Cool Revisited

[Kato]

If it was Canadian beef packers exporting to the U.S. you can bet they'd be capitalizing on it. Unfortunately, it's U.S. BEEF PACKERS, who have taken control of the Canadian beef processing industry who are exporting the beef. They're quite happy to sit back, let the discounts apply, and cash in on it.

And don't even bother with that tired old "Why did you LET them take over" argument. You've never been on the business end of American imperialism, and have no idea what it's like. We are doing our best to fight it, but the fact is we are few, we are poor, we are very tired, and we don't carry enough votes to influence our government one way or the other.

Mexico is a major buyer of U.S. meat, accounting for 40 percent of U.S. beef exports and 18 percent of pork, according to Stephens Inc. analyst Farha Aslam."

And you are willing to just toss this away? :? :? At a time when the economy is sputtering, you are willing to just stop doing business because you are so important you don't need the rest of the world, and you don't need to live up to your agreements. How arrogant.

Drop 40% of your exports, and leave that beef in your own system, and then see what the price does with a few million pounds of surplus beef in it. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Mexico is a major buyer of U.S. meat, accounting for 40 percent of U.S. beef exports and 18 percent of pork, according to Stephens Inc. analyst Farha Aslam."

And you are willing to just toss this away? :? :? At a time when the economy is sputtering, you are willing to just stop doing business because you are so important you don't need the rest of the world, and you don't need to live up to your agreements. How arrogant.

Drop 40% of your exports, and leave that beef in your own system, and then see what the price does with a few million pounds of surplus beef in it. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Right now its time to cater to and promote to those that helped the most to build the US cattle/beef industries- and that is the US consumer-- who is asking for country of origin labeling- and wants information on not only where their food was processed, but also what country it comes from....

 

[Sandhusker]

If it was Canadian beef packers exporting to the U.S. you can bet they'd be capitalizing on it. Unfortunately, it's U.S. BEEF PACKERS, who have taken control of the Canadian beef processing industry who are exporting the beef. They're quite happy to sit back, let the discounts apply, and cash in on it.

And don't even bother with that tired old "Why did you LET them take over" argument. You've never been on the business end of American imperialism, and have no idea what it's like. We are doing our best to fight it, but the fact is we are few, we are poor, we are very tired, and we don't carry enough votes to influence our government one way or the other.

Mexico is a major buyer of U.S. meat, accounting for 40 percent of U.S. beef exports and 18 percent of pork, according to Stephens Inc. analyst Farha Aslam."

And you are willing to just toss this away? :? :? At a time when the economy is sputtering, you are willing to just stop doing business because you are so important you don't need the rest of the world, and you don't need to live up to your agreements. How arrogant.

Drop 40% of your exports, and leave that beef in your own system, and then see what the price does with a few million pounds of surplus beef in it. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Well then, the problem is your government, and believe me, we've got the same damn problem.

I'm not willing to toss that market away, but I'm also not willing to be strongarmed into poverty, either. Mexico is pulling this because they know their sales are going to suffer - and the beneficiary of that loss will be US cattlemen.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

And get off this packer theory about horns and hides,you could'nt buy a low cut dress for a humming bird with the money you got from horns ,and we have hiders and tanneries on this side of the river

Are you serious? How long have you actually been in cattle business? The numbers I quoted don't come from packers, but rather small independents who have been selling hooves, horns and hides for DECADES! This is like the whole "US doesn't buy Canadian oil" rant you went on a few months ago.

Do some research before you splutter, Hay Maker. You wouldn't look like such an ass.

Sandhusker:

We do process our own beef here, thank you very much. However our packers are also US owned (we have NAFTA to thank for that) and will play us against your R-Quacker sponsored MCOOL NAFTA violating protectionist legislation.

And do you honestly believe that an industry can just change overnight? Canadian cattle producers are coming off BSE prices, then a couple years of high feed prices, now a year of your MCOOL crap. We're hurting, and all R-Quack is doing is making things worse FOR ALL PRODUCERS, US and Canadian.

Rod

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I'm not willing to toss that market away

Of course you're not Sandhusker. You think that everyone should bend over and let the US ram them from behind while violating the agreements that your elected representatives signed.

I hope you have fun while your economy and beef industry crumbles down around your ankles. Maybe then you'll understand how idiotic the R-Quack mantra is.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Rod-- thats whats so comical in watching your arguments-- what you consider an "R-Quack" issue is now a NATIONAL consumer and producer issue....Thanks to the tainted imported products from China, Mexico, Asia, and the BSE issue-- the consumers of America are asking for transparency in the information about their food products- and honest labeling to country it originates in and is processed in......
And thats what M-COOL will give them- not only for beef, but for several food products.....

Most Americans willing to pay more for domestic meat: poll

By Janie Gabbett on 8/16/2007 for Meatingplace.com




Some 70 percent of food shoppers say they're willing to pay more for produce, poultry, meat, seafood and other food products produced in the United States, according to a new poll by Zogby International.

One in three respondents said they would pay up to 10 percent more for U.S. food, and nearly half (46 percent) would be willing to pay from 10 to 25 percent more. Eleven percent said they would be willing to pay 25 percent or more. And nearly 15 percent of respondents indicated they would not be willing to pay more.

The survey also showed that 90 percent believe knowing the country of origin of the foods they buy will allow consumers to make safer food choices, and 88 percent said they would like all retail food to be labeled this way.

But wanting to know and going out of their way to check where a product originates are two different things. Only 11 percent said they always check product origin, while 37 percent said they check most of the time and 34 percent said they check occasionally.

The Zogby interactive survey of 4,508 adults nationwide was conducted July 17-19, 2007. For more information see the Zogby poll news release.

Reuters – Tuesday – July 10, 2007 – 5:10 p.m. EDT



Americans support use of meat-origin labeling: poll

By Christopher Doering

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support stricter food labeling laws, with 92 percent of Americans wanting to know which country produced the food they are buying, a consumer magazine said on Tuesday.

Consumer Reports said recent food scares, including worries about peanut butter and lettuce, have made Americans more interested in knowing not only how their food was produced but where it was made.

"I was definitely shocked at how high these numbers were," said the study's coauthor Dr. Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist and policy analyst at Consumers Union, the nonprofit organization that publishes Consumer Reports magazine.

"It's much like a nutrition label or an ingredient label in that it needs to be part of the general information coming in about imported foods," she added.

CN_Today 1/26/2007 9:02:00 AM


USDA Announces Results Of Nationwide Beef Checkoff Survey

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25, 2007 - Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the results of the Beef Checkoff Survey, which was conducted recently among beef, dairy, and veal producers nationwide.

From Oct. 4 through Nov. 21, 2006, the Gallup Organization, with oversight by USDA, interviewed 8,002 beef, dairy and veal producers across the nation to measure their attitudes regarding the Beef Checkoff Program. This program assesses $1-per-head on all cattle sold in the United States and $1-per-head equivalent on imported cattle, beef and beef products, to invest in programs aimed at increasing demand for beef and improving profit opportunities for cattle producers and importers who pay into the program. USDA oversees the program, which is administered by the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Cattlemen's Beef Board).

The survey was conducted in response to a settlement agreement between Cattlemen's Beef Board and the Livestock Marketing Association as a result of a May 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which ruled the Beef Promotion and Research Act constitutional. Checkoff dollars funded the survey and the dissemination of its results. Representatives of the USDA, Cattlemen's Beef Board, the Livestock Marketing Association, and the Federation of State Beef Councils worked together to develop the survey questions. Some highlights of the survey results are:

Seventy two (72) percent of those surveyed either strongly approved or somewhat approved of the Beef Checkoff Program. In a question on changes or improvements to the program, some respondents noted that they would like to see more advertising and more information about how checkoff funds are spent.

Sixty-six (66) percent of those surveyed would strongly approve or somewhat approve of the Cattlemen's Beef Board contracting directly "with any entity, including businesses, university researchers, advertising and marketing agencies, and other consultants." Less than 25 percent would disapprove of this move. Currently, the Beef Promotion and Research Act requires that the Cattlemen's Beef Board contract only with "established national nonprofit industry-governed organizations … to implement programs of promotion, research, consumer information and industry information."

Eighty two (82) percent of those surveyed would strongly approve or somewhat approve of "voting periodically on the continuation of the Beef Checkoff Program."

Ninety-two (92) percent of those surveyed would strongly agree or somewhat agree that "if it were possible, all or at least some portion of the Beef Checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. born and raised beef." Currently, the program promotes beef, in general, and importers also pay into the program at $1-per-head on live animal imports and a $1-per-head equivalent on beef products. Even if promoting only U.S. born and raised beef meant canceling the checkoff assessment on imported beef and beef products, 75.4 percent of the survey respondents still strongly or somewhat agree that a portion of the checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. beef. Currently, about $8 million or 10 percent of the total assessments collected comes from imports.

The results of the survey will be discussed in more detail during each of the respective group's 2007 annual meetings. For more information about the date and time the report will be discussed during these annual meetings, contact the Cattlemen's Beef Board at 1-800-388-2333, Livestock Marketing Association at 1-800-821-2048, or the Federation of State Beef Councils (National Cattlemen's Beef Association) at 303-694-0305. The final report will be available on USDA's web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/rp-beef.htm on Jan. 25, 2007.

 

[HAY MAKER]

If it was Canadian beef packers exporting to the U.S. you can bet they'd be capitalizing on it. Unfortunately, it's U.S. BEEF PACKERS, who have taken control of the Canadian beef processing industry who are exporting the beef. They're quite happy to sit back, let the discounts apply, and cash in on it.

And don't even bother with that tired old "Why did you LET them take over" argument. You've never been on the business end of American imperialism, and have no idea what it's like. We are doing our best to fight it, but the fact is we are few, we are poor, we are very tired, and we don't carry enough votes to influence our government one way or the other.

Mexico is a major buyer of U.S. meat, accounting for 40 percent of U.S. beef exports and 18 percent of pork, according to Stephens Inc. analyst Farha Aslam."

And you are willing to just toss this away? :? :? At a time when the economy is sputtering, you are willing to just stop doing business because you are so important you don't need the rest of the world, and you don't need to live up to your agreements. How arrogant.

Drop 40% of your exports, and leave that beef in your own system, and then see what the price does with a few million pounds of surplus beef in it. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Kato.........I think the point here is,dropping 40% export will demand an equal amount of import,I just dont think the cattleman has seen much benefit from the import/export packer shell game.................good luck

 

[HAY MAKER]

And get off this packer theory about horns and hides,you could'nt buy a low cut dress for a humming bird with the money you got from horns ,and we have hiders and tanneries on this side of the river

Are you serious? How long have you actually been in cattle business?

The numbers I quoted don't come from packers

, but rather small independents who have been selling hooves, horns and hides for DECADES! This is like the whole "US doesn't buy Canadian oil" rant you went on a few months ago.

Do some research before you splutter, Hay Maker. You wouldn't look like such an ass.

Sandhusker:

We do process our own beef here, thank you very much. However our packers are also US owned (we have NAFTA to thank for that) and will play us against your R-Quacker sponsored MCOOL NAFTA violating protectionist legislation.

And do you honestly believe that an industry can just change overnight? Canadian cattle producers are coming off BSE prices, then a couple years of high feed prices, now a year of your MCOOL crap. We're hurting, and all R-Quack is doing is making things worse FOR ALL PRODUCERS, US and Canadian.

Rod

hhhhhmmmm,I musta missed something here,I didnt see any numbers,here is your chance smart boy,pencil some beef byproduct,lets see how much money Im makin on these ole polled cattle horns.
good luck

PS..... And remember we are talkin about exported hooves hides and horn not domestic,let me ask you a question,where do you think the market for hooves, hide and horn is located ?
The only thing I know hooves are good for is gelatin,hide for leather and horn for western art,IM betting the market is in yup...........you guessed it the good ole USA.

 

[Sandhusker]

I'm not willing to toss that market away

Of course you're not Sandhusker. You think that everyone should bend over and let the US ram them from behind while violating the agreements that your elected representatives signed.

I hope you have fun while your economy and beef industry crumbles down around your ankles. Maybe then you'll understand how idiotic the R-Quack mantra is.

Rod

Rod, your belief in the power and influence of R-CALF is highly complimentary, but you need to figure out that it was the US citizens who overwhelmingly said that they wanted COOL, and it isn't just about beef. You seem to think this is just a shot at Canadian beef. It's not, it's just a small part of a much larger picture. It's about food safety that is being compromised in the name of trade. It's about priorities.

Yes, we are breaking NAFTA, I'll give you that. But, we've got to either break a POS trade agreement or violate the highest duty of Congress and defy the citizens of the country. What's more important, the safety of your own citizens or the checkbook of foreigners? It's an easy call to me.

 

[HAY MAKER]

Chinese executives in court for melamine contamination
Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 4:15 PM

by Bob Meyer

The head of the Chinese dairy company at the center of the melamine scandal went on trial Wednesday. The state-run Chinese news agency reports 66-year-old Tian Wenhua pleaded "guilty" to charges of "producing and selling fake or substandard products." To date, six children have died and more than 290,000 people have been made ill from the contamination.

Tian and three other executives at Sanlu Dairy allegedly knew about problems with the milk from their company in mid-May. They did set up a working group to handle the situation but did not report the problem to city government officials until early August. The city government officials didn't pass the report on to higher authorities for another month. Some have speculated government officials sat on the case until after the Beijing Olympic Games were completed.

Besides Sanlu, at least 21 other dairy companies have been found to have produced melamine-contaminated products. Reuters says at least 17 other people have gone on trial in the last week. In an effort to restore credibility in Chinese products, it is expected officials will hand-down stiff penalties to those involved. The four Sanlu Dairy executives could get life imprisonment.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I guess I need some one smart to explain to this uneducated hick why,when we cannot meet our own demand, we need exports.

Because you uneducated hick, you EXPORT the low grade cuts that US consumers don't want, therefore gaining additional dollars. A cut that you can only get 50 cents for in the US may sell for 75 cents or a buck in Mexico.

Did you know that up to 40% of the CASH return on an animal is actually made up of selling by-products like hides, hooves, ears and horns? Those hooves and horns have virtually no value within North America but to China they're like gold. Mexican companies buy hides by the tens of thousands for tanning. A prime hide, with no brand markings or other scars will bring 20% of the value of the animal (so much for your great ID idea OT).

And so on and so on.

Its about maximizing the dollar return on a beef. If you're happy selling your beef for less, have at it. The rest of us actually comprehend how the beef business works and want the opportunity to make every last red cent we can. And we realize that trying to tie food safety into country of origin is simply a pathetic attempt at protectionism.

If MCOOL goes, you boys have fun with your devalued animals because I don't think Mexico and Canada will sit idly by this time.

Rod

If this is what you are refering to as numbers...................source them,this looks like your opinion and looks high,this is what I meant earlier,you slant packer.
I guess you would have us believe that we need the import/export markets so we can export beef byproduct ?
The small gain from byproduct is negilible when compared to foreign captive supplies putting downward pressure on the market and you know it.
good luck

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

The small gain from byproduct is negilible when compared to foreign captive supplies putting downward pressure on the market and you know it.

Here's a writeup from Montana State University:

http://www2.montana.edu/jantle/trc/pdf/briefings/brief14.pdf

And thats all I found in the 30 seconds I took to look. There were an additional 5000 hits on Google.

These are US exports of by-product - hide, horns, etc to China, Japan, Korea, and Mexico. And doesn't include local consumption. You'd better double check what beef products are used for son as you've obviously missed the boat somewhere.

And yeah, if the US decides to make trade difficult, you may find yourselves holding onto much of that by-product, with it doing nothing but costing you money for disposal, versus generating income.

Of course, its only 1.8 billion dollars. Mere pennies.

Rod

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

complimentary, but you need to figure out that it was the US citizens who overwhelmingly said that they wanted COOL,

You got that wrong Sandhusker. Its R-Quack that said consumers wanted beef COOL. Every single poll I've seen states that US consumers want to know where their food is MADE. As you probably forgot, you may want to refer back to the dictionary definitions I posted in the other thread. Its R-Quack and their pet politicians that chose to twist MADE into ORIGIN.

Like I said, show me a poll that actual shows US consumers want ORIGIN.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

complimentary, but you need to figure out that it was the US citizens who overwhelmingly said that they wanted COOL,

You got that wrong Sandhusker. Its R-Quack that said consumers wanted beef COOL. Every single poll I've seen states that US consumers want to know where their food is MADE. As you probably forgot, you may want to refer back to the dictionary definitions I posted in the other thread. Its R-Quack and their pet politicians that chose to twist MADE into ORIGIN.

Like I said, show me a poll that actual shows US consumers want ORIGIN.

Rod

And I'll argue that people consider where it was made to be country of origin. I'll back that point with the Chinese wheat gluten mess.

 

[Anonymous]

complimentary, but you need to figure out that it was the US citizens who overwhelmingly said that they wanted COOL,

You got that wrong Sandhusker. Its R-Quack that said consumers wanted beef COOL. Every single poll I've seen states that US consumers want to know where their food is MADE. As you probably forgot, you may want to refer back to the dictionary definitions I posted in the other thread. Its R-Quack and their pet politicians that chose to twist MADE into ORIGIN.

Like I said, show me a poll that actual shows US consumers want ORIGIN.

Rod

Most Americans willing to pay more for domestic meat: poll

By Janie Gabbett on 8/16/2007 for Meatingplace.com




Some 70 percent of food shoppers say they're willing to pay more for produce, poultry, meat, seafood and other food products produced in the United States, according to a new poll by Zogby International.

One in three respondents said they would pay up to 10 percent more for U.S. food, and nearly half (46 percent) would be willing to pay from 10 to 25 percent more. Eleven percent said they would be willing to pay 25 percent or more. And nearly 15 percent of respondents indicated they would not be willing to pay more.

The survey also showed that 90 percent believe knowing the country of origin of the foods they buy will allow consumers to make safer food choices, and 88 percent said they would like all retail food to be labeled this way.

But wanting to know and going out of their way to check where a product originates are two different things. Only 11 percent said they always check product origin, while 37 percent said they check most of the time and 34 percent said they check occasionally.

The Zogby interactive survey of 4,508 adults nationwide was conducted July 17-19, 2007. For more information see the Zogby poll news release.

Reuters – Tuesday – July 10, 2007 – 5:10 p.m. EDT



Americans support use of meat-origin labeling: poll

By Christopher Doering

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support stricter food labeling laws, with 92 percent of Americans wanting to know which country produced the food they are buying, a consumer magazine said on Tuesday.

Consumer Reports said recent food scares, including worries about peanut butter and lettuce, have made Americans more interested in knowing not only how their food was produced but where it was made.

"I was definitely shocked at how high these numbers were," said the study's coauthor Dr. Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist and policy analyst at Consumers Union, the nonprofit organization that publishes Consumer Reports magazine.

"It's much like a nutrition label or an ingredient label in that it needs to be part of the general information coming in about imported foods," she added.

CN_Today 1/26/2007 9:02:00 AM


USDA Announces Results Of Nationwide Beef Checkoff Survey

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25, 2007 - Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the results of the Beef Checkoff Survey, which was conducted recently among beef, dairy, and veal producers nationwide.

From Oct. 4 through Nov. 21, 2006, the Gallup Organization, with oversight by USDA, interviewed 8,002 beef, dairy and veal producers across the nation to measure their attitudes regarding the Beef Checkoff Program. This program assesses $1-per-head on all cattle sold in the United States and $1-per-head equivalent on imported cattle, beef and beef products, to invest in programs aimed at increasing demand for beef and improving profit opportunities for cattle producers and importers who pay into the program. USDA oversees the program, which is administered by the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Cattlemen's Beef Board).

The survey was conducted in response to a settlement agreement between Cattlemen's Beef Board and the Livestock Marketing Association as a result of a May 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which ruled the Beef Promotion and Research Act constitutional. Checkoff dollars funded the survey and the dissemination of its results. Representatives of the USDA, Cattlemen's Beef Board, the Livestock Marketing Association, and the Federation of State Beef Councils worked together to develop the survey questions. Some highlights of the survey results are:

Seventy two (72) percent of those surveyed either strongly approved or somewhat approved of the Beef Checkoff Program. In a question on changes or improvements to the program, some respondents noted that they would like to see more advertising and more information about how checkoff funds are spent.

Sixty-six (66) percent of those surveyed would strongly approve or somewhat approve of the Cattlemen's Beef Board contracting directly "with any entity, including businesses, university researchers, advertising and marketing agencies, and other consultants." Less than 25 percent would disapprove of this move. Currently, the Beef Promotion and Research Act requires that the Cattlemen's Beef Board contract only with "established national nonprofit industry-governed organizations … to implement programs of promotion, research, consumer information and industry information."

Eighty two (82) percent of those surveyed would strongly approve or somewhat approve of "voting periodically on the continuation of the Beef Checkoff Program."

Ninety-two (92) percent of those surveyed would strongly agree or somewhat agree that "if it were possible, all or at least some portion of the Beef Checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. born and raised beef." Currently, the program promotes beef, in general, and importers also pay into the program at $1-per-head on live animal imports and a $1-per-head equivalent on beef products. Even if promoting only U.S. born and raised beef meant canceling the checkoff assessment on imported beef and beef products, 75.4 percent of the survey respondents still strongly or somewhat agree that a portion of the checkoff dollars should be used to promote only U.S. beef. Currently, about $8 million or 10 percent of the total assessments collected comes from imports.

The results of the survey will be discussed in more detail during each of the respective group's 2007 annual meetings. For more information about the date and time the report will be discussed during these annual meetings, contact the Cattlemen's Beef Board at 1-800-388-2333, Livestock Marketing Association at 1-800-821-2048, or the Federation of State Beef Councils (National Cattlemen's Beef Association) at 303-694-0305. The final report will be available on USDA's web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/rp-beef.htm on Jan. 25, 2007.

 

[PORKER]

NOT SO FAST.

Another item USDA and Vilsack will be facing is a complaint filed with the WTO against the U.S. over Country of Origin labeling (COOL). The challenge was filed by Canada and was recently joined by Mexico and Nicaragua.

This appears to be a premature move since the Final Rule for COOL implementation has not yet been published. At this time, the Final Rule is under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and no timetable for publication has been issued.

It's curious these governments would seek to challenge the law before a Final Rule has been made public, particularly when the U.S. Congress worked to accommodate international trading partners by very carefully including a "mixed origin" category in the COOL law to accommodate international trade agreements.

 

[HAY MAKER]

The small gain from byproduct is negilible when compared to foreign captive supplies putting downward pressure on the market and you know it.

Here's a writeup from Montana State University:

http://www2.montana.edu/jantle/trc/pdf/briefings/brief14.pdf

And thats all I found in the 30 seconds I took to look. There were an additional 5000 hits on Google.

These are US exports of by-product - hide, horns, etc to China, Japan, Korea, and Mexico. And doesn't include local consumption. You'd better double check what beef products are used for son as you've obviously missed the boat somewhere.

And yeah, if the US decides to make trade difficult, you may find yourselves holding onto much of that by-product, with it doing nothing but costing you money for disposal, versus generating income.

Of course, its only 1.8 billion dollars. Mere pennies.

Rod

Rod,Ive read several of these reports,even yours states the average value for exported beef byproduct is $88.
My point is what is the value of beef byproduct sold domestically,I will agree its probably less but..............remember what I asked,should the USA cattleman be an advocate of import/export because of exported byproduct,the answer is NO.
Foreign captive supplies more than nullifies that $88 even without figuring domestic demand.
good luck

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

So far Sandhusker, you've quoted two separate sources who cited the exact same poll (92%). One source said "made" the other said "produced". Which is it? Do you know what the poll wording ACTUALLY was?

Quoting news reports hardly qualifies. Show me the actual poll wording.

And I wonder if beef was differentiated from raw product like tomatoes, what the results would be? Especially when the consumer was informed that well over 99% of all safety issues arise at the processing level?

And did you not notice that only 11% of consumers actually check the origin? Guaranteed 100% are checking the price.

Haymaker, you honestly think you can give up $88 an animal and not feel the hurt? Especially when domestic prices will fall due to an oversupply? Are you going to be willing to pay for the disposal of the excess? You guys cut off Mexican and Canadian cattle, that waste will be processed right at home, leaving the US holding onto a bunch of crap.

As you say, "good luck". Your beef industry is going to need it.

Rod

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

So just out of curiosity I found your actual poll. Heres some tidbits that were asked:

Processed or packaged foods should be labeled by their country of origin - 95% in favor - Country of origin for processed foods is the COUNTRY WHERE IT WAS PROCESSED IN! In other words, you take a Canadian born cow, process it in the US and label it a Product of Canada, Americans would feel they are being lied to.

Imagine that. R-Quack trying to mislead people. Never would have thunk it would happen.

And here's the best part:

Imported foods should be labeled by their country of origin (92%)

However nowhere does the survey indicate what consitutes an "imported food". I doubt very few Americans would consider a walking, mooing cow as "imported food".

So its just as I thought. Things twisted around to fit a political agenda. Not at all surprising.

I'm out. Its a waste of effort to debate this further. I know I don't want "Product of Canada" on anything thats processed in the US, at least not until you guys actually fix your system up so its even remotely up to the standards set by our own processors.

Rod

 

[HAY MAKER]

So just out of curiosity I found your actual poll. Heres some tidbits that were asked:

Processed or packaged foods should be labeled by their country of origin - 95% in favor - Country of origin for processed foods is the COUNTRY WHERE IT WAS PROCESSED IN! In other words, you take a Canadian born cow, process it in the US and label it a Product of Canada, Americans would feel they are being lied to.

Imagine that. R-Quack trying to mislead people. Never would have thunk it would happen.

And here's the best part:

Imported foods should be labeled by their country of origin (92%)

However nowhere does the survey indicate what consitutes an "imported food". I doubt very few Americans would consider a walking, mooing cow as "imported food".

So its just as I thought. Things twisted around to fit a political agenda. Not at all surprising.

I'm out. Its a waste of effort to debate this further. I know I don't want "Product of Canada" on anything thats processed in the US, at least not until you guys actually fix your system up so its even remotely up to the standards set by our own processors.

Rod

Well good luck Rod,maybe when the Canadian cattle men get tired of getting the short end of the stick,they will band together and get a cattlemans assc. that will bring positive change,because what you got right now,aint worth a pinch of owl ****.
good luck