--totalitarian communists, we will use your cheap labor for our own benefit. Sometimes the cheapness of foreign goods is not because of efficiencies or quality. Sometimes it is just because it helps an overspending administration pass the costs of overspending down to its own producers instead of facing the consequences of its actions through inflation. It is something to think about that the parts of the third world are financing the U.S. deficit.

Don't count me as a liberal. If you knew me you would realize I am a REAL conservative, not just someone who calls himself one for political purposes. Neither conservatives or liberals should hide behind what those words meant in the past. What is the difference between a religiously conservative person who is a hypocrite and asks for forgiveness and a liberal?

I think they are just terms meant to bring up some constituancy. I don't buy either one of them anymore.

Same thing with communism, socialism, capitalism. Personally I think we should all be all three. I happen to be a capitalist in business, a socialist at church, and a co-totalitarian communist dictator with my wife at home. Since my kids are getting into their teens that is changing too.

If COOL did not matter, there wouldn't be such a fuss about it. Again, I think it has the possibility of making governments more accountable in their policing of food safety and that is something we must all applaud. My concerns are more of market inefficiencies and producers surplus but food safety has its place in that argument also.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
From a 2000 FSIS Report- I guess in SH.. 's way of thinking NCBA must have been lying.....When R-CALF put out these same type of statistics they are liars, deceivers and fear mongers :wink:

National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)
NCBA has announced publicly some of the findings of a national consumer poll conducted in November 1998 by Wirthlin Worldwide which showed that consumers overwhelmingly support the concept of putting country of origin labels on fresh meat in the supermarket.

According to NCBA, a follow-up poll in March 1999 found statistically identical results for consumer support of putting country of origin labels on fresh meat in the supermarket. According to NCBA, in the March 1999 poll, 86 percent of consumers agreed with a statement that the United States should require labels on meat that show country of origin. According to NCBA, 24 percent agreed with the statement that country of origin labels were unnecessary.

Faced with a choice between beef with labels stating "Product of the United States" and "Imported Product," NCBA has said that the poll results show that 91 percent of consumers said they would choose the "Product of the United States," 1 percent would choose the "Imported Product," and 6 percent said it did not matter. Of those who would choose United States beef, 69 percent said they would do so because they prefer "to buy American," "loyalty to the United States," "to support United States businesses," and "to support our farmers." Another 13 percent thought United States beef would be safer and 9 percent felt it would be of higher quality.

The NCBA also tracks the economics of the cattle market. In part, the economics of the domestic cattle farming and ranching situation has created a climate where country of origin labeling is viewed as part of the solution for correcting low prices for cattle ranchers and for creating stronger markets for United States cattle. The NCBA is part of a larger coalition of stakeholders who view country of origin labeling as an important tool for building a stronger market for American farmers and ranchers.

 
A

Anonymous

Guest
In reading the entire Public Citizen report one item really stands out--

21 companies spent $29.2 million hiring 160 lobbyists to fight mandatory COOL--Of these Walmart Store, the Food Marketing Institute, and NCBA spent over a $million each.....

Looks to me like if NCBA and these food groups were really being truthful about wanting a voluntary COOL, that this $29.2 could have went a long ways toward having it up and running - which would make the mandatory issue moot....Must be more than that then....
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Seems to me Rcalf has another one of "those fights" on their hands. Their injunction to keep the border closed to Canadian live cattle only helped the enemy they proclaimed as the packers.

To me cool will only help the enemy they proclaim to be the Canadian producer.

Bring on cool. People are people, and choice is their right in the free world. Canadian beef's reputation is strong and will only be stronger after cool or even Mcool.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ. 101: "It seems funny to me that I can look at the back of my shirt and tell where it is made but I don't know where my meat really comes from."

Then buy source verified beef instead of always looking to government mandates to solve your "PERCEIVED" problems.


OT's poll:

Faced with a choice between beef with labels stating "Product of the United States" and "Imported Product," NCBA has said that the poll results show that 91 percent of consumers said they would choose the "Product of the United States," 1 percent would choose the "Imported Product," and 6 percent said it did not matter. Of those who would choose United States beef, 69 percent said they would do so because they prefer "to buy American," "loyalty to the United States," "to support United States businesses," and "to support our farmers." Another 13 percent thought United States beef would be safer and 9 percent felt it would be of higher quality.

I suppose that would explain why Walmart has been so successful selling foreign products huh?

A poll was also conducted in Colorado that said consumers would prefer U.S. beef yet Mike Callicrate's Ranch Foods Direct "born, raised, and processed in the U.S." branded beef products, BEING SOLD IN COLORADO, are suffering from "consumer apathy" according to R-CULT's publication.

Yup, real credibility there!

Talk is cheap and no cheaper than from OT!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Econ. 101: "It seems funny to me that I can look at the back of my shirt and tell where it is made but I don't know where my meat really comes from."

Then buy source verified beef instead of always looking to government mandates to solve your "PERCEIVED" problems.


OT's poll:

Faced with a choice between beef with labels stating "Product of the United States" and "Imported Product," NCBA has said that the poll results show that 91 percent of consumers said they would choose the "Product of the United States," 1 percent would choose the "Imported Product," and 6 percent said it did not matter. Of those who would choose United States beef, 69 percent said they would do so because they prefer "to buy American," "loyalty to the United States," "to support United States businesses," and "to support our farmers." Another 13 percent thought United States beef would be safer and 9 percent felt it would be of higher quality.

I suppose that would explain why Walmart has been so successful selling foreign products huh?

A poll was also conducted in Colorado that said consumers would prefer U.S. beef yet Mike Callicrate's Ranch Foods Direct "born, raised, and processed in the U.S." branded beef products, BEING SOLD IN COLORADO, are suffering from "consumer apathy" according to R-CULT's publication.

Yup, real credibility there!

Talk is cheap and no cheaper than from OT!


~SH~

SH.. The poll you question came from NCBA-- Are they lying to us?-- Or were they deceiving and trying to mislead? If their facts are wrong they must be liars under your definition- if not they were deceiving FSIS and producers.....Or If the NCBA and all their experts were just wrong about M-COOL and its benefits, to create their giant flipitty flop- then they must be the most inept group around.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SH.. The poll you question came from NCBA-- Are they lying to us?-- Or were they deceiving and trying to mislead? If their facts are wrong they must be liars under your definition- if not they were deceiving FSIS and producers.....Or If the NCBA and all their experts were just wrong about M-COOL and its benefits, to create their giant flipitty flop- then they must be the most inept group around...
..

I don't care what the survey results were OT and I don't care who conducted them. There is a big difference between what consumers SAY they will purchase and what consumers actually DO purchase. That is the misleading aspect of this poll.

To present the results of the poll is not misleading. What is misleading is for anyone to suggest that this poll is an actual reflection of what consumers actually purchase.

LOOK NO FURTHER THAN WALMART'S "MADE IN CHINA" PRODUCTS!

The results of the poll may be an accurate reflection of what consumers SAID THEY WOULD PURCHASE but they are not an accurate reflection of what consumers ACTUALLY DO PURCHASE.

FACT: Very few consumers base their purchasing decisions on Country of Origin labeling. There is no greater proof of that than actual consumer purchases.

You support the results of this poll because it supports your "FLAWED COOL" bias.

I support the results of actual consumer purchases because that is "REAL WORLD".

If NCBA promoted this poll as representative of actual consumer purchases, you damn right it was misleading. Is that what NCBA did?

I'm not a clone to my chosen organization like you are OT! I can and do think for myself.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SH.. I wonder why all the corporate and political world hire these pollsters-- they must not have heard your theory...Just think of the millions you could save the corporate world if you'd just give them a little of your advice :wink:

Lets see- Wirthlin Worldwide is wrong- public citizen is wrong- NCBA is wrong- consumers union is wrong- R-CALF must definitely be wrong--And ol SH.. is always right :???: :roll: :lol: :lol: I now understand...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Oldtimer said:
SH.. I wonder why all the corporate and political world hire these pollsters-- they must not have heard your theory...Just think of the millions you could save the corporate world if you'd just give them a little of your advice :wink:

Lets see- Wirthlin Worldwide is wrong- public citizen is wrong- NCBA is wrong- consumers union is wrong- R-CALF must definitely be wrong--And ol SH.. is always right :???: :roll: :lol: :lol: I now understand...

It's about time you figured it out, O.T. Like SH says, his "record of accuracy" speaks for itself. :roll: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Which would be more reflective of what consumers purchase OT:

1. Actual consumer purchases regarding country of origin?

2. A poll that asks consumers if they prefer U.S. products?


You can't answer that honestly can you?

I didn't think so!



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Which would be more reflective of what consumers purchase OT:

1. Actual consumer purchases regarding country of origin?

2. A poll that asks consumers if they prefer U.S. products?


You can't answer that honestly can you?

I didn't think so!



~SH~

So why does Gallup and all the other poll masters do so well? They would not be being used if they were not beneficial...

Purchases can't show actual country preference when you have so many items that are no longer made in the US- sold out to cheap labor in the name of free trade...We do have US born, raised and slaughtered beef- but consumers are denied that choice too.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Did you fail to understand the question?

Which one OT?



~SH~

SH, Consumers have to have that choice in the supermarkets they visit. If Walmart is the only meat market in town then there is no choice. Walmart made a reputation of selling American made when Sam was around. His kids rode that reputation. I know that for fresh food, including meat, I do not shop Walmart anymore. They tried to make too much money and lower the price. Problem was, they lowered the quality too and started painting the meat to look good. Not a very good paint job either. Just like a ride down the supply curve, things will right themselves eventually.
 

Latest posts

Top