COOL back to Court

[Anonymous]

'Slaughtered in the U.S.A.' meat labeling rule draws fresh legal attack

By Ben Goad - 07/26/13 03:43 PM ET





A coalition of meat industry groups from across North America asked a U.S. federal court Friday to block new labeling regulations seen as threatening "irreparable harm" to businesses and severe economic damage to the broader economy.

Nine meat processing and packing trade groups from the United States, Canada and Mexico filed the request for a preliminary injunction stopping the new country-of-origin labeling (COOL) standards from taking effect. The industry groups argue the injunction is warranted because they are likely ultimately to prevail in a lawsuit challenging the Agriculture Department rule.

"But if it is not enjoined in the meantime, the Final Rule will irreparably harm meat-industry participants," the groups contend in the 55-page motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. "Plaintiffs are trade organizations that represent regulated entities facing immediate and substantial burdens and costs under the Final Rule."

Issued in March and finalized in May, the COOL regulations require that meat packaging give more information about where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered. Under the rule, the label on a cut of beef could theoretically read "Born in Mexico, raised in Canada, slaughtered in the U.S.A."

The regulations serve two purposes: to provide consumers with more information, and to bring the United States in compliance with international standards. The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled last year that previous labeling practices were unfair to Mexico and Canada.

The two counties, the United States' top two meat trading partners, could retaliate with damaging tariffs if the WTO determines the new rules do not meet international standards.

Throughout the rule-making process, industry groups urged scrapping COOL labels altogether. The new rules, they said, would force meat-packers to implement new livestock segregation, record keeping and packaging practices, costing millions of dollars. 


Dropping the regulations, they argued, would save the industry from serious pain and satisfy the WTO.

The WTO is expected to weigh in on the new labeling rules sometime this fall.

While the parties await a decision, the industry groups filed a lawsuit against the USDA in July, seeking to strike down the regulations.

The suit argues that the rule violates businesses' First Amendment protection from compelled speech, since they would require costly labeling systems on meat that would not directly further a government interest.

The groups also argue the rule exceeds the USDA's authority.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/business/313813-slaughtered-in-the-usa-meat-labeling-rule-draws-fresh-legal-attack-#ixzz2aFQhtfF2

Leo McDonnell & U.S. Cattlemen's Association to Lead Intervention In COOL Lawsuit



Source: United States Cattlemen's Association (USCA)

July 26, 2013



Leo McDonnell, Director Emeritus of the United States Cattlemen's Association (USCA) has announced that USCA will lead COOL supporters in intervention in the lawsuit filed on July 8 by plaintiffs seeking an injunction to vacate the Department of Agriculture's Final Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Rule and asking the court to halt the implementation and enforcement of the revised COOL regulations. Plaintiffs in the suit are the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), American Meat Institute (AMI), Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Canadian Pork Council, National Pork Producers Council, North American Meat Association (NAMA), American Association of Meat Processors and Southwest Meat Association. The suit also names Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and Anne Alonzo, Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) as defendants.



McDonnell issued the following statement on behalf of the USCA board of directors:



"The USCA board has consulted with legal counsel in order to understand what the industry's best options are to assist with the defense of COOL in this case. Based on those discussions, the USCA board has unanimously chosen to intervene in this case and will lead a national effort to coordinate and network other key industry groups and associations into the process. This is an extremely important move and it must happen rapidly. It is our responsibility to intervene in this lawsuit to ensure that the court hears from the U.S. cattle industry and receives facts and arguments that will have a more meaningful impact coming from the industry itself."



"The eight plaintiffs in this case seek to remove from us our right to differentiate our product with a USA label. NCBA and the other plaintiffs argue that 'beef is beef, whether the cattle are raised in Montana, Manitoba or Mazatlan.' Many producer groups, such as USCA, and consumer groups believe that consumers are entitled to the type of information the revised USDA regulations provide. It is important that those who believe this have their voices heard in this litigation."



"This case involves various challenges, including a constitutionality question. At the District Court level, this case is likely to be more complicated than just a single round of briefings. With that in mind, USCA is preparing an intervention that will take us through a potential trial court phase and any hearings scheduled. Our legal counsel is drafting the initial court filings and fundraising has commenced to meet the costs. We have initiated contact with auction markets soliciting their help with fundraising and have received overwhelming support. Auction markets in the Dakotas and Montana are already organizing rollover calf sales and other efforts to assist with raising the funds needed for this action."



"The USCA board is determined to take every appropriate step to defend COOL. Producers can rest assured that we will be releasing more details as this process unfolds. I am grateful for the support this effort has already received and I look forward to building on that momentum as we move forward."



###



Established in March 2007, USCA is committed to concentrating its efforts in Washington, D.C. to enhance and expand the cattle industry's voice on Capitol Hill. USCA has a full-time presence in Washington, giving cattle producers across the country a strong influence on policy development. For more information go to www.uscattlemen.org

 

[Mike]

President Bush signed mandatory COOL into law in the 2002 Farm Bill, with an implementation date of September 30, 2004. However, since being signed into law, COOL fell victim to a series of backroom deals, closed door discussions, delays, postponements, and policy riders attached to appropriations bills. The 2008 Farm Bill amended and clarified the commitment to require COOL implementation and the final rule to implement COOL took effect on March 16, 2009.

 

[Anonymous]

Four Groups Seek to Intervene in COOL Lawsuit

Northern Ag Network posted on August 09, 2013 18:47 :: 26 Views




The following article is from the NAFB News Service:



Attorneys have filed documents with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, National Farmers Union, Consumer Federation of America and American Sheep Industry Association. They are seeking to intervene in the lawsuit filed in July seeking an end to the U.S. country of origin labeling program. If granted intervention - the four organizations will present arguments in defense of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service regulations on COOL. While the groups are hopeful the court will make a decision on the motion for intervenor status in the near future - there is no specific time limit for such decisions. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion brought by nine plaintiff groups for August 27th. A response to the motion for preliminary injunction by the Department of Justice was due to be filed Friday. The plaintiffs are then due to file their reply to the opposition papers on the preliminary injunction motion by the 16th.



USCA President Jon Wooster says this is a very important step in the intervention process. He's hopeful their voices will be able to be heard at the important preliminary injunction hearing phase. Wooster says the joint effort with three other groups on this request for intervenor status provides the court with a significant representative sampling of both the U.S. livestock production sector as well as consumers. NFU President Roger Johnson says NFU, USCA, CFA and ASI will continue to support COOL on behalf of U.S. family farmers and ranchers and American consumers - working hard on the issue until these arguments are put to rest and the law remains intact once and for all.



A recent CFA study found that 90-percent of a representative sample of one-thousand adult Americans favored - strongly or somewhat - requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country of origin of fresh meat they sell. In addition - 87-percent favored - strongly or somewhat - requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born, raised and processed. Ninety-percent of the adults also favored - strongly or somewhat - requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born and raised and the fact the meat was processed in the U.S. NFU's Johnson says there's no denying U.S. consumers want to know where their food comes from.







Source: NAFB News Service

Posted by Haylie Shipp

 

[mytwocents]

Back during the checkoff fiasco NCBA's argument to the Supreme Court was that the beef checkoff program was "Government speech" and therefore producers couldn't claim that it was a violation of their first amendment rights - to be forced to support a message they didn't agree with.

Fast forward to now. NCBA, along with the American Association of Meat Processors, American Meat Institute, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Canadian Pork Council, National Pork Producers Council, North American Meat Association and Southwest Meat Association are suing USDA over the COOL law.

In their defense against COOL the groups argue that the new COOL requirements violate the U.S. Constitution and first amendment rights and amount to the government "compelling speech".

Talk about talking out both sides of their mouths- NCBA always claimed that the checkoff was a "producer-driven", "self-help" program UNTIL they willingly fought to make sure it was considered "Government Speech." Now, all of a sudden they have a problem with "Government Speech". They didn't have a problem with it back then when it served their interests. Hypocrites.

 

[Anonymous]

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction In COOL Lawsuit

Northern Ag Network posted on September 11, 2013 08:51 :: 43 Views




The following is a press release from the U.S. Cattlemen's Association:



USCA (September 11, 2013) - The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that, if granted, would have blocked the Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing and enforcing its revised country of origin labeling (COOL) regulations until a lawsuit filed July 8 is concluded. The U.S. Cattlemen's Association (USCA), along with National Farmers Union (NFU), American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) and the Consumer Federation of America, became intervenors in the lawsuit on August 19 when the court entered an order granting their motion to intervene in full, permitting the groups to participate in the preliminary injunction hearing as well as the remainder of the litigation.



The following statement can be attributed to Jon Wooster, USCA President, San Lucas, Calif.



"We, of course, are pleased with the court's decision to deny the preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiffs. If the injunction had been granted it would have ensured that the United States would be in violation of its trade obligations under the WTO and also would have further delayed consumers having the type of information Congress has long intended them to have. The revised USDA regulations announced on May 23 of this year will certainly reduce consumer confusion and will allow cattle producers the ability to differentiate their product from foreign beef."




"USCA, NFU, ASI and CFA are committed to a strong defense of COOL and, on behalf of all four organizations, I want to extend our gratitude to all those who are contributing to the U.S. COOL Defense Fund. This is an expensive undertaking but it is a necessary one if we are to ensure the most effective defense. "



USDA's final rule modified certain provisions in COOL regulations after a WTO Appellate Body affirmed an earlier WTO Dispute Panel decision finding aspects of the regulations violated U.S. trade obligations. USDA released its modified regulations on May 23, 2013 and notified the WTO that the U.S. had come into compliance with the WTO ruling. On July 8, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, American Meat Institute, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Canadian Pork Council, North American Meat Association, American Association of Meat Processors, National Pork Producers Council, Southwest Meat Association and Mexico's National Confederation of Livestock Organizations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to vacate and set aside USDA's revised regulations. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. On July 26, USCA announced that it would lead an intervention in the lawsuit and was quickly joined by NFU, ASI and CFA.







Source: USCA

Posted by Haylie Shipp

 

[Anonymous]

22 Tons of Fake Beef Seized in China

This really makes our stomachs churn.

Written by Erin Mosbaugh | September 16, 2013 at 4:29 pm | 13 Comments


This week, police in Xi'an province reported that they had found and seized more than 22 tons of fake beef at a local factory. Get this: the "beef" was actually made from pork (which is considerable cheaper than beef) that had been treated with chemicals including paraffin wax and industrial salts to make it look like it came from a cow. Shanghiist reports that the factory sold more than 1,500 kilos (3,000 pounds) of the fake beef to local markets at around 25 to 33 yuan ($4 or $5) per kilo. Six workshops that were producing the fake beef have been discovered and shut down.

This isn't the first instance of fake meat being sold in China. In May of this year, Medical Daily reported that 904 people were arrested in China for "meat-related offenses" over three months at the beginning of 2013. Included in these arrests was one gang of meat crooks who made over 10 million yuan ($1.6 million) by selling rat, fox, and mink meat at markets. This makes us wonder what impostor foods we might be eating, which in turn makes us very, very uncomfortable.



http://firstwefeast.com/eat/20000-kilos-of-fake-beef-seized-in-xian-china/

This is the reason we need M-COOL on all imported food products... With over 20% of the countries food now being imported- and USDA cutting back on testing of imported food products (less than 6% is tested anymore) - consumers need to know where a product was produced in order to make an informed choice on what they want their families eating...

The only reason the multinational corporate meatpackers and importers are fighting COOL is because it would take away their very profitable ability to import cheap (and often found inferior or in some cases dangerous) products and pass them off as a domestic product in order to make a fast buck...

 

[Whitewing]

Which reminds me of a buddy who visited China on a computer-related project a number of years ago.

They took him out to dinner one night and he was surprised at how tasty the dish was that they'd served him.

He asked the interpreter, what it was.

"Meat", she answered.

"Beef?", he asked.

"Meat".

"Pork?", he asked this time.

"Meat", she responded.

At that point he figured he really didn't want to know. :lol:

 

[hopalong]

One of the best steaks I ever had was in Hong Kong in about 1963,,, Bunch of went in to a restaurant and ordered steak after a long session at sea...
they brought it out on a platter and it hung over the sides. nothing fancy just med rare steak MAN it was good no one questioned what it was we just gorged ourselves had a glass of milk aid our tab and hit the door.....
\found out later it was horse meat,,,the milk was yak milk, and we had a good meal, MCOOL was not even near by..
Am guessing most ot the proponents of MCOOL are clueless as to what really happens in proof of origin..be it meat be it eggs be it the computer they set behind
:wink: