Canadians Scared?-Or Not Proud of their Beef?

[Sandhusker]

Kato, jump on R-CALF's Country of Origin labeling horse and introduce them to their ignorance.



~SH~

We'll let you do the introductions, Scotty. You and ignorance are long-time acquaintances.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "We'll let you do the introductions, Scotty. You and ignorance are long-time acquaintances."

Talk is no cheaper than it is from you little ankle biter.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandcheska: "We'll let you do the introductions, Scotty. You and ignorance are long-time acquaintances."

Talk is no cheaper than it is from you little ankle biter.


~SH~

Depends on who you ask.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "Depends on who you ask."

You mean like a fellow blamer who can't think for themselves either?


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I'm with Kato on this one.

OT, you guys come up with a way to do COOL that won't cost the producers millions of dollars, and I'd be all for it. Like EVERY SINGLE CANADIAN CATTLE PRODUCER, I feel my beef is the best in the world. And we actually have the awards to prove it. So skip the shirttail commentary OT. We're just smart enough to realize how much money is going to be wasted by this poorly conceived law.

Rod

 

[Ben H]

Consumers want to no where there food comes from, it's not a big deal. Fortunately direct marketers like myself are posed to offer this. People don't realize where some of there food comes from and now they're realizing how far away some of it does come from.

 

[RobertMac]

Rod, Kato

Almost every other product sold has country of origin labeling on it (meat and produce would already be labeled if not for the J-list...successfully lobbied exemption by the food industry). I think most countries around the world require COOL now. The outrageous claims of high cost are packer fear tactics...don't fall for it. I agree that Canadian producers could benefit, but would be in a much better position with your own Canadian processing industry, instead of being under the thumb of Tyson and Cargill.

 

[Sandhusker]

We were told by the same people that BSE testing costs would fall on producers, too. That didn't make any sense, either.

More countries than not have COOL. Why don't they bring those countries as examples to show the "prohibitive expenses"?

 

[Anonymous]

More from Kruse!
-------------------------------


I thought R-Calf's Leo McDonald did a good job providing perspective for the USDA's proposed rules on importing Canadian cattle older than 30 months of age.

"USDA is considering allowing into the U.S. older than 30 months(OTM) beef and cattle from Canada - product that is banned for health concerns from nearly all international markets, product that the U.S. cannot even export to our primary export markets, McDonnell said. USDA's action will make the United states a dumping ground for beef and cattle banned from major importers here in the U.S. from being able to differentiate their product with country of origin labeling (COOL)."

"Who benefits from these actions," McDonnell asked. "Not U.S. consumers; not the U.S. producer."

"McDonnell also emphasized that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is not a North American problem, but a Canadian problem. Canada has tested approximately 140,000 head of cattle for the disease since 2004 and identified eight of these animals as positive for BSE. The U.S. has tested more than 800,000 and discovered only two native cases, both of which were found to be carrying the atypical type of BSE. The science of typical BSE and atypical BSE does not support calling this a North American problem - it is a Canadian problem that seems to be growing in Canadian cattle born after their (1997) meat and bone meal ban."

"Also, R-Calf USA believes that because the U.S. commingles Canadian cattle and beef with U.S. cattle and beef, it just isn't logical to expect that Canada's weaker feed ban, its' inferior testing program, and its' least restrictive SRM (specified risk materials) policies would help the U.S. restore lost beef markets and gain new ones."


In other words, the rules would further alienate Asian export markets that we are trying to open to U.S. beef. COOL implementation would mitigate some of the damage, allowing exporters and consumers to differentiate product origin. Critics of COOL often lambaste the act. The USDA wrote COOL implementation rules, intending to make it so ugly, no one would adopt them. Instead of fixing the problem, COOL opponents want to kill it. R-Calf has been pushing for COOL implementation with improved rules.

R-Calf CEO Bill Bullard wrote, "COOL opponents are lobbying hard to convince Congress that the COOL law is unworkable and should be changed. However, the COOL law has been successfully implemented for fish and shellfish and these same solutions can now be used as a model to implement COOL for beef."

Bullard says, "A new rule for implementing COOL for beef should: 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 U.S.; 2. Allow packers to label blended product 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 meat 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; 6. Reduce the record retention requirement from two years to one year and 7.Specify that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims.

COOL for fish and shellfish is already working under a common-sense approach. The same can be done for beef, and it can be done under current law without further delay. The changes outlined above would help address any legitimate concerns about the costs of the labeling program, while preserving the full benefits of mandatory COOL for U.S. cattle producers and for their consumers."

 

[Anonymous]

Good post Rod!

You are correct. Canadians would benefit and you have every right to be proud of your product. It's no mystery to any sharp cattlemen that most US genetics has their roots in Canadian genetics. You are also correct that about the costs not outweighing the benefits.

Giving credit where it's due!

RM: "The outrageous claims of high cost are packer fear tactics...don't fall for it. I agree that Canadian producers could benefit, but would be in a much better position with your own Canadian processing industry, instead of being under the thumb of Tyson and Cargill."

That depends totally on whether "M"COOL is enforceable or not Robert. You guys are playing both sides of the argument. If "M"COOL, AS WRITTEN, is enforceable in proving where every package of beef was "BORN, RAISED, AND SLAUGHTERED" you better believe the costs will
far overshadow any benefits.

Ben H: "Consumers want to no where there food comes from, it's not a big deal. Fortunately direct marketers like myself are posed to offer this. People don't realize where some of there food comes from and now they're realizing how far away some of it does come from."

Ben, what consumers want is SOURCE VERIFICATION. They want to know EXACTLY where their beef comes from. Country of Origin does not provide that. Ironically, many of those who support Country of Origin Labeling are opposed to source verification to enforce their law. We have source verified beef today offered by the free enterprise system and direct marketers like yourself. "M"COOL cannot offer to the consumer what you are offering to the consumer. Keep on keepin' on and best of luck. You are what we need, not costly unnecessary, unenforceable government mandates.

USDA's action will make the United states a dumping ground for beef and cattle banned from major importers here in the U.S. from being able to differentiate their product with country of origin labeling (COOL)."

This was already tried in court OT and your side lost again.

The USDA wrote COOL implementation rules, intending to make it so ugly, no one would adopt them.

Leo helped write the law and called it a good law as written but now wants to blame it on someone else.

COOL for fish and shellfish is already working under a common-sense approach. The same can be done for beef, and it can be done under current law without further delay.

APPLES AND WATERMELONS!

Fish do not become 300 individual packages from a single carcass shipped to multiple destinations. The epitomy of ignorance and arrogance in R-CULT dictating to packers and retailers how to market beef.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Ben, what consumers want is SOURCE VERIFICATION. They want to know EXACTLY where their beef comes from.

Says who?

SH, "Leo helped write the law and called it a good law as written but now wants to blame it on someone else."

NCBA helped write it, too. Where do you think those exemptions you howl about came from?

SH, "Fish do not become 300 individual packages from a single carcass shipped to multiple destinations."

If they can identify the 300 individual packages from organic, Kosher, hormone free, premium brands, etc.... the can do the same for country of origin. Use your head.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "Says who?"

Says the consumers who are buying source verified beef now. Their actions speak louder than your cheap words.

Sandcheska: "NCBA helped write it, too."

NCBA did not support your stupid law. NCBA's input was limited to minimizing the damage. Being deceptive again as always.

Sandcheska: "Where do you think those exemptions you howl about came from?"

YOU TELL ME DECEIVER!

Sandcheska: "If they can identify the 300 individual packages from organic, Kosher, hormone free, premium brands, etc.... the can do the same for country of origin. Use your head."

Nobody said they couldn't do it deceiver but their not going to do it without the traceback system that your chosen organization is opposed to!

Fish are a hell of a lot easier to trace deceiver.

Another classic APPLES TO WATERMELONS R-CULT comparison.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH,"Says the consumers who are buying source verified beef now. Their actions speak louder than your cheap words."

SOME consumers do. What percentage of the market is source verified?

SH, "NCBA did not support your stupid law. NCBA's input was limited to minimizing the damage. Being deceptive again as always."

My sources tell me that NCBA's input WAS the damage.

SH, "Nobody said they couldn't do it deceiver but their not going to do it without the traceback system that your chosen organization is opposed to!"

We finally agree on something, the packers can keep product seperate, they're doing it already. They just don't want to. COOL takes away a hole card from their hand - the ability to pass off the cheapest beef they can buy worldwide with the customer not being the wiser.

My chosen organization was against a mandatory traceback system. That in no way ties the hands of packers and/or retailers. They can use whatever system works for them and satisfies the requirements.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "What percentage of the market is source verified?"

Enough to meet the consumer demands that buy it.

Sandcheska: "My sources tell me that NCBA's input WAS the damage."

Your sources are blamers. Naturally they would blame someone else for their own stupidity. R-CULT has never faced the consequences of their bad decisions. It's always someone else's fault.

Sandcheska: "We finally agree on something, the packers can keep product seperate, they're doing it already. They just don't want to."

BWAHAHAHAHA!

They're doing it already but they don't want to. DUUUUHHHHH!

You are such an idiot!

Who has a gun to their head forcing them to? It's not mandated!

Sandcheska: "COOL takes away a hole card from their hand - the ability to pass off the cheapest beef they can buy worldwide with the customer not being the wiser."

I suppose that would explain why they are already marketing source verified beef that requires extensive record keeping.

If consumers want country of origin labeling, they can buy source verified beef now without a costly government mandate for something consumers are not asking for.

What would the consumers do if they didn't have you, ONCE AGAIN, TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES???

Sandcheska: "My chosen organization was against a mandatory traceback system."

Exactly and a mandatory traceback system will be required to enforce their stupid mandatory law. That's a classic example of how completely ignorant you are.

Sandcheska: "That in no way ties the hands of packers and/or retailers. They can use whatever system works for them and satisfies the requirements."

You cannot prove where beef was "BORN, RAISED, AND SLAUGHTERED" without some form of mandatory Traceback WHICH IS WHAT YOUR HYPOCRITICAL ORGANIZATION DID NOT WANT.

Keep 'em coming Sandcheska!

I love watching you spin and dance.


~SH~

 

[Sandy]

Go right ahead and pass your M-COOL law. All that will do is cause Canadian beef to cross the border in a box rather than in a cattle pot. It's still going to cross one way or another. More lost packer jobs in the U.S. , more expansion for Cargill and Tyson up here. If you think the average american consumer won't by a steak because there is a little Canadian maple leaf on the package, you better give your heads a shake. If it tastes good and the price is right they will buy. Most people don't give a rats ash where something is produced, walmart is proof of that. Why not put a maple leaf on the gas pumps down there and see if people quit filling up their SUV's.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Enough to meet the consumer demands that buy it. "

Great answer. When facts allude you, always fall back on being a smart ash.


SH, "BWAHAHAHAHA! They're doing it already but they don't want to. DUUUUHHHHH! You are such an idiot! Who has a gun to their head forcing them to? It's not mandated!"

It's not mandated that if you're selling beef as "hormone free" or "organic" that you have to be able to prove your claim is accurate?

SH, "I suppose that would explain why they are already marketing source verified beef that requires extensive record keeping."

They're doing it because they charge more to cover their expenses and make enough on top of that to make it worth their while. If it didn't pencil somehow, they wouldn't do it. Basic business.

SH, "What would the consumers do if they didn't have you, ONCE AGAIN, TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES???"

Kind of like your notion that the USDA needs to save the Japanese from themselves? Actually, I see COOL as a tool US producers can use against the big packers that want to make purchasing US cattle an option for them. It's not only about profitability of US producers, it's about survival. You can't see that far.


SH, "Exactly and a mandatory traceback system will be required to enforce their stupid mandatory law. That's a classic example of how completely ignorant you are. "

Nonsesne. You have to keep records for your taxes, and there is no required system for that. You just have to be able to prove to the IRS that your numbers are legit, however you can do that. COOL requirements would be much the same.

 

[RobertMac]

Country of origin labeling and source verified labeling are two different things...source verification will allow a producer or group of producers to " Brand " their product within the context of a country of origin.

Actually, I see COOL as a tool US producers can use against the big packers that want to make purchasing US cattle an option for them.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "Great answer. When facts allude you, always fall back on being a smart ash."

What would you know about facts? You've never backed a position you hold with facts yet.

Sandcheska: "It's not mandated that if you're selling beef as "hormone free" or "organic" that you have to be able to prove your claim is accurate?"

So which way is it Sandcheska? Are they doing it already or don't they want to??? That made a lot of sense didn't it?

There is laws in place to prevent false advertising. Where have you been?

Sandcheska: "They're doing it because they charge more to cover their expenses and make enough on top of that to make it worth their while. If it didn't pencil somehow, they wouldn't do it. Basic business."

Well if they are doing it already, WHY THE HELL DO WE NEED "M"COOL?

BASIC BUSINESS!

If consumers were asking for it, processors and retailers would be providing it just like they are source verified beef but KNOW IT ALLS LIKE YOU NEED TO SAVE CONSUMERS FROM THEMSELVES.

Sandcheska: "Actually, I see COOL as a tool US producers can use against the big packers that want to make purchasing US cattle an option for them. It's not only about profitability of US producers, it's about survival. You can't see that far."

You don't see nothing! You just repeat what you are told. How is COOL a TOOL that US producers can use WHEN 95% OF THE LABELED BEEF WOULD BE US BEEF??

You're such an idiot!

Sandcheska: "You have to keep records for your taxes, and there is no required system for that."

YOU PACKER BLAMERS INSISTED ON PROVING WHERE BEEF WAS "BORN, RAISED AND PROCESSED". GIPSA AND USDA HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU A TRACEBACK SYTEM WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE YOUR STUPID LAW. WHAT PART OF THAT CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND???

You can cry in your beer forever but your stupid, worthless, flawed law will require the exact thing you don't want, TRACEBACK!

You don't have to enforce your law, USDA DOES AND THERE WILL BE A TRACEBACK SYSTEM TO ENFORCE IT! WRITE IT DOWN! The requirements have already been listed on this site.

You just keep lying and lying and lying true to your R-CULT ways!

Sandcheska: "You just have to be able to prove to the IRS that your numbers are legit, however you can do that. COOL requirements would be much the same."

THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE WHERE BEEF WAS BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED WILL BE TO PROVE WHERE CATTLE WERE BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED!

Quit being such an idiot!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

I laid it out as simple as I could. If you don't want to see it, your loss. Be an idiot if you choose.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "I laid it out as simple as I could."

Well you got the "SIMPLE" part right!


~SH~