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

Canada Prepares For M-COOL

A

Anonymous

Guest
Beef Producers Need To Start Preparing for COOL



CKNX AM920 - Canada

1/16/2008



The Vice-President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association says we've got to start using the systems we've got in place - in order to be ready for country of origin labelling.



Brad Wildeman says if we don't do anything - COOL could effect the prices we are getting in the US.



But Wildeman notes that there are Americans who do want our product because its a bit leaner and has a bit of a different taste.



That's why if we can use age verification, and on-farm food safety programs that don't costs a lot -- we could see a big benefit.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I just heard on the radio that the American Farm Bureau has returned to its original stand and now SUPPORTS Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling....This was their original stand- until the Tyson controlled hog and chicken committees got them to switch it a couple years ago...
The vote this time was 212-132 amongst directors...

Now only the Corporate Packer controlled NCBA opposes M-COOL... :roll: :( :mad:
 

Kato

Well-known member
NAFTA states that the country in which meat is processed IS the country of origin.

That's our problem. You guys don't live up to your contracts. :? You are not to be trusted. :shock: Is this any way to get respect?

You sign trade agreements and treaties, and then, whenever it pleases you, you ignore them. I notice you don't sit back and allow it when other countries do it though.

How come there is one set of rules for America and another set of rules for the rest of the world?

Explain that please OT... how come?
Explain also why anyone should respect a bully?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Kato said:
NAFTA states that the country in which meat is processed IS the country of origin.

That's our problem. You guys don't live up to your contracts. :? You are not to be trusted. :shock: Is this any way to get respect?

You sign trade agreements and treaties, and then, whenever it pleases you, you ignore them. I notice you don't sit back and allow it when other countries do it though.

How come there is one set of rules for America and another set of rules for the rest of the world?

Explain that please OT... how come?
Explain also why anyone should respect a bully?

I don't think you should. We have the most irrespective people running the USDA making policy that no one should respect them. It is what happens when companies run the govt. for their self interest, not for the interest of the people. It is one of the reasons the USDA does not allow private testing for bse. If they did, proof could be shown of how poorly they are doing their job. Without proof, which is what many of us have called for allowing the collection of, even when it is done privately, their lawyers believe there is no case. They forget that they can go so far overboard as to not be believed at all when they do these things and lose all govt. credibility. So far, it is a risk they are willing to take and as long as business is paying off Congress and the executive branch to be corrupt or incompetent, it will continue to happen.

We don't live up to treaties because we have people in govt. who think the word of the U.S. govt. can be used for their own purposes. This is usually big business and sorry politicians. Look at the Geneva Convention for evidence of this.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
NAFTA states that the country in which meat is processed IS the country of origin.

That's our problem. You guys don't live up to your contracts. :? You are not to be trusted. :shock: Is this any way to get respect?

You sign trade agreements and treaties, and then, whenever it pleases you, you ignore them. I notice you don't sit back and allow it when other countries do it though.

How come there is one set of rules for America and another set of rules for the rest of the world?

Explain that please OT... how come?
Explain also why anyone should respect a bully?

Looks to me that we can have a popular law that makes sense or we can have a trade agreement that was unconstitional to begin with, has not lived up to promises, has widened our trade imbalance, has contributed mightiy to our illegal problem, etc....

Canada plays two sets of rules, too. Remember the Canadian government assuring consumers that chicken from Russia or China would be labeled as such?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
COOL recordkeeping starts now

The COOL law is Full speed ahead, implementation of COOL starts midnight September 30 2008. Further delays in implementation are unlikely at this point, but the proposed language in the current farm bill should ease compliance for livestock producers, meat processors, and retailers. Retailers have to prove country of origin by a label on the package or be fined $1000.00 per item. They have to comply with an audit trail which establishes a three-label system for meat products that would differentiate completely domestic products from completely foreign products.

The changes in the rules will make segregation, labeling, and record-keeping easier with RFID tagged animals and changes to the audit verification and enforcement rules further specify what business records may suffice for country of origin labeling.The easy way is to use commercial databases built for the task. Even produce farmers will need audit records to comply with COOL.

Perhaps most important among the changes for cattle producers is a grandfather clause that considers all animals in the U.S. on January 1, 2008 to be of U.S. origin. But sheep, swine, veal, goat, poultry, fish will need immediate recordkeeping to manage the COOL law as they come to market in a shorter time frame. The easy way to survive an audit of born, raised, processed in the USA is to have records and RFID tagged animals. Poultry, peanuts and produce buyers will need to pass records of origin on to the retailers in the form of traceability records.

Still, cattle producers will need to maintain documentation of origin by RFID tagging and branding (using their existing business records) from birth to slaughter and move those records thru stockyards intact from this point forward and or by using a commercial database where animal RFID tag records can be searched by processors and retailers . USDA will seek to enter into partnerships with States having existing enforcement infrastructure to assist in the administration of this law.

USDA will determine the scheduling and procedures for the compliance reviews. Any person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer, whether directly or indirectly, must maintain records to establish and identify the immediate previous source (if applicable) and immediate subsequent recipient of a covered commodity, in such a way that identifies the product unique to that transaction by means of a lot number or other unique identifier, for a period of 1 year from the date of the transaction.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
How come there is one set of rules for America and another set of rules for the rest of the world?

Explain that please OT... how come?
Explain also why anyone should respect a bully?

Kato-- M-COOL has been recognized by WTO and the GATT, and all the other trade initial folks- and being used worldwide as long as the country labels their own also...Under the proposed plan- we not only label out own- or any imports - but even go one step further and tell ALL the countries the animal/beef may have been in...
More info then is required by the WTO....To give the consumer a more informed choice....

As far as NAFTA-- a US President cannot give away Congress's sovereignty, and/or their ability to make or pass laws - even if he wants to, without ratification as a treaty by the Senate...NAFTA could not get the 2/3 majority vote- so was never ratified and is not considered under US law to be a treaty...

Is Canada afraid to compete in an INFORMED and LABELED marketplace?
Is your cattle/beef so inferior you have to hide behind the USDA label-- thinking they won't sell without being passed off as US Beef?


Sounds like CCA believes its coming- and thinks you better get ready!!
 

Kato

Well-known member
We have NO problem standing behind our product.

What we do have a problem with is going bankrupt. :shock:

If we had our own packers, instead of yours here, perhaps things would be different, but I've yet to see any country who could keep your corporations from running roughshod over domestic industries yet. I guess Cuba would be the only one, and we all know how well they've done.

American Imperialism is alive and well, and living in Alberta. Frankly OT, I don't care if you prefer MCOOL to NAFTA, because in order for MCOOL to be truly acceptable you'd better get in there and change the wording on the NAFTA agreement. I don't see anyone jumping up and down to do that. Remember, oil is part of it, and you guys get 60 percent of your oil from here. Toss out NAFTA, and the whole oil import business takes on a totally different look. :shock:

Just because one bill is popular and one is not does not mean suddenly it's OK to renege on a contract. NAFTA has not been popular here either, but we seem to be the only ones with the integrity to actually live up to agreements that we sign. A legal agreement that has become unpopular is still a legal agreement. If you don't like it, then change it to something you can live with. Don't ignore it. :!: Ignoring it just shows your lack of character.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
We have NO problem standing behind our product.

What we do have a problem with is going bankrupt. :shock:

If you have a product that the consumer wants, how are you going broke? COOL can be instituted today without costing you another dime. Your cattle are already identified when they enter the country - your beef too.

If we had our own packers, instead of yours here, perhaps things would be different, but I've yet to see any country who could keep your corporations from running roughshod over domestic industries yet. I guess Cuba would be the only one, and we all know how well they've done.

You could of kept out US packers if you wanted - just apply the same restrictions that you have on US citizens buying fishing camps. It's your country, you make the laws.


American Imperialism is alive and well, and living in Alberta. Frankly OT, I don't care if you prefer MCOOL to NAFTA, because in order for MCOOL to be truly acceptable you'd better get in there and change the wording on the NAFTA agreement. I don't see anyone jumping up and down to do that. Remember, oil is part of it, and you guys get 60 percent of your oil from here. Toss out NAFTA, and the whole oil import business takes on a totally different look. :shock:

What does NAFTA have to do with anything? You were selling us oil long before NAFTA.

Just because one bill is popular and one is not does not mean suddenly it's OK to renege on a contract. NAFTA has not been popular here either, but we seem to be the only ones with the integrity to actually live up to agreements that we sign. A legal agreement that has become unpopular is still a legal agreement. If you don't like it, then change it to something you can live with. Don't ignore it. :!: Ignoring it just shows your lack of character.

I took the liberty of highlighting the problems with NAFTA from the US standpoint.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato-- the reason you see none of the "Freetraders" (politicians or corporate interests) from Canada or the US challenging NAFTA and these rules is because they know how the NAFTA law came to be--and that it doesn't meet the requirements of a TREATY under US law- and they really don't want a Supreme Court ruling...So for that reason Canadian cattlemen, that sold out their industry to FRAUDULENTLY sell their cattle/beef as US product and ride on the US's producers shirtails-- while using every way in the world to block out the US cattle from going into the Canadian feeder program over the years- and have a true FAIR trade system- are getting caught in the middle......And those folks know how shakey the world economy is right now and aren't going to shake the boat over just cattle producers...
What happens when you put all your eggs in the basket of groups like CCA, ABP, SSGA that suck up to Packer bought out groups like the NCBA..... :roll: :( :mad:

And if things make you feel any better- the market in the US is headed down and according to the buyer I spent today with- may be headed for the dumps under GW's leadership-- with stock cows already dumping down $200-300 from where they were in December....
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Comments before the Senate passed the COOL law.

Masswohl said Canadian livestock groups also have met with Mexican counterparts who are "equally concerned" with the issue.
"We're not saying that countries can't have country-of-origin labeling or even that you can't have mandatory country-of-origin labeling," Masswohl said. "The question is how do you devise it." Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday he doesn't understand why Canada would have issues with the new proposal. The House bill provides such broad discretion on labeling, Grassley said, that he didn't think it would cause problems for anyone. "There is no trade impediment in any of that, so what's the problem?" Grassley said.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has said he expects to adopt the House compromise on COOL, but would clean up the language somewhat in his chairman's mark. The House Agriculture Committee also loosens penalties and record-keeping requirements for producers. Given the lack of animal identification in the U.S., the proposal creates an "honor system" rife with the potential for abuse, Masswohl said.
"I just wonder how many Mexican cattle that come into the country as feeders, what is the origin of those cattle going to be coming out of the feedlots?" he said. In terms of challenging the law, the WTO only allows a country to challenge a provision after it goes into effect. Under NAFTA, Canada or Mexico could bring a challenge against a proposed measure. Right now, the Canadian livestock groups want leaders in the Canadian government to send a letter to the Senate Agriculture Committee, as well as the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee to argue their case against COOL.
"We want them to communicate to Congress, to let them know that if this gets passed that the United States' best customer believes that it violates trade agreements," Masswohl said. Canada has its own country-of-origin-labeling requirements, but live cattle imported from the U.S. do not have to be labeled as "product of the U.S." under the Canadian rule because of provisions about processing the livestock and meat.
Canada also has internal disputes about animal carcasses that are brought into the country, carved up, then labeled as "product of Canada." Some people believe carcasses imported into Canada and cut up should not simply be given a domestic label. "That is a debate going on up here and a gray area in the law," Masswohl said.

Chris Clayton can be reached at [email protected]
 

Kato

Well-known member
Actually our agriculture minister is in Mexico right now. Discussing just this subject.

Canada also has internal disputes about animal carcasses that are brought into the country, carved up, then labeled as "product of Canada." Some people believe carcasses imported into Canada and cut up should not simply be given a domestic label. "That is a debate going on up here and a gray area in the law," Masswohl said.

True. Surprise surprise, we are also a democracy. 8) But in the meantime we will honour our part of the agreement.

It's called having character.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Ringwall, speaking on behalf of cow-calf producers, said producers are looking for a market environment with flexibility where buyers can openly bid on their calves.



“There is much uncertainty surrounding calf marketing. The national and international discussion about age and source verification has heightened that uncertainty,” Ringwall testified.

“Today's producer markets a calf but also markets the information about that calf, a process that is still struggling in the pens and alleyways of the cattle business,” Ringwall continued. He pointed out that the market has not determined the value of records producers put together about their calves at their own expense.

“One point is becoming very clear: The actual information contains the keys to unlock the various doors needed to enter the more complex marketplace, not only domestically, but also internationally,” Ringwall said.

Producers wonder if age and source verification is a burden or an opportunity for them to not just recoup their costs, but gain value for doing so in the marketplace, he said.

Ringwall presented an age and source verification project at DREC that followed calves. The project individually tagged 14,432 calves during 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Combining the three years, 19.5 percent remained on the ranch or farm of birth as replacements. Of the calves for sale, 13 percent were traced to backgrounding lots, 29.3 percent were traced to feedlots for finishing, and 27.5 percent were successfully traced to harvest.

Some 10.3 percent were unable to be traced and effectively lost, he said.

“The bottom line, despite the enthusiasm and desire for these cow-calf producers to provide not only the calf but also the corresponding data as a marketable package, only one in four calves arrived at harvest with the data package,” Ringwall said. “(In other words) only one of four calves at harvest was eligible for markets requiring age and source verification.”

He went on to say that after adding up all costs directly related to the source verification, the total cost estimate per calf was $20.

Those cost estimates included:

(this price below has fell under $3.00 bucks)
€ $5 for tags, data management and verification;

(Sounds a little High)
€ $7 for working calves, including tag placement and documentation; and

( Still TOO high priced)
€ $8 for feedlot and harvest data collection and chute feeds.

Ringwall said some of the extra costs for producers include shrink and weight loss while handling calves.

“No one debates the need to move, process and work cattle, but it does cost money. The dollars are made in growth, and are meant to be profit, not cost recovery,” Ringwall said. “This weight loss may not seem like much, but it does add up. When we've measured shrink in the cattle we have worked during the project, we estimated up to $10 to $20 in lost income potential per calf, regardless of the management activity applied.”

He told the ITC that the CalfAID program was developed at DREC for source and data management.

Complications have arisen for livestock producers with the low frequency electronic ear tags, but work on high frequency ear tags will be more useful to producers who handle lots of calves at one time, he added.

Animal identification and disease management are closely linked and work together.

“The tracking of animals that cross borders is considered essential for the well being of the industry. The introduction of a highly pathogenic disease, such as foot and mouth disease, would affect millions of animals and have a devastating effect on our markets and producers,” he said.

Ringwall spoke about other diseases affecting the livestock industry including Johne's Disease, anthrax, and BSE.

“BSE is transmittable through feed and may take years to develop clinical signs, and cases must be traced back to the herd of origin to investigate the source,” he said. “Mandatory electronic animal identification programs have been instituted in efforts to assist in containing bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis.”

While producers and veterinarians remain vigilant, Ringwall said the health of the U.S. herd - which relates to public health and trade markets - needs to be the utmost priority in the country.

“Regulatory standards should be high enough to prevent any question as to the wholesomeness and safety of the food we all consume,” he added. “Demand for and marketability of our nation's animals and products then easily follows.”

Ringwall said proper guidance is all producers need to be up to any challenge.

“The beef industry needs a modern, effective system of individual accountability, a system respectful of local concerns, realistic in response to pathogenic challenges, but responsive to industry needs and consumer desires for both animals and people,” he added.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Doesn't sound like these eastern folks are satisfied with the type status quo promoted by the old fogies of ABP/CCA... :lol: :lol:

Ole Cam and the kaiser need to head east and get a united front going now to rid Canada of those old Packer bought out fogies in ABP/CCA while cattle producers down here work on doing the same to their Packer representing kissing cousins in the states, NCBA...

Kato-- Did you notice another interesting thing in this article- is that these Canadians not only want to promote COUNTRY of Origin Labeling- but PROVINCE of Origin Labeling...

Two old ABP board members probably just keeled over with a heart attack after reading that... :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:
God forbid- for producers to support giving the consumers info about where their beef/food comes from...


--------------------------
Local Cattle Groups Talk Crisis - Perth Group Changes Name



cknx am920 canada

1/18/2008



This regions cattle industry say they are tired of being in crisis, and want some solutions now.



The Bruce, Grey, Huron, Perth, and Wellington cattle groups all held their annual meetings this week - with no shortage of ideas in how to fix the mess.



Bruce - for example - passed 22 resolutions - all with different ideas.



Brian Dudgeon is the new President of the Bruce Cattlemen and says their group thinks marketing is one of the ways out of this.



He says consumers want to buy Ontario product - so it's about time that every single grocery store had clearly marked Ontario beef.



Now fixing this crisis wasn't the only thing discussed at some of these meetings.



In Perth for example - they have changed their name - and instead of the Perth County Cattlemen -- are now known as the Perth County Beef Farmers Association.



President Bill Jeffray says its all about getting the consumer to better understand the group.



Now all of these resolutions and discussions will go up to the provincial level to be discussed at the OCA annual meeting next month.



But ahead of that -- Bruce, Grey, Huron, Perth and Middlesex cattle groups all want to get together to talk strategy.



There is interest in going to the OCA meeting with a united front from the top beef producing areas of the province.



A meeting to talk about that is expected once they can get a hand on all the resolutions that are expected to be brought up at the provincial level.



am920.ca
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Comments on the internet;

Here’s an interesting COOL (Country of Origin Labeling) situation:

I just bought a can of peanuts. On one part of the label it says “Made in U.S.A.”

Then on ANOTHER part of the label it says “Peanuts from: USA and/or Argentina and/or Mexico”.

Guess they covered all the bases there, didn’t they?



The OTHER Pat said: “Then on ANOTHER part of the label it says “Peanuts from: USA and/or Argentina and/or Mexico.”

Did you ever look at some of the sides of the orange juice cartons, even the organics? Some say the juice is “from U.S. AND Brazil.”

So much is mingled these days, just as our ground beef is. One patty might contain meat from 3 or more countries! How could anyone trace the source of anything?

USING Only www.ScoringAg.com and www.scoringcontainers.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So much is mingled these days, just as our ground beef is. One patty might contain meat from 3 or more countries! How could anyone trace the source of anything?

It can't be... It can only be labeled correctly to all the countries that may be in it, so that consumers have that knowledge- and if so inclined, buy it-- or if not inclined buy that that is made only from US originating products produced in the US- and labeled as such....It not only gives the consumer a potentially safer product- but it gives them the ability to support the producers of the country they live in--USA born, raised, and slaughtered........

Just like these Ontario producers in the article above point out- their consumers want and will buy Ontario product if it is so labeled so they can distinquish where its from-- so will many Americans prefer and purchase USA product if so labeled so that they can distinquish it from the generic product of the world....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
KATO---Heres the article on the progressive, proactive, CREDIBLE, HONEST, and MORALLY RESPONSIBLE Canadian producers from Ontario, who not only want to give consumers the COUNTRY of Origin- but would take it a step further and give them the PROVINCE of Origin- knowing it would better help them market their product!!

Instead of hiding behind possible loopholes in the law to use to DEFRAUD and DECEIVE consumers and tell them they have no right to a choice like you seem to want to promote :shock: :( :mad:

KATO-- Wouldn't their labeling of their beef be a NAFTA violation under your interpretation if you didn't allow all other to be labeled in like fashion :???:


Oldtimer said:
Doesn't sound like these eastern folks are satisfied with the type status quo promoted by the old fogies of ABP/CCA... :lol: :lol:

Ole Cam and the kaiser need to head east and get a united front going now to rid Canada of those old Packer bought out fogies in ABP/CCA while cattle producers down here work on doing the same to their Packer representing kissing cousins in the states, NCBA...

Kato-- Did you notice another interesting thing in this article- is that these Canadians not only want to promote COUNTRY of Origin Labeling- but PROVINCE of Origin Labeling...

Two old ABP board members probably just keeled over with a heart attack after reading that... :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:
God forbid- for producers to support giving the consumers info about where their beef/food comes from...


--------------------------
Local Cattle Groups Talk Crisis - Perth Group Changes Name



cknx am920 canada

1/18/2008



This regions cattle industry say they are tired of being in crisis, and want some solutions now.



The Bruce, Grey, Huron, Perth, and Wellington cattle groups all held their annual meetings this week - with no shortage of ideas in how to fix the mess.



Bruce - for example - passed 22 resolutions - all with different ideas.



Brian Dudgeon is the new President of the Bruce Cattlemen and says their group thinks marketing is one of the ways out of this.



He says consumers want to buy Ontario product - so it's about time that every single grocery store had clearly marked Ontario beef.



Now fixing this crisis wasn't the only thing discussed at some of these meetings.



In Perth for example - they have changed their name - and instead of the Perth County Cattlemen -- are now known as the Perth County Beef Farmers Association.



President Bill Jeffray says its all about getting the consumer to better understand the group.



Now all of these resolutions and discussions will go up to the provincial level to be discussed at the OCA annual meeting next month.



But ahead of that -- Bruce, Grey, Huron, Perth and Middlesex cattle groups all want to get together to talk strategy.



There is interest in going to the OCA meeting with a united front from the top beef producing areas of the province.



A meeting to talk about that is expected once they can get a hand on all the resolutions that are expected to be brought up at the provincial level.



am920.ca
 

Kato

Well-known member
They are expressing a sentiment. They are stating they would like consumers to know they are buying Ontario beef. They have major packing capacity without having major cattle production. It's not workable and they know it.

They are also not proposing legislation to contravene any current law. The two are a long way apart.

Grasping at straws now eh?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
They are expressing a sentiment. They are stating they would like consumers to know they are buying Ontario beef. They have major packing capacity without having major cattle production. It's not workable and they know it.

They are also not proposing legislation to contravene any current law. The two are a long way apart.

Grasping at straws now eh?

NOW you're concerned with legality?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
They are expressing a sentiment. They are stating they would like consumers to know they are buying Ontario beef. They have major packing capacity without having major cattle production. It's not workable and they know it.

They are also not proposing legislation to contravene any current law. The two are a long way apart.

Grasping at straws now eh?

So you're saying these folks are a bunch of dumb Canucks EH :???:

Good thing you smart Canucks have got your market so its so profittable- EH :???: :wink: :lol:
 
Top