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

AMI Making Waves About COOL

Mike

Well-known member
AMI, FMI Make Waves With COOL Preparations

Troy Marshall

Jun 22, 2007 1:40 PM


The run-up to the scheduled implementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) has drawn a bit more heated rhetoric recently. Two weeks ago, the American Meat Institute and the Food Marketing Institute sent letters detailing the verifiable auditable paper trails, indemnification of liability and the like that they will be demanding from suppliers. While this is nothing new, it sparked some reaction because people are beginning to realize that the implementation date is just around the corner -- September 2008.

Quite a few of the calves born this spring will be marketed past the COOL implementation date, so producers need to be putting together their documentation and paper trails right now. While there was a similar chorus of complaints about how this doesn't have to be complicated, there is also a growing understanding that the problem was that COOL is a very bad piece of legislation. Expect the impetus to correct the law to make it more workable to grow exponentially as the implementation date draws nearer.

Ironically COOL as written has been like a giant game of chicken. Proponents of COOL kept hoping USDA or someone could somehow circumvent the law and it make it workable, because they didn't want to risk reopening the subject.

Opponents didn't want to address the issues either. Their belief is the law is so poorly written and implementation will be so difficult that it effectively will kill itself. Neither side wants the bill as written to actually be implemented.

Meanwhile, AMI this week placed an ad in Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, urging readers to "peel away the rhetorical wrapping paper" on mandatory COOL "and see that the costly and burdensome law is actually an effort to block meat and livestock exports from other countries."

Questioning the notion that consumers are willing to pay more for products that tell where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered, the ad says: "The protectionists' true motives are to make compliance with this law so difficult that U.S. meat packers will source livestock and meat products in the U.S. exclusively. But their short-sighted approach to limiting competition is sure to invite well-justified trade complaints under the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement."

To view the ad, go to www.countryoforiginlabel.org and click on Press Room.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
""The protectionists' true motives are to make compliance with this law so difficult that U.S. meat packers will source livestock and meat products in the U.S. exclusively. But their short-sighted approach to limiting competition is sure to invite well-justified trade complaints under the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement"

What a bunch or horse crap! Why are ranchers branded "protectionists" when we want our product identified but Tyson is not when they slap their label on everything they sell?

Where are the WTO complaints against the 37 countries that already have COOL on meat products? :shock:

Those lying sacks of crap are the ones who's only efforts have been to make the law difficult - and they're pointing fingers? R-CALF has pushed ideas to make it work including;

1) allow packers to indicate beef has come from imported animals without having to specify each further production step that may have occurred in the United States;

2) allow packers to label blended products with a list of the countries of origin that may be contained in the product, rather than a definitive list of each country;

3) allow retailers to rely on pre-labeled products for origin claims;

4) allow packers to rely on country markings that already are applied to cattle imports in order to determine origin;

5) eliminate unnecessary and duplicative record-keeping requirements regarding chain of custody and separate tracking during the production process to allow packers and retailers to rely on documents they already keep in the ordinary course of business; and,

6) reduce the record retention requirement from two years to one year.

Now who's trying to make this work and who isn't? The AMI is bringing out all their guns on this one. They're lying, setting up websites, spending real money campaigning. Why? Because COOL takes a large degree of power away from them and they know it. COOL could shoot their plans to replace our product with South American right out of the saddle.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Janet Riley - Public Relations Director - AMI:

"It's time for these producers to stop focusing on their growing bank accounts and start focusing on the mothers and children that are struggling to afford beef."

:lol:

I don't like to miss any chance to throw this quote in the pot now and then.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Canada will make COOL Position Known

The U.S. government is speeding up its schedule to deal with mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL). The Agricultural Marketing Service division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced a 60-day comment period, prompting an immediate call to arms in Canada.
Martin Rice of the Canadian Pork Council said "we sure will" be filing briefs opposing the move and said "we will cover the waterfront" of issues.
For example, the council will comment on the definition of processing to retain the exemption for hams, shoulders and other fresh meat exported to U.S. companies for further processing there, he said. The council will also seek a broadening of the exemption to include pork exported for minor further processing in the U.S., such as adding moisture and flavour enhancers, he said.
There are some in the U.S. seeking an exemption for weaner and feeder pigs and for feeder cattle, and Rice said both the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council will oppose that lobby because that would distort the Canadian market. Requiring COOL only for slaughter-ready cattle and hogs would depress the Canadian price for those animals to compensate for the extra handling and distribution costs faced by U.S. packers, but exempting weaners and feeders would leave them open to full-price bidding by U.S. farmers.
The result would be an increased flow of weaners and feeders from Canada to the U.S. and a declined export of slaughter- ready cattle and hogs, a result that would not only penalize Canadian farmers who finish animals but also cost jobs in the Canadian packing industry.
Rice said the pork council will also argue that COOL is "quite unnecessary" because there's no evidence that U.S. consumers want it and the U.S. hog and beef farmers who have lobbied for COOL are "misguided" into believing it will enhance their competitive position.
If the U.S. goes ahead with COOL, he said Canadians will consult lawyers about filing a challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or World Trade Organization (WTO).
He said the principle is that these trade agreements do not allow treatment of imports that differs from treatment for domestically raised and produced products.
Rice speculated that the COOL hearings have been moved up to coincide with the development of the new U.S. Farm Bill, which is scheduled for votes by the end of July. If legislation is required to implement COOL, it could be incorporated in the U.S. Farm Bill, he said.
But the chairmen of the agriculture committees in the House of Representatives and in the Senate have both asked the industry for comments on how COOL can be made "less impossible to implement," Rice said.
That invitation has been criticized by the National Farmers Union and R-CALF, Rice said, so it's not clear what will come of that invitation.
The Democrats gained control of both the House and the Senate in November elections and Democrats tend to be more in favour of COOL than the Republicans, Rice said, but added that there are politicians in both parties who will break ranks on this issue. Party discipline is not nearly as tight in the U.S. political system as in Canada.

Source: Atlantic Swine Research Partnership/ Ontario Farmer, July 4, 2007
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Contaminated Chinese seafood imports, the FDA always seems to be a step behind," said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose House subcommittee recently held hearings on food safety. Now were going to make FDA one step ahead.

And now this: Buns stuffed with cardboard.

"A hidden camera followed the man into a ramshackle building where steamers were filled with the fluffy white buns, called baozi, traditionally stuffed with minced pork," reports the Associated Press, summarizing a Chinese television news program. "It showed how cardboard [!!!!!] was first soaked to a pulp in a plastic basin of caustic soda -- a chemical base commonly used in manufacturing paper and soap -- then chopped into tiny morsels with a cleaver. Fatty pork and powdered seasoning were stirred in as flavoring and the concoction was stuffed into the buns."

The Chinese government has vowed to crack down on shady operators. It has to salvage the image of the China brand. The public relations strategy includes both defense and offense: Just yesterday, China banned meat imports from seven American companies, citing contamination by salmonella and chemical additives.

Any Country Of Origin Required Here ??
 
Top