Cool Compromise

[Bill]

The COOL Compromise Is Typical Of The Beltway
Jul 27, 2007 12:57 PM, Troy Marshall

After years of delaying the implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) because of the problems associated with the law, it had come down to crunch time. Congress had to do something to make the law workable and it could no longer continue to delay its implementation, not with the China and dog food scandals on everyone's mind.

So in typical Washington fashion, they had to appear to be responding. The revised version of mandatory COOL is an improvement of sorts but nobody will truly be satisfied with this new law. While it will not devastate the industry as the original version would have, it doesn't address the competitive disadvantage with which it saddles beef. Nor does it close the loopholes that make the COOL component essentially worthless.

In fact, COOL as now proposed can't possibly make either side happy. It just mitigates the potential problems while giving everyone political cover.

It's a little difficult to explain the changes made to the law, but here are the highlights. The onerous record-keeping requirements have been eliminated, with no one now required to maintain anything but "normal" business records. The fines for noncompliance were reduced significantly, which eliminates some of the potentially devastating liability that would have been associated with selling our product.

The compromise also changed the possible package labels to include one called "Multiple Countries Of Origin," and another called "Imported For Immediate Slaughter." The result is that nearly all ground beef will be sold with a list of multiple countries (the list would include a list of all reasonably possible countries).

The previous version of mandatory COOL provided few or no benefits with a whole lot of costs and headaches. The proposed revision reduces the number of headaches and the costs, but reduces the chances of any benefits as well.

It's certainly an upgrade, but a long ways from ideal. It will be interesting to see if something different emerges from the Senate side.

http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/cool-comp-typical/index.html
There's that dang Troy Marshall spouting off again huh Sadhusker?

 

[Sandhusker]

"After years of delaying the implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) because of the problems associated with the law..."

So, Bill, do you think that is an accurate statement?

 

[Bill]

"After years of delaying the implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) because of the problems associated with the law..."

So, Bill, do you think that is an accurate statement?

Yep Sandhusker I think that's accurate. There were problems associatesd with the law and there still are.

Do YOU think that's an accurate statement in your banker eyes?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

You know, I've seen this mentioned a few times and it never really clicked all that hard, but now it has. Why aren't you guys pushing for COOL on ALL PROTEINS? If the consumer wants to know where their beef comes from, doesn't it stand to reason that they should know where their chicken and porkers come from? And also put beef on an even playing field with those proteins, instead of tossing an added cost at beef?

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

If the consumer wants to know where their beef comes from, doesn't it stand to reason that they should know where their chicken and porkers come from? And also put beef on an even playing field with those proteins, instead of tossing an added cost at beef?

Rod

Pork/hogs are included in the M-COOL--and there is almost NO chicken imported since Tyson/etal already own that industry totally from egg to drumstick...

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

and there is almost NO chicken imported since Tyson/etal already own that industry totally from egg to drumstick...

So? Why wouldn't you want chicken included, if only to subject it to the same added COOL costs as beef and keep things on an even keel?

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

and there is almost NO chicken imported since Tyson/etal already own that industry totally from egg to drumstick...

So? Why wouldn't you want chicken included, if only to subject it to the same added COOL costs as beef and keep things on an even keel?

Rod

What would be the added cost if its all from the US....A Product of USA sticker probably costs $ .005......

 

[Sandhusker]

"After years of delaying the implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) because of the problems associated with the law..."

So, Bill, do you think that is an accurate statement?

Yep Sandhusker I think that's accurate. There were problems associatesd with the law and there still are.

Do YOU think that's an accurate statement in your banker eyes?

No, Bill, I don't think that is an accurate statement. COOL was not enacted because the funding was withheld by the chairman of the Ag. Committee. The author should know that.

 

[Sandhusker]

You know, I've seen this mentioned a few times and it never really clicked all that hard, but now it has. Why aren't you guys pushing for COOL on ALL PROTEINS? If the consumer wants to know where their beef comes from, doesn't it stand to reason that they should know where their chicken and porkers come from? And also put beef on an even playing field with those proteins, instead of tossing an added cost at beef?

Rod

The way I see it, COOL puts US beef at an advantage for minimal cost. Now, we need to get the checkoff promoting US product only and we'll have a good tool to combat imports.

Why would we push for all proteins when we only sell one?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

What would be the added cost if its all from the US....A Product of USA sticker probably costs $ .005......

Except for its not all from the US. Maple Leaf sells Canuck chickens into the US.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

The way I see it, COOL puts US beef at an advantage for minimal cost.

How does COOL put US beef at an advantage to US Chicken or US Pork?

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

The way I see it, COOL puts US beef at an advantage for minimal cost.

How does COOL put US beef at an advantage to US Chicken or US Pork?

Rod

Choices. Back in the day, you could get a Ford in any color you wanted, as long as it was black. GM came along with colors and guess what happened? Why are there several kinds of Coke?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Choices. Back in the day, you could get a Ford in any color you wanted, as long as it was black. GM came along with colors and guess what happened? Why are there several kinds of Coke?

You're talking colors and choices of flavors. I doubt having your choice of country of origin is going to sway a consumer away from picking chicken or pork, especially if it costs more.

Rod

 

[Bill]

The way I see it, COOL puts US beef at an advantage for minimal cost.

How does COOL put US beef at an advantage to US Chicken or US Pork?

Rod

Choices. Back in the day, you could get a Ford in any color you wanted, as long as it was black. GM came along with colors and guess what happened? Why are there several kinds of Coke?

How does COOL put US BEEF at an advantage over CHICKEN or PORK????

Because it allows them to choose BEEF from another country????????

WOW was that weak. :roll: ......and that's yiour FINAL answer? :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Choices. Back in the day, you could get a Ford in any color you wanted, as long as it was black. GM came along with colors and guess what happened? Why are there several kinds of Coke?

You're talking colors and choices of flavors. I doubt having your choice of country of origin is going to sway a consumer away from picking chicken or pork, especially if it costs more.

Rod

Rod, the costs will be minimal. There's no reason to have costs. All the work is already done - the packers just have to pass the information on, and they're already differentating product. Now US producers can actually promote their own product - same as you guys - because the consumer can actually pick it. This is just a no-brainer.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, the costs will be minimal. There's no reason to have costs. All the work is already done - the packers just have to pass the information on, and they're already differentating product. Now US producers can actually promote their own product - same as you guys - because the consumer can actually pick it. This is just a no-brainer.

I understand your arguement, I just don't agree with it. I think having country of origin labelling will allow competition WITHIN the BEEF sector, allowing one country to promote their beef over another. However, I don't think it will sway a consumer from choosing chicken or pork, especially if the chicken or pork are cheaper by X number of cents.

As for the costs, all the work isn't done. Take a US cow and split her into 50 or so pieces. How are you going to track those individual pieces at a reasonable price tag? You should read up on the Japanese style of COOL and how much it actually costs.

I just think that all proteins should be exposed to the same costs, to keep an even playing field.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Rod, the costs will be minimal. There's no reason to have costs. All the work is already done - the packers just have to pass the information on, and they're already differentating product. Now US producers can actually promote their own product - same as you guys - because the consumer can actually pick it. This is just a no-brainer.

I understand your arguement, I just don't agree with it. I think having country of origin labelling will allow competition WITHIN the BEEF sector, allowing one country to promote their beef over another. However, I don't think it will sway a consumer from choosing chicken or pork, especially if the chicken or pork are cheaper by X number of cents.

As for the costs, all the work isn't done. Take a US cow and split her into 50 or so pieces. How are you going to track those individual pieces at a reasonable price tag? You should read up on the Japanese style of COOL and how much it actually costs.

I just think that all proteins should be exposed to the same costs, to keep an even playing field.

Rod

The packers are already keeping beef from certain animals seperate via their branded beef, hormone free, choice, etc..... You never heard a word about this being difficult until COOL - that's because it's not difficult. You want to keep Canadian seperate from US from Mexican? Slaughter US on Mon-Wed., Canadian on Thursday, Mexican on Friday. You change the rolls of ID stickers when the shift starts. How costly is that?

 

[RobertMac]

Rod, poultry and pork have always cost less than beef...and always will.
What's your point?

 

[Bill]

Rod, the costs will be minimal. There's no reason to have costs. All the work is already done - the packers just have to pass the information on, and they're already differentating product. Now US producers can actually promote their own product - same as you guys - because the consumer can actually pick it. This is just a no-brainer.

I understand your arguement, I just don't agree with it. I think having country of origin labelling will allow competition WITHIN the BEEF sector, allowing one country to promote their beef over another. However, I don't think it will sway a consumer from choosing chicken or pork, especially if the chicken or pork are cheaper by X number of cents.

As for the costs, all the work isn't done. Take a US cow and split her into 50 or so pieces. How are you going to track those individual pieces at a reasonable price tag? You should read up on the Japanese style of COOL and how much it actually costs.

I just think that all proteins should be exposed to the same costs, to keep an even playing field.

Rod

You are right on Rod it is mainly about trying to add cost to IMPORTED beef but I am sure many remember the US border inspector William Lehman and his crusade against Canadian beef, for some that's what this is all about.

The whole purpose for many in their support of COOL has absolutely DICK squat to do with choice or food safety and everything to do with targetting another counties exports just as Lehman did at Sweetgrass.

What other reason is there for being so concerned about legislation that covers such a SMALL amount of importesd product and doesn't even apply to beef's main competitor CHICKEN. The folks at Tyson must be just killing themselves with laughter as the R-Klowns do their buttslapping victory dance before they even know exactly what is in the rule. :roll: :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Bill, "You are right on Rod it is mainly about trying to add cost to IMPORTED beef but I am sure many remember the US border inspector William Lehman and his crusade against Canadian beef, for some that's what this is all about. "

WHAT COSTS are being added?

Bill, "What other reason is there for being so concerned about legislation that covers such a SMALL amount of importesd product and doesn't even apply to beef's main competitor CHICKEN. The folks at Tyson must be just killing themselves with laughter as the R-Klowns do their buttslapping victory dance before they even know exactly what is in the rule."

If you would pay attention to the news, you would know a little about South America. The yellow journalism crew doesn't tell you about South America's desire and capability to feed the world. They don't tell you about liberalized trade agreements that will open the doors to all that beef that Tyson and Cargill will be able to import for less than you can produce it for. They probably didn't mention that the USDA is trying to make FMD just a localized problem so that imports can come from other areas of an infected country. If you listen to clowns, you'll be a clown. Wake up and plan ahead a little - COOL isn't just about today.