Cool

[ranch hand]

Use Of COOL Gaining Among Consumers


The Integer Group and M/A/R/C Research report, "The Checkout," found that consumers are tuning in more to the country of origin labeling (COOL) on their foods. The year-long shopper experience study is based on a nationally-representative, monthly survey of 1,200 consumers and tracks consumer opinions and behaviors ranging from coupon use to location of store.

The current update found consumers are more frequently choosing American-made products over less expensive foreign-made goods. Consumer incentive to purchase American-made goods increased by 2%, and those shoppers whose main concern was price (lowest possible) dropped by 2%; both of these are statistically significant.

SupermarketGuru.com conducted a similar consumer poll in March 2009 with the specific goal of better understanding shopper's attitudes towards imported meat and COOL. The results revealed that consumers place great importance (77%) and preference (84%) for American-raised, bred and slaughtered meat. A majority (73%) also assume imported meat to be less safe than its American counterpart.

In addition, 81% of consumers report feeling confused when more than one country is listed on the label; consequently, 40% don't buy the meat, and 34% say they look for meat labeled "product of the U.S.A." to purchase instead.

Most importantly, 64% of consumers say they would switch stores in order to buy meat labeled "product of the U.S.A." if it wasn't available at their current grocer or butcher's counter.

COOL lists the countries where the meat was born, raised and/or processed. Meat labeled "Product of the U.S.A." was born, raised and processed in the U.S. only.

Read the article at: www.supermarketguru.com/articleId/610.
-- Supermarketguru.com

 

[PORKER]

Seen a tub of hamburger in WalMart that had on the label, a Angus Beef logo and the countrys listed as United States, Canada, Mexico, Austrialia,
New Zealand, Argentina, and Urauqay.

I didn't know they keep all Angus trim Seperate for WalMart for hamburger !!! Looks like something illegal going on .

 

[Tex]

Seen a tub of hamburger in WalMart that had on the label, a Angus Beef logo and the countrys listed as United States, Canada, Mexico, Austrialia,
New Zealand, Argentina, and Urauqay.

I didn't know they keep all Angus trim Seperate for WalMart for hamburger !!! Looks like something illegal going on .

If these things are still going on then the penalties are not yet high enough. A law that can not be enforced economically is not worth the paper it is written on.

Tex

 

[PORKER]

81% of consumers report feeling confused when more than one country is listed on the label; consequently, 40% don't buy the meat, and 34% say they look for meat labeled "product of the U.S.A." to purchase instead.

Most importantly, 64% of consumers say they would switch stores in order to buy meat labeled "product of the U.S.A." if it wasn't available at their current grocer or butcher's counter.

COOL lists the countries where the meat was born, raised and/or processed. Meat labeled "Product of the U.S.A." was born, raised and processed in the U.S. only.

When it says Angus BEEF with logo , Should it not be only Angus!

 

[Tex]

81% of consumers report feeling confused when more than one country is listed on the label; consequently, 40% don't buy the meat, and 34% say they look for meat labeled "product of the U.S.A." to purchase instead.

Most importantly, 64% of consumers say they would switch stores in order to buy meat labeled "product of the U.S.A." if it wasn't available at their current grocer or butcher's counter.

COOL lists the countries where the meat was born, raised and/or processed. Meat labeled "Product of the U.S.A." was born, raised and processed in the U.S. only.

When it says Angus BEEF with logo , Should it not be only Angus!

Believe me, the management of Walmart are not above anything in the pursuit of their greed, it is just whether or not we let them get away with it. I sure hope they are held accountable for not labeling correctly. We shouldn't have to wait on public perception to change about Walmart, although it is anyway, to hold them to truth in labeling laws.

Tex

 

[PORKER]

I was doing some research on COOL and found out a citizen can make a COOL or Brand complaint directly to USDA in Washington.

 

[Tex]

I was doing some research on COOL and found out a citizen can make a COOL or Brand complaint directly to USDA in Washington.

Unless things have changed, that is just a wasted call.

Tex

 

[PORKER]

Could be wasted but I am going to try. Will get a tub of that hamburger from the local Walmart and contact my congressman Bart Stupak and ask him on the way to do it.

 

[Tex]

Could be wasted but I am going to try. Will get a tub of that hamburger from the local Walmart and contact my congressman Bart Stupak and ask him on the way to do it.

He is the man, at least in the committee hearings. I tip my hat to Bart. I just hope they don't get to him too. They seem to be able to buy anyone they want.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "If these things are still going on then the penalties are not yet high enough. A law that can not be enforced economically is not worth the paper it is written on."

That's right Tex, you finally got it right. A law that cannot be enforced is not worth the paper it's written on.

Why can't M-COOL be enforced??

BECAUSE THE PROPONENTS OF THIS LAW GUTTED THE ENFORCEABILITY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT A TRACEBACK SYSTEM!!

Without a traceback system for beef, the only way for retailers to cover their assetts is to list all potential countries. The COOL law was virtually worthless from day one and the proponents made it totally worthless by gutting the enforceability.

Proponents of this law demanded that in order for any beef to be considered US beef it has to be "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED" in the US. The only way to prove that is with a traceback system WHICH PROPONENTS OPPOSED.

You got nobody to blame for this stupid law but yourselves because you thought you knew more about marketing beef than those who actually market beef.

In an advent of branded beef programs some of which are totally process verified, you thought you would save consumers from themselves by segregating a sliver of foreign beef as a novelty item. When New Zealand lamb was labeled seperately from US Lamb, New Zealand lamb outsold US lamb in many cases. Did you know that?

Do you think our hispanic population is going to shy from Mexican beef?

Do you think anyone will shy away from Maple Leaf Source Verified Beef as a novelty item??

Most consumers base their decisions on price, not country of orign. If that wasn't the case, Walmart wouldn't sell the amount of foreign products they sell. You want to believe that US consumers are loyal to US products when every where you look there is foreign products.

Hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of what you want to believe.

"M"COOL turned out to be the worthless law that many independent thinkers predicted. Congratulations, you added another expense to the industry that is passed down to producers with no value to recoup those costs.

Turn the page! Another chapter closes in what we've come to expect from the blaming segment of the cattle industry.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Why do we need traceback to the producer when we know the origin of every animal at the packer's lot?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "Why do we need traceback to the producer when we know the origin of every animal at the packer's lot?"

If you knew anything about beef fabrication and processing, you wouldn't have to ask that question. During "M"COOL listening sessions packers and retailers of all shapes and sizes answered that question for you but you didn't pay attention then and you won't pay attention now. What you want to believe is more important than what facts will support.

"M"COOL does not trace cattle, IT TRACES BEEF! Once the hide comes off, the beef has to be tracked through the fabrication process to the store in which it's sold. In order to trace some beef, you have to trace all beef. You demanded proof of where that beef was "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED". You cannot prove that THROUGH THE FABRICATION PROCESS without a valid enforceable traceback system. USDA told you that and you don't believe them either even though they are in charge of enforcing this flawed law.

If you have cattle of mixed origin coming into a plant, how can you trace origination through that plant without a valid traceback system IN AN ENFORCEABLE MANNER?? Look at how hypocritical your arguments are! On one hand, you claim packers are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp. On the other hand, you trust them to trace beef to it's country of origin without a valid enforceable traceback system. LET ME INTRODUCE YOU TO YOUR HYPOCRISY!!!

Why don't you go visit with a beef fabrication plant and ask them the same question? Serioiusly, why don't you?? Do you really believe you know more about marketing beef and the beef fabrication process than those who fabricate and market beef? Ask them how they can trace the origination of beef through the fabrication process without tracing the cattle the beef came from. ASK THEM!! You won't because you'd rather go on believing your simplistic solutions rather than finding out the truth from those affected by your flawed law.

COOL is all costs and no benefit. Consumers who were concerned about country of origin always had and still have the option of buying source verified branded beef.

~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

So then you agree with R-CALF that traceback to the producer is unneccessary?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "So then you agree with R-CALF that traceback to the producer is unneccessary?"

If R-CALF's goal is to have an origination law that is worthless from an enforcement standpoint then yes, traceback to the producer is unnecessary IF R-CALF'S goal is to have an origination law that is worthless from an enforcement standpoint.

That statement is qualified preceeding the "YES" and following it. Let's see you take that out of context.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

R-CALF's opposition to traceback was traceback to the producer, which we all agree now is unneccessary. You were the one taking their opposition out of context.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "R-CALF's opposition to traceback was traceback to the producer, ......"

Which is in direct contradiction to their support of "M"COOL enforcement proving where an animals was "BORN, RAISED, and PROCESSED".

Par for their self defeating course.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker: "R-CALF's opposition to traceback was traceback to the producer, ......"

Which is in direct contradiction to their support of "M"COOL enforcement proving where an animals was "BORN, RAISED, and PROCESSED".

Par for their self defeating course.


~SH~

No it isn't. R-CALF is simply correctly pointing out that one can get that needed information at the packer level and thus, going back to all of the individual producers isn't neccessary. What is more efficient; Collecting data from 10,000 sources or 10? Why would you collect data on an animal 5 times when you can do it once and have all that you need with that single occurance?

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "R-CALF is simply correctly pointing out that one can get that needed information at the packer level and thus, going back to all of the individual producers isn't neccessary."

R-CALF hasn't been correct about much of anything.

Your law requires proof of where an animal was BORN. How can you prove where that beef was born without tracing it back to the producer? How can such a simple concept escape your understanding? You demanded proof of where those animals were born and now you don't want to prove it.

If you would take the time to learn about beef fabrication and processing, you would understand that R-CALF and their over simplistic solutions are wrong on the ability to trace beef in an enforceable manner.

Because you don't want to trace cattle to their origin, WHICH IS WHAT YOU DEMANDED, now you have mixed origin labels as a result. You get full credit for that Sandhusker. Don't blame anyone but yourselves and your inability to understand the consequences of your flawed law.

Sandhusker: "What is more efficient; Collecting data from 10,000 sources or 10?"

Moot point once the hides come off and the trim falls in the same vat, that beef has to be tied to it's origin. YOU DEMANDED PROOF OF WHERE THAT MIXED VAT OF BEEF WAS BORN.

Sandhusker: "Why would you collect data on an animal 5 times when you can do it once and have all that you need with that single occurance?"

Collecting data on cattle origination has nothing to do with tracing the beef from those cattle in an enforceable manner. Without enforcement, there is no law.

Sandhusker: " This isn't rocket science."

That's right, it's not. You have two packages of hamburger in front of you. One came from US origin, the other from Canada. How do you prove which came from where without an enforceable traceback system? You demanded proof of origination yet you are unwilling to participate in proving origination. Typical you! Force this law of unintended consequences on the industry then blame someone else for the mess you yourselves created.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Your law requires proof of where an animal was BORN. How can you prove where that beef was born without tracing it back to the producer?"

The law requires that it be born in the US to qualify for the US label, and that is very easy to figure out. You go through the packer's lots and look. If it was born in Mexico, there will be a hot iron "M" on the jaw. If it was born in Canada and imported as a calf, it is hot iron branded CAN. If it was born in Canada and imported as a slaughter ready animal, it will come in a sealed truck with paperwork. If it was born in the US, but spent time in Canada as a feeder, it will be as one of the above two, which disqualifies it for the US label as it spent time in Canada.

You're not trying to see how this works, you're trying to shoot holes in it, and you're shooting blanks. This isn't rocket science. This is easy.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "You're not trying to see how this works, you're trying to shoot holes in it, and you're shooting blanks. This isn't rocket science. This is easy."

It's only easy for you because you're not responsible for enforcing your flawed law.

Tracking the cattle is the simple part Sandhusker. What you refuse to acknowledge is that tracking the cattle has nothing to do with tracking the beef from those cattle in an enforceable manner.

Pretend you are the USDA enforcer of "M"COOL. You have two packages of beef in front of you. One is labeled as Canadian and the other is labeled as US. How can you prove that the US beef package is from an animal born, raised, and processed in the US without tracking it back to it's origination?

You're right, it is simple. If you have to prove where an animal is born, you have to prove where it was born. The alternative to an enforceable traceback system is to label the beef with all of the possibilities. You can't have it both ways (prove origination without proving origination).


~SH~