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

COOL and Canadian isoweans

Legislation, Food safety and labeling For COOL

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) has criticized the final ruling on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), saying that it includes loopholes that leave consumers uninformed about the origins of many common foods.

Under its initial proposals, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) intended to require cooked foods to carry COOL labels, but these will now be exempt, as it has classified them as 'processed food items'. The exemption also applies to canned, marinated, extruded, roasted and cured foods as well as to mixed foods, such as a bag of frozen peas and carrots, or salad which contains a packet of dressing.

CFS policy analyst Jaydee Hanson said: "We are deeply concerned about the exceptions to the new COOL ruling. It contains several huge loopholes which end up either misleading consumers or leaving them shamefully uninformed about the origins of their food."

The rule requires COOL labels for beef, chicken, pork, lamb, goat, wild and farm-raised fish, perishable agricultural commodities, ginseng, macadamias, pecans and peanuts.

Food service

However, in addition to mixed and processed foods, the system does not cover 'food service outlets', such as restaurants and cafeterias.

The CFS claims that this is a major flaw in the system, because so much of the food Americans buy is for consumption outside of the home. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 43.5 percent of American food expenditure in 2007 was at the kind of food service outlet excluded from the labeling requirements.

The processing debate

USDA's reason for exempting cooked foods was that cooking constitutes a form of processing, like canning and curing, which were also excluded. The CFS argued, however, that this logic is skewed, considering that industry attempts to exempt fruits which are 'processed' by peeling, slicing or coring were stymied by the USDA on the grounds that "such processing thus does not change the character of the product but rather prepares it for consumption." The CFS has asserted that cooking raw meat likewise prepares it for consumption.

Hanson added: "Unfortunately, COOL will have little meaningful impact on food decision-making if so few food products and retailers are actually required to participate. Americans support country of origin labeling because they want to know where their food comes from, and we believe the labeling rule should be applied as broadly as possible wherever food is purchased."

Although mandatory country of origin labeling was introduced on September 30, 2008, the new, final rule comes into effect on March 16, 2009, when retailers and suppliers who fail to adhere to the system can face a fine of up to $1000 per violation. First big fine is $160,000.00 for COOL labeling.
 
JessnTX, thanks for your comments. You have good points there.

COOL started out and remains deceptive in its effect, at best. It has been 'sold' to consumers and lawmakers by claims that ALL beef "bred, born, raised, and processed in the USA" is superior to imported beef.

THe fact remains that all "bred, born, raised and processed in the USA" beef is NOT equal!

Some of us follow the best practices, using good bloodlines to produce specific desireable traits in our cattle, feed the cattle a well designed diet including grazing well managed native pastures most of the life of the animal, use BQA program guidelines correctly, and some (sadly even in my own community) definitely do not!

Worse, that beef may APPEAR to be the same while on the hoof, but who knows what happens later in the life of a calf or a cow that was vaccinated incorrectly with a dirty needle and the wrong dosage, was not held off the market for the proper withdrawal time, or has an abscess, or worse, a chunk of a broken needle,ends up in a cut of beef that has a proud "COOL--Product of USA" stamp on the package???

mrj
 
mrj said:
JessnTX, thanks for your comments. You have good points there.

COOL started out and remains deceptive in its effect, at best. It has been 'sold' to consumers and lawmakers by claims that ALL beef "bred, born, raised, and processed in the USA" is superior to imported beef.

THe fact remains that all "bred, born, raised and processed in the USA" beef is NOT equal!

Some of us follow the best practices, using good bloodlines to produce specific desireable traits in our cattle, feed the cattle a well designed diet including grazing well managed native pastures most of the life of the animal, use BQA program guidelines correctly, and some (sadly even in my own community) definitely do not!

Worse, that beef may APPEAR to be the same while on the hoof, but who knows what happens later in the life of a calf or a cow that was vaccinated incorrectly with a dirty needle and the wrong dosage, was not held off the market for the proper withdrawal time, or has an abscess, or worse, a chunk of a broken needle,ends up in a cut of beef that has a proud "COOL--Product of USA" stamp on the package???

mrj
Click to expand...

COOL is deceptive but selling mystery meat from virtually any country in the world under the USDA label is not?

COOL was not "sold" to consumers. They demanded it.
 
Country-of-origin labeling: Not so COOL?
14-May-2009
Related topics: Legislation

FoodNavigator-USA.com asks its readers what they think of Canada's World Trade Organization complaint over US country-of-origin labeling rules.

Canada has said that the US country-of-origin labeling (COOL) hurts its exports and has filed a complaint with the WTO saying that the rules stop its producers from being able to compete fairly on the US market.

If it wins it could impose retaliatory sanctions on American food products.

US trade groups have also expressed concern over the labeling scheme. The American Meat Institute added its voice to the anti-COOL camp, saying laws requiring mandatory county-of-origin labeling for red meat "are solely for the purpose of erecting trade barriers, especially directed at Canada and Mexico - our two largest export markets for red meat."

However, US authorities argue that its citizens have the right to know the origin of the food they buy. But the rules only cover a limited number of unprocessed foods, a caveat that has led the US Center for Food Safety to criticize COOL for leaving consumers 'shamefully uninformed'.

So, should the COOL rules be dropped as anti-import? Or do they not go far enough?

What do you think?

We would like to hear your views on what you think about the COOL labeling system. Click here for our original coverage of Canada's WTO complaint.

Please send your comments of no more than 100 words to caroline.scott-thomas 'at' decisionnews.com by Thursday May 21st, putting 'COOL dispute' in the subject line.

We will publish a selection of the best responses, covering all angles of the debate, on Friday May 22nd.

Please note that comments will be taken to be 'on the record', and the sender's name and affiliated company/organization will be published.
 
Cattle Group Gets US Govt Pledge To Defend Meat Labels



1:46 PM, June 5, 2009

By Bill Tomson

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

Agriculture Online



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--U.S. Trade Representative officials pledged to

"aggressively defend" U.S. regulations on country-of-origin meat labels now

that Canada and Mexico are contesting the policy, said Bill Bullard, chief

executive of the cattle group R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America.



Bullard, in a Friday interview, said he sat down with USTR officials this

week to express the group's support for the labeling policy that has prompted

both Canada and Mexico to file for consultations with the World Trade

Organization, the first step in an official complaint.



Canada and Mexico appeared to have accepted the U.S. labeling law until U.S.

Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made changes to it, calling for

more information on labels and tighter controls on inventoried products.



"In order to provide consumers with sufficient information about the origin

of products, processors should voluntarily include information about what

production step occurred in each country when multiple countries appear on the

label," Vilsack said in February when the changes were ordered.



On May 7, Canadian Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day announced

the WTO action and said Vilsack's policy of "very strict labeling practices"

would hurt Canadian exporters.



R-CALF's Bullard said he believed there would be the very real possibility

that U.S. consumers might use the labels to choose domestic beef over imports

from Canada or Mexico.



"Our position is that's what (Canada) is complaining about. They are

complaining that now they have to compete in our market because our product is

differentiated," he said.



-By Bill Tomson, Dow Jones Newswires

agriculture.com
Click to expand...
 
"Our position is that's what (Canada) is complaining about. They are

complaining that now they have to compete in our market because our product is

differentiated," he said.
Click to expand...

No, they are complaining because according to what all three countries agreed when they signed NAFTA, beef processed in the U.S. is U.S. beef, and making rules that differentiate it contravene the trade agreement. The challenge procedure was put in there for a reason, and the Canadian and Mexican governments are going to use it to do whatever they can to make the U.S. live up to it's commitments. Once again, America has shown that just because it signs an agreement, that doesn't mean it will live up to it's word.

Same old same old.............
 
Kato, When Canada puts their COOL law in place , we will not complain and just do it. You should talk to Loblaws as they are working on selling no Canadain labeled beef. Could it be all Brazilian and Australian beef in their stores.
 
PORKER said:
Kato, When Canada puts their COOL law in place , we will not complain and just do it.
Click to expand...

Don't bet on it. The second someone down there thinks a rule we have put in place may disadvantage them in some minor way, there will be a court case. Take softwood lumber for an example.
If/when we do put in a COOL, it better be by the book. If a cow is processed in Canada it is a product of Canada. The Canadian system is responsible for it being of a level of quality that ensures it is safe. I don't see any wiggle room here.
 
The Canadian Livestock Auction Traceability Initiative is a three-year, $20-million program to enhance traceability capacity where live animals routinely commingle, such as auction marts, assembly yards, privately-owned community pastures, fairs and exhibitions. Commingling sites are considered high-risk areas because diseases could be easily transmitted.

Contributions under this initiative will assist commingling sites in altering the animal handling structures, which could include physical infrastructure changes, building modifications and technical and trade services, for example, purchasing and installing gates or pens.

The Government of Canada is also supporting traceability under Growing Forward with other inter-related traceability programs.

1. The Canadian Industry Traceability Infrastructure Program is a fund for national industry-led projects for animal and product identification and movement recording. Many national livestock organizations have already submitted projects for review under this program.

2. Enterprise Infrastructure is a cost-shared program administered by provinces and territories under Growing Forward to provide training and technology support to individual farms and firms.
 
This part of the world doesn't need a stimulus. We've got a less than 5% unemployment rate in our province, and things are ticking along quite nicely. There were complaints when we didn't get the boom times here, but now that all the booms have busted, our steady economy is looking pretty good. That's not including the livestock producers though... we've had a whole lot of different problems that have nothing to do with Wall Street, and everyone here knows what they are. :roll: :roll:

Maybe what this is is a giant leap ahead of the U.S. producer in accessing markets that require traceability? Maybe it's a move into the reality of accountability in food safety, where producers don't hide their heads in the sand and wait for the rest of the world to regress to their level?

In the meantime the U.S. producers' lobby groups argue amongst themselves about whether or not they want the government to know where they live and to know if they raise cattle or not. :roll: Like the government doesn't already know........ If Big Brother wanted to get the goods on anyone, they could do it a lot simpler than by putting a tag in a cow's ear.
 
PORKER said:
Kato, When Canada puts their COOL law in place , we will not complain and just do it. You should talk to Loblaws as they are working on selling no Canadian labeled beef. Could it be all Brazilian and Australian beef in their stores.
Click to expand...

So you copy my info but do not answer my original question. Was the recalled beef american beef ?????????? YES IT WAS .........

WE need cool in place for sure . It will make all consumers feel safer knowing that they are not eating ecoli infested products.. :wink:
 
hillsdown said:
PORKER said:
Kato, When Canada puts their COOL law in place , we will not complain and just do it. You should talk to Loblaws as they are working on selling no Canadian labeled beef. Could it be all Brazilian and Australian beef in their stores.
Click to expand...

So you copy my info but do not answer my original question. Was the recalled beef american beef ?????????? YES IT WAS .........

WE need cool in place for sure . It will make all consumers feel safer knowing that they are not eating ecoli infested products.. :wink:
Click to expand...

Hillsdown- would you provide your source that it is all american sourced- born, raised, and slaughtered in the USA- and that none of the cattle/beef involved originated in Canada- or Mexico, Australia, etc....
 
I am not divulging my source, sorry.

But are not most ecoli cases caused from sloppy workmanship and dirty slaughtering facilities and was this not a US slaughtering facility ?

When you can prove it to trim being brought in from another country that contaminated the meat let me know, which would be very hard since the ecoli was found in roast cuts, not ground beef. Maybe there should be a boycott of US slaughter houses ?
 
i can understand ot's skepticism. the usa can't trace many of it's animals at all so how would you prove anything's american? but i think that's the way they want it.
 
I had some pork riblets that said they came from Canada/USA and they were good. Of course my wife might say it was the cook, not where they came from.

Packers are trying to hide behind their own label and a generic country. I don't think they should. Things like the Schumaker case are much more of a concern if we had to order things in importance. Packers have been runniing their businesses largely off of the comparative advantage that they have stolen by breaking the economic laws that are supposed to be governing their market power. The law just isn't being enforced. We are, however, able to see what judges need to be impeached because they are not worthy of being in our justice system.

Tex
 
don said:
i can understand ot's skepticism. the usa can't trace many of it's animals at all so how would you prove anything's american? but i think that's the way they want it.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that if it's processed in the USA it's American. Just like a car that's made in Detroit with parts from all over the world.
 
Here is the problem , there is no traceability to prove Canadain beef in Loblaws ! That's why the gov. in Canada is putting $20,000,000.00 up to fix it. The traceability never leaves Cargil or any of the others as no one in Canada knows whose meat they are eating or buying from LobLaws.
 
Strategy to Achieve Traceability May be Complex
CANADA - The chair of Trace R&D 2009 says the approach that is taken to achieve food traceability in Canada will need to accommodate complex range of needs and a broad variety of interests, writes Bruce Cochrane.

University news is a Wonderworks Canada Production courtesy of the Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences at the University of Manitoba.
Visit us at www.universitynews.org
Input gathered on traceability from food industry stakeholders, scientists and government representatives on hand last week for Trace R&D 2009 in Winnipeg is now being compiled into a national traceability research and development strategy for Canada.

Conference chair, Dr Karin Wittenberg, the dean of research with the University of Manitoba's Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, says the complexity is around how broad a traceability programme is.

Dr Karin Wittenberg – University of Manitoba
When we talk about traceability it involves everybody along that value chain, from the supplier, to the producer, the processor, transporter, further processing, retailing, all of these sectors are involved and so that is one aspect of complexity.

The fact that our production and processing systems are so different for each of the commodities.

If we look across the livestock-poultry sector, the grains, oilseeds, pulse crops, produce, seafood, each sector is defined in managing itself and managing programs differently so there's complexity because we're talking about so many different products or foods or plant and animal production systems and sometimes the finished product is a combination of those.

Dr Wittenberg notes, as well as serving the Canadian public, it is also important to consider the fact that our industry exports a great deal of what it produces into countries that have their own traceability systems and into countries that have no traceability system.

She suggests, as traceability systems emerge globally it'll also be important for the Canadian system to be compatible.

{Then whats needed is www.ScoringAg.com }
 

Latest posts

Back
Top