Country of Origin Labeling

[Mike]

Saw this at the grocery yesterday on a sign hanging above the live lobster tank:

"Country of Origin Labeling"
"Blue bands indicate USA Lobsters"
"Red bands indicate Canadian Lobsters"

(P.S. - "Bands" are the rubber bands around the claws.)

This makes me wonder why we couldn't just use a different color "button" tag on cattle (in the top part of the ear, close to the head, where they won't fall out)?

 

[PORKER]

That will work Mike ,but how do you get the animal information on a package of steaks thru the stockyard, truckers, packing house ,and wholesaler, Born ,Raised,Processed, in the USA for the grocer to properly label the beef on the shelf so that they can distinquish it from the generic product of the world....? ScoringAg is the only one that I know of.

 

[Mike]

That will work Mike ,but how do you get the animal information on a package of steaks thru the stockyard, truckers, packing house ,and wholesaler, Born ,Raised,Processed in the USA for the grocer to properly label the beef on the shelf? SA ?

A package of steaks goes through the stockyard? :lol:

Simply have the packer mark the box of meat with the country name that coincides with the color of ear tag............

We're making this thing way too complicated...................

The animal information is evident. IT'S BEEF FROM A COW!

What country it's from is what the consumer wants.

More info could be voluntary.

 

[PORKER]

Not ,A package of walking steaks goes through the stockyard ..!! Ha Ha Ha ,I have found out that the little lockers ,small packers, etc. just don't have any software to keep track of animals to beef and a labeling system.

 

[Anonymous]

Not ,A package of walking steaks goes through the stockyard ..!! Ha Ha Ha ,I have found out that the little lockers ,small packers, etc. just don't have any software to keep track of animals to beef and a labeling system.

Pencils, papers, and written manifests have worked for thousands of years !!! A lot of those smaller guys have a lot better idea of what going on then the ones with all the EXPENSIVE hi tech crap....

They'd only have to hire one Mexican that could write in English-- and even the Mexicans should be able to figure out blue is US, red- Canada, and Green- Mexico... :roll: :wink:

 

[kolanuraven]

Saw this at the grocery yesterday on a sign hanging above the live lobster tank:

"Country of Origin Labeling"
"Blue bands indicate USA Lobsters"
"Red bands indicate Canadian Lobsters"

(P.S. - "Bands" are the rubber bands around the claws.)

This makes me wonder why we couldn't just use a different color "button" tag on cattle (in the top part of the ear, close to the head, where they won't fall out)?

I'm just jealous you have a lobster tank!!!! :x :x :lol: :lol:

 

[PORKER]

US farm group votes for mandatory country of origin labelling
Monday, 21 January 2008

The delegates of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) annual meeting have voted 212-132 to support mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL).
George Chambers, a delegate from Georgia and a director of R-Calf, took to the floor to encourage support of the measure.

"What surprised me as much as anything was the margin," says Chambers.

"Also, once I yielded the floor back, there was no one that got up and spoke in opposition.

"It wasn't even debated."

Chambers has introduced COOL to AFBF twice before without success.

"I have looked in this policy book and seen no less than 18 references to buy American or to the promotion of United States product - both domestic and abroad," Chambers told the delegates.

"How then, can we not remedy this contradiction in ideology?

"Our trading partners have asked for it

"Most importantly, the American consumer has demanded it."

SOURCE: Farm Progress, USA, a Fairfax Media publication

 

[PORKER]

COOL Threatens Pork Producers

U.S. legislation that would make country-of-origin labelling mandatory for a number of meat products will likely hurt an already struggling Canadian pork industry and hurt the U.S. pork industry to a lesser extent, say two pork industry leaders who spoke at the 2008 Banff Pork Seminar. The annual seminar brings together national and international speakers and delegates from around the world.

Depending on the version of mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) passed by U.S. legislators, the extra costs labelling presents could drive U.S. packers to avoid buying Canadian livestock, force Canadian producers to sell it to them at a discount, or distribute it into retail channels not affected by mCOOL legislation, says Kevin Grier of the George Morris Centre, a prominent agricultural industry think-tank in Guelph, Ontario.

"In 2007, a total of 47 percent of Canada's total pork marketings went to the U.S. in one form or another," he says. "The bottom line is that mandatory COOL remains a source of uncertainty and risk for Canadian pork producers at a time it is also struggling with rising feedgrain costs, decreasing processing capacity and other factors."

Steve Meyer of Iowa-based Paragon Economics says mandatory COOL will likely hurt U.S. pork producers as well. "The vast majority of U.S. pork producers see it as a protectionist measure that has nothing to do with product quality or safety. U.S. consumers have indicated no willingness to pay for country-of-origin labelling. Even if consumers did find value in the labels, that value would vanish as soon as all product has the label."

Meyer says U.S. mCOOL legislation would also drive the Canadian pork industry to build more processing capacity in response to added costs of processing in the States. "Also, extra labelling costs would create a permanent cost advantage for the U.S. poultry industry because, as no poultry is imported into the U.S., its only mCOOL costs would be the price of printing the labels."

The degree of impact mCOOL would have on Canadian pork producers depends largely on the version of mCOOL legislation the U.S. approves, says Grier. "There are at least three directions the U.S. can take. The first scenario would require packers to identify Canadian livestock as origin of the product, creating documentation and segregation costs in the process."

A compromise version, in which packers could choose a label that says 'Product of the U.S. and Canada,' would eliminate these costs, says Grier. A third scenario, in which a compromise version of mCOOL becomes law but retailers and packers demand separate labels for U.S. and Canadian product, could affect the industry in one of two ways. "The first would drive up costs on the U.S. end because it would cost more to prove U.S. product. The second would require segregation and sorting of non-U.S. product and drive an effect similar to the first scenario."

Key to fighting the economic effects of mCOOL, says Grier, is closing the feed cost differentiation between Canada and the U.S. "However, concessions in the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill, combined with the regulatory barriers holding back research for new feedgrain varieties in Canada, make this difficult," he says.

The bottom line, says Meyer, is that mandatory COOL will act as a barrier to trade. "From a U.S. perspective, the biggest irony is that mCOOL will most of all hurt those small, independent family farmers that senators and representatives believe they are protecting by supporting the legislation."

 

[Tex]

Tell the truth to the consumers and the sky is falling.

There will likely be no more or less pork eaten in the U.S. or Canada due to MCool. The printing on the label may take the white space, advertising, or some other insignificant part of the label, nothing more.

It might even be an opportunity to do some real advertising of value by Canadian producers or U.S. producers, and might bring in a little more jingle to them.

These packers are full of sheeeeeet.

It might make us all aware of where our food comes from. Is that what they are afraid of?

 

[PORKER]

Karl Kynoch-Manitoba Pork Council
There's a lot of producers right now that have been notified from some of the packing plants in the US that come September '08 that they're not going to continue to buy pigs that originated out of Canada.

So producers here are having to start and make the decision do they continue buying pigs here in February.

Then again in Canada the same thing the same thing is a concern.

Are they going to be able to keep shipping their hogs down here so we're really down to crunch time on this Country of Origin Labelling and that's just a huge concern and causing producers to make some huge business decisions.

I think what would really help this is if we could get to voluntary.

The big concern is right now the retailers in the US do not want to have two labels sitting in their store.

What we need to be able to get on the product is a dual label that would say could contain product out of Canada and the US.

We had some meetings here.

We actually met with senate and congress representatives.

We met over at the Canadian consulate with these people and I'll tell you, they were really surprised and concerned over the impact that we were pointing out that this is going to have on producers right here in Minnesota, that in fact, this Country of Origin Labelling could shut down a lot of these small farms right here in Minnesota and I think that really touched home.

We were really pleased with the meetings we had but there's a lot of work going forward that we need to do to work this out yet.

Kynoch says relations between the two industries remain strong.

He says there is a good understanding of the issues on both sides of the border and the two industries are united on the Mandatory COOL this issue.

 

[Tex]

Karl Kynoch-Manitoba Pork Council
There's a lot of producers right now that have been notified from some of the packing plants in the US that come September '08 that they're not going to continue to buy pigs that originated out of Canada.

So producers here are having to start and make the decision do they continue buying pigs here in February.

Then again in Canada the same thing the same thing is a concern.

Are they going to be able to keep shipping their hogs down here so we're really down to crunch time on this Country of Origin Labelling and that's just a huge concern and causing producers to make some huge business decisions.

I think what would really help this is if we could get to voluntary.

The big concern is right now the retailers in the US do not want to have two labels sitting in their store.

What we need to be able to get on the product is a dual label that would say could contain product out of Canada and the US.

We had some meetings here.

We actually met with senate and congress representatives.

We met over at the Canadian consulate with these people and I'll tell you, they were really surprised and concerned over the impact that we were pointing out that this is going to have on producers right here in Minnesota, that in fact, this Country of Origin Labelling could shut down a lot of these small farms right here in Minnesota and I think that really touched home.

We were really pleased with the meetings we had but there's a lot of work going forward that we need to do to work this out yet.

Kynoch says relations between the two industries remain strong.

He says there is a good understanding of the issues on both sides of the border and the two industries are united on the Mandatory COOL this issue.

Porker doesn't your operation have a way of just printing each package that comes out of a box with the correct label?

Seems to me the box can have a bar code that is read into the label printer in the store. There is no need for two labels, however one more label should not be that big of a deal anyway. It sounds to me that there are some whiners out there. If they can't label properly and with ease, maybe they should get into another business and not be allowed to label ANYTHING that comes out of a box.

Most Canadians will realize that this MCOOL isn't going to hurt them at all.

I have seen dual labels and I am always going to assume the product came from the least desirable place I see on the label. The last time I saw this problem, it was on a jar of honey that listed half a dozen countries and China. I am not buying any more food from China. Canadians better hope they are not on the same label. Dual labels may not be in their best interest.

 

[Kato]

"The first would drive up costs on the U.S. end because it would cost more to prove U.S. product. The second would require segregation and sorting of non-U.S. product and drive an effect similar to the first scenario."

This is not exactly true. It won't drive up the packer's cost, because the cost will be passed on to the producer. We all know that. :!:

As for the hogs. Manitoba is a large hog producer. Most pigs here go either two ways. They are kept on the farm and finished, in which case they are slaughtered here. The other common option is to ship to the U.S. as 20 day old isoweans where they are grown out and enter your system as slaughter animals. Very few finished market hogs go over the border. About the only bigger hogs that cross over is cull sows, and they might not even be worth the freight right now.

On the other hand, when I worked at the local vet clinic, we alone did the paperwork for about 3,000 weanlings a week which mostly went to Iowa. This is from one clinic. These pigs spent a total of 20 days in Canada. Not a minute more. Then they went on to produce jobs on American hog farms, packing plants, and so on, after being raised on American feed in American facilities. There are a number of hog feeding operations in your country who depend on these pigs. If this scenario plays out, and they stop buying Canadian isoweans, then it's anyone's guess how many will stay in business. There just isn't the supply, and won't be for a while.

Unlike the cattle, especially in Manitoba, we do have the capacity to process all our hogs. Maple Leaf has built a massive plant in Brandon, and if they had the hogs, they'd run it 24 hours a day. (And they've already got that Maple Leaf on their label. :wink: )

The biggest adjustment that has to be made here is to convert farrowing operations to farrow to finish. That is going to be painful, and will mean a lot of hog producers will probably quit, at least until things improve. But they will get back on line, and then they can move forward.

I guess one other option is for the American hog feeders to ship those pigs back up here to be processed. It's only about a ten hour drive. With our stronger dollar, it could be worth it. Then their hogs can come back as Canadian pork to compete with yours. 8)

There are a lot of ways this thing can play out.

 

[Broke Cowboy]

Saw this at the grocery yesterday on a sign hanging above the live lobster tank:

"Country of Origin Labeling"
"Blue bands indicate USA Lobsters"
"Red bands indicate Canadian Lobsters"

(P.S. - "Bands" are the rubber bands around the claws.)

This makes me wonder why we couldn't just use a different color "button" tag on cattle (in the top part of the ear, close to the head, where they won't fall out)?

I did not know lobsters honoured borders.

BC

 

[Mike]

Saw this at the grocery yesterday on a sign hanging above the live lobster tank:

"Country of Origin Labeling"
"Blue bands indicate USA Lobsters"
"Red bands indicate Canadian Lobsters"

(P.S. - "Bands" are the rubber bands around the claws.)

This makes me wonder why we couldn't just use a different color "button" tag on cattle (in the top part of the ear, close to the head, where they won't fall out)?

I did not know lobsters honoured borders.

BC

I suppose they don't. It would be left up to the fishermen.

 

[PORKER]

Smoke From Canada

COOL legislation remains a mystery
Alana Vannahme 1/23/2008 12:15:00 PM

(Resource News International) -- Uncertainty surrounding the U.S. government's plans this fall for mandatory country-of-origin-labelling (COOL) continues to confound the Canadian livestock industry, a sector already reeling from the effects of higher costs and lower prices.

Mandatory COOL "is still being debated and how it actually ends up in its final stage will be hard to tell," said Andrea Brocklebank, research analyst with CanFax, a division of Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) in Calgary. "It may change several times, over different phases, so until it's actually implemented and interpreted it's hard to say what kind of an impact it will have."

Scheduled to take effect on Sept. 30 this year, mandatory COOL was originally introduced as part of the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill. Its implementation was delayed several times as its rules were laid out and both the Canadian and U.S. livestock industries expressed their opposition to it. Changes to the 2002 version have been proposed but as it currently stands there is no guarantee they will be adopted.

Mandatory COOL legislation will require meat (with the notable exception of poultry) in the U.S. to be labelled with its country of origin. The label received will depend on where the animal is born, raised, fed, slaughtered and processed. It is unclear however, how the labelling rules will be applied and which labels will be used.

According to some experts, it's possible that a "Product of Canada and the U.S." label will apply to most meat, in effect cancelling out the need to segregate product. It's also possible, however, that retailers will demand strict separation between products from the two countries, resulting in enormous costs to both the U.S. and Canadian meat and livestock industries.
Theresa Keddy, spokesperson for the CCA, said a study done by the association in 2002, based on the original legislation, found that in its first year of implementation mandatory COOL would cost the Canadian cattle and beef industry an estimated C$200 million.

The Canadian livestock industry has asked the Canadian government to challenge mandatory COOL on the basis that it violates U.S. trade obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

"The government is saying they will keep the option to challenge open, but for right now they have not made a decision either way; they're evaluating it," Keddy said.

"I can assure you that the government continues to be disappointed that the U.S. continues to move forward with this labelling legislation," said Stephen Lavergne, director of U.S. trade advocacy for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. "It is the government's position that the existing mandatory legislation that was put forward in 2002 is flawed and we think it should be repealed."

Furthermore, Lavergne said, "even if one were to assume that the fix to the 2002 statute occurs, it is our view that this is only an incremental improvement. We continue to raise these concerns to both administrations and in Congress. The Canadian government expects that any legislation that the U.S. puts into place will be fully consistent with their international trade obligations."

 

[Sandhusker]

"Theresa Keddy, spokesperson for the CCA, said a study done by the association in 2002, based on the original legislation, found that in its first year of implementation mandatory COOL would cost the Canadian cattle and beef industry an estimated C$200 million."

Horsecrap! It's already labeled! It's labeled today!

The Canadian livestock industry has asked the Canadian government to challenge mandatory COOL on the basis that it violates U.S. trade obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Think about the lunacy of this agreement. A law was passed by the elected representatives of the citizens this goverment simply to provide more information to those citizens per their request, but Congress can be vetoed by an unelected board comprised mostly of foreigners simply on the basis that they believe it will cost them money. What do you think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, et al would say about this?

 

[Anonymous]

Yep--Secretary Paulson went on tv the other day and said "we hope folks will spend their rebate money on US products and that way help the economy" .....

The question that immediately arose is WHAT US PRODUCTS? :???:

Talk at the coffee shop today was---You can't even take your bride out and buy a USA steak- because GW and his USDA have opposed/refused to enforce the law on the truthful labeling of meat( M-COOL) in their helping of the multinational Corporate Packers profiteer from defrauding the consumer by passing off cheap imported product as US.......

And like everyone agreed-- that attitude right there is the reason our country is in the economic crisis its in......

 

[Kato]

Congress can be vetoed by an unelected board comprised mostly of foreigners simply on the basis that they believe it will cost them money.

You cannot veto an agreement after it has already been passed. Only before it is signed. To disregard it after it has been signed is called dishonouring the agreement, not a veto. :!:

To look at it from the other side, why should a bunch of politicians throw out a legally signed agreement just because it suits their re-election plans? Just because it's inconvenient?

Talk at the coffee shop today was---You can't even take your bride out and buy a USA steak- because GW and his USDA have opposed/refused to enforce the law on the truthful labeling of meat( M-COOL) in their helping of the multinational Corporate Packers profiteer from defrauding the consumer by passing off cheap imported product as US.......

And like everyone agreed-- that attitude right there is the reason our country is in the economic crisis its in......

No, the country is in the economic crisis it's in because for years you've had a high value currency that made imported goods CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. It's made your exports expensive too. This is where a trade deficit comes from. It was cheaper to import from China than to make it at home.

Toss in an expensive war or two, and years of back to back deficit financing and for a bit of icing on the cake hand out so much cheap credit that a large number of people can go out and buy overinflated value houses they can't afford, and then you get a crisis. :shock:

As your dollar drops you will probably find that trade deficits drop too, and if imports get expensive enough things will begin to be manufactured at home as well. Then you will be able to find U.S. products once again.

 

[Sandhusker]

Kato, "You cannot veto an agreement after it has already been passed. Only before it is signed. To disregard it after it has been signed is called dishonouring the agreement, not a veto. "

It's not the agreement that's being vetoed, it's the labeling law. You have foreigners vetoing US law, and our Congress going along with it. Thomas Jefferson would be having kittens. It's not legal, it's not ethical, it's not moral. You should be concerned, because the same thing can happen to you; You can have an American and a Mexican saying "No, change it" to one of your laws.

 

[Kato]

It's the terms of NAFTA that are not being followed. NAFTA was signed and in existence before MCOOL was written. Therefore MCOOL is contravening a previous agreement. Not the other way around.

You can call it a veto if you like, but since it's an agreement that has already been signed by all parties, it's dishonouring an agreement, not a veto.