Country of Origin Labeling

[Anonymous]

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.

Kato---Do you really believe your cattle and beef are that inferior that if honestly identified and labled- you won't be able to market it :???: ....If so you're going to be in a terrible spot as soon as the packers start pouring in the Argentine and Brazilian beef in the next couple years....The Packers/importers will be able to bring it in from SA much cheaper than from Canada....The only way you will be able to differentiate your product is with Country of Origin Labeling and promotion of your product....

NAFTA was signed by Clinton 15 years ago--(and never was ratified by the Senate as required by law)...Lots of things change in 15 years- all over the world- and with the consumers of the world....The cattle industry has to move forward and give the consumers what they want- or else strangle the way your market is doing right now...I can't believe that you are that regressive that you cannot see that...
M-COOL has been accepted by the worlds consumers and the markets of the world....Canada is the only country fighting against it- and one must assume thats because they know they have a tainted lower quality product that can't compete....

 

[Sandhusker]

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.

But, jeeeze, Kato, back up and look at how screwed up the priorities are; People in this country will be denied basic consumer information because it might cost foreigners money! Just what the hell is more important? Citizens wishes in their own country or foreign business interests? This law was in no way intended to be a trade barrier, yet a panel of foreigners, who only look at it from one slanted angle - they don't consider safety, constituant's wishes, the environment, indiginous customs, etc... - only trade, have the final word? That's rediculous! And heck, anything can be a trade barrier. This is saying that "trade" is the most important consideration in any law, and that is just plain idiotic.

This says that "trade" is more important than my and YOUR family's safety. Do you really agree with that? If you're defending a trade panel tthat has binding decisions, that's exactly what you're saying.

 

[Sandhusker]

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.

The Constitution was signed and in existence before NAFTA - and it says that foreigners don't have any say in our laws. Therefore, NAFTA was trumped before it was thought of.

It's an illegal agreement - and illegal agreements are non-binding and should be done away with. Before you get all worked up, I'm not saying that trade agreements in general are unconstitutional. I'm saying THIS ONE is because it is giving away power that can't be give away.

 

[CattleCo]

Unfortunately, in a recent survey.........less than 3% of the American consumers give a "rats ass" where their food comes from. So COOL is really insignificant to our customers. COOL does NOT insure the productis safe. That message is really getting folks messed up.....

 

[Sandhusker]

Unfortunately, in a recent survey.........less than 3% of the American consumers give a "rats ass" where their food comes from. So COOL is really insignificant to our customers. COOL does NOT insure the productis safe. That message is really getting folks messed up.....

3%? I'd like to put a wager on that.

No, COOL does not insure safety, but it can insure that you're not buying product from a country that you don't believe to be a reliable source of safe food.

 

[PORKER]

Since the dog and cat melamine issue and Topps burger Recalls along with the China Chemical fish fiasco ,consumers read labels now. Just stand in your local store and see for yourself. Went to Sams club the other day an looked at their fish, only fish was US catfish with ScoringAg . The rest of the stuff was from the far East with no records ,mostly China.

 

[RobertMac]

CattleCo, I'm sure we would all like to see the source of that survey.

This whole debate is immaterial. It is accepted international trade law that all countries have the right to label imports by country of origin. PERIOD!

The USA just happens to have an exception list...the J-list. MCOOL simply does away with the exceptions for the covered products. The J-list is there to benefit USA multi-national companies...so they can deceive consumers to believe the produce they are buying is a product of the USA!

 

[Kato]

But that's the thing. Define a product of USA.

If beef that comes from cattle born in Canada, but fed American feed in American feedlots by Americans, and processed in the U.S. (by some American workers - but that's a different subject :wink: ) is considered Canadian, then I guess you will be putting made in Canada on 60% of your gas pumps too?

I bet not!

Should you put product of Canada on all the geese that fly south too? :wink:

Or how about half the water in the Great Lakes? You can drink water, so that better have a label. :shock: :shock: Maybe there is something wrong with the water on our side of the dotted line. :roll:

When NAFTA was signed, the conclusion was reached that if a product was altered substantially in the U.S. it becomes an American product. After all, by feeding and processing those cattle in your country, there is a much larger effect on the finished product than what happens on our side of the border. What affects the safety and quality of beef more? The plant it's processed in, and what happens in the last half of it's life.? Or who it's mama was and what kind of grass it ate in a pasture up here?

Would you like to ship live cattle to Argentina if they had MCOOL that states the country of birth is the country of origin? Say those cattle picked up FMD, then would it be the fault of some rancher in South Dakota, rather than the contact with infected cattle in Argentina?

Maybe we don't want our cattle to have our label on them after they've been through one of your plants and contaminated with ecoli or fed by the lower standards of your feed ban? Maybe we only want our label on the beef that we have some control over from start to finish.

*This is where OT can insert a comment about how we are sucking at the hind tit of the American cattlemen by selling out to the American packers. (unlike the American cattlemen who have complete control over the big packers. :wink: :wink: )*

The bottom line is that when a live animal enters your country and is processed in your plants, it is substantially altered. This is not like comparing a can of sardines from China that is just unloaded straight to the grocery store.

We're not afraid of Country of Origin labelling if it's on beef that was processed here. That we will happily stand behind. It's the fact that as this law is written it will just be another nail in the coffin of Canadian cattle producers, and as a side effect, just another cost to American producers.

 

[Sandhusker]

To find an answer to this dilemma, I think you need to back up and ask the reason for country of origin information - what are people wanting to learn from that label and why. In the case of food, they want to know so they can judge for themselves if the source is a place they can trust so they can feel they are eating safe food. In that case, just labeling where it was physically altered is not telling them all they want to know and thus, should not be the sole information given on that label.

NAFTA has it wrong....again. No wonder, NAFTA wasn't created for you and me, it was created for the big boys to get bigger.

 

[RobertMac]

Maybe we don't want our cattle to have our label on them after they've been through one of your plants and contaminated with ecoli or fed by the lower standards of your feed ban? Maybe we only want our label on the beef that we have some control over from start to finish.

Hey, Randy, some of your fellow Canadians are starting to get it right :clap:

Only problem...I don't know if they realize it! :???:

 

[PORKER]

Under Mandatory U.S. Country of Origin Labelling legislation, scheduled to come into effect in Midnight September,30 2008 fresh pork will have to be labelled according to the country in which it was born, raised and slaughtered.

 

[PORKER]

Remember This !!!
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING
AMI misleads Congress, Consumers on COOL

In a recent letter to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., from the American Meat Institute (AMI), AMI makes several decisively false claims about country-of-origin labeling, a law established in the 2002 Farm Bill that has yet to be implemented because of political pressure by multinational packers, processors and retailers. R-CALF USA, in turn, sent a letter to DeLauro and Kohl to counter AMI's false claims.



The AMI letter asks, "If mandatory country-of-origin labeling were truly a food safety issue, should not all food products be covered through commerce?"



"The answer is 'yes', but for more than food safety reasons," said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry. "COOL provides consumers with basic information about where their food is produced, and consumers deserve this information to use as they see fit."


AMI's letter also states that "to assert that any country-of-origin labeling regime would have an impact on food safety or the integrity of a food product is absurd," – a decisively false claim.



The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) itself has recently imposed COOL requirements on certain countries, such as Uruguay," Thornsberry pointed out. "Fresh, chilled or frozen beef coming to the U.S. from Uruguay must be certified as originating only from cattle that are born, raised and slaughtered in Uruguay – the very same standards adopted by the COOL law for food products eligible to bear the USA label.


"There you go – straight from USDA – food safety and COOL do go hand-in-hand as a practiced and proven means of ensuring food safety and food product integrity," he continued. "USDA implemented this origin-based food safety standard for Uruguay because of concerns related to foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Only with origin information can verification be made that the final food product underwent the food production practices of a particular country's food production regime."


R-CALF USA's letter also states: "The recent melamine contamination problem further demonstrates that food production practices within a particular country impact food safety and food product integrity."


AMI also claims there are 34 countries eligible to ship meat to the U.S., and that each of those countries' food safety inspection systems must be USDA-certified to be considered equivalent to the federal food safety inspection system in the United States.


"While this claim is accurate in terms of what the current law requires, it has been proven decisively false in practice," Thornsberry noted. "A December 2005 report by USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) revealed that Canadian plants were allowed to circumvent U.S. equivalency requirements for nearly two years – a perfect example of how COOL would afford consumers an additional level of protection against breaches in foreign food safety inspection systems."


Additionally, AMI claims that COOL supporters "have, for too long, been mischaracterizing the mandatory labeling requirements that currently exist in this country…FSIS has had, for many years, mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements for red meat that enters the U.S."


This claim also is accurate in terms of what the law requires, but it, too, has been proven decisively false in practice. An August 2003 General Accounting Office revealed the COOL information was not being maintained on imported meat as required by the Tariff Act of 1930, which requires imported products to maintain its import identity through to the ultimate purchaser.


"Again, you see the disparity between what current laws require and what actually is being practiced," Thornsberry said. "The key here is that the 2002 COOL law remedies these problems whereby country-of-origin labels are not being properly passed on to consumers by packers, processors and retailers. The 2002 COOL law expressly requires that 'a retailer of a covered commodity shall inform consumers, at the final point of sale of the covered commodity to consumers, of the country of origin of the covered commodity.'"


AMI also claims that the 2002 COOL law is noncompliant with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – again, a decisively false – and baseless – claim.


"In fact, AMI itself discredits this claim by stating that USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has had, for many years, mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements for red meat that enters the U.S.," Thornsberry asserted. "The 2002 COOL law merely preserves this label for the benefit of consumers after imported product enters the U.S., and it requires that domestic products be similarly labeled."

 

[cutterone]

Personaly I think the COOL implimentation means different things to various consumers and in most cases feel they do have a right to know where the product originated. Food safety is a big concern more so now, but some is just loyalty, and quality. For years if I looked at an item that said "Made in Korea or China" I for one expected that item to be made with less quality. If I looked at a camera or computer made in Japan it was a superior product. If I knew it came from Canada I felt no indifference to a US product. I think most Americans see Canadians as family not foriegn.
Going back to the loyality thing many Americans see products that are now manufactured in Mexico and other countries where American based multi national companies that have taken jobs away from American employees as traitors, not traders and do not want to support them. There is a very bad taste in American consumers with WalMart for those very reasons. I'll admit I am prejudice about foriegn beef being imported into this country to undermine my livelyhood. I'm not angry with the foriegn producer but the multi national packer and importer that I feel attacks me. I have a right to make a living and with a level playing field. I personaly think that this applies to producers and consumers in most countries. There is no question that many consumers in foriegn countries see that goods from America and Canada as superior to their own but producers of goods in their country do not want to loose their livelyhood and driven out of business by us either.
It's not my or any American's fault that several foriegn countries have a sub standard living and it's not our's or Canadian's responsibility to subsidise them. NAFTA only gave the American corporate the ability to take advantage to use Mexico's cheap labor force to manufacture goods and mask them into the American manufacturing scheme. Mexico's basic import to the US is people that take American jobs and export American dollars back to Mexico.
For many, probably the more educated shoppers, safety is more important than price and are demanding to know the who, what, when and where of anything they purchase.
Trade can be a good thing but safety and producer concerns should always take presidence over corporate and government interests.

 

[PORKER]

Ag groups blast plan to make retailers pay for COOL

Leaders say plan is another attempt to derail meat-labeling plan

By Steve Miller, Journal staff Thursday, February 07, 2008
5 comment(s) Normal Size Increase font Size

Ag groups are fuming over the Bush administration's plans to make retailers pay for part of the country-of-origin labeling program approved by Congress.
President Bush's proposed 2009 budget, announced last week, calls for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to collect fees of $259 from each of an estimated 37,000 retailers to pay for compliance reviews for mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat and other food products. USDA's regular budget would pay for other parts of the labeling program.

Apparently, the fee would apply to both the mandatory labeling program approved by Congress in 2002 (but delayed since then) and the revised labeling program approved by both the House and Senate in the yet-to-be-completed 2007 farm bill, according to a staffer for Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

Retailers are not enthusiastic about paying the fees, but ag groups that have fought for food labeling for years are also opposed.

"It's just USDA's way of trying to kill this thing again," Margaret Nachtigall, executive director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, said. "It's not good news, but it's not surprising," she said.

Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, which represents cattle producers, said COOL compliance reviews should be conducted by the U.S. Agriculture Marketing Service under its existing budget, just as it pays for similar audits of other regulatory programs.

"This provision is long overdue and finally affords consumers with information they want and need about where their food comes from," Bullard said about COOL.

The program would require labels listing the country of origin for a number of food products, including beef, except for meat served in restaurants.

The South Dakota Cattlemen's Association also opposes the user fees, even though it has been lukewarm about mandatory labeling, according to association executive director Jodie Hickman.

She said the user fees would eventually get passed down to cattle producers. "This label, like all other food labels, should have the backing of the federal government, and the federal government should pay for it," Hickman said.

Mike Held, administrative director of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, questioned how USDA would come up with a figure for such a fee and he said it isn't fair to assess the same flat fee of small-town grocery stores as big retailers such as Wal-Mart.

Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., also oppose the fees.

"Both chambers of Congress have spoken on Country of Origin Labeling, and the Senate and House, like roughly 91 percent of the American public, support COOL," Johnson said in a news release. "The administration's proposal is just another attempt to stall a common-sense program and object to sound policy for rural communities and consumers across America."

Thune believes the administrative burden and cost of collecting the fees from retailers could slow implementation and probably wouldn't be cost-effective anyway, Thune ag adviser Lynn Tjeerdsma said. "Rather than encumbering the retailers for these costs and adding to the administrative process, Senator Thune favors Congress providing the money to AMS (Agriculture Marketing Service) to cover COOL implementation costs."

Shawn Lyons, executive director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, said he was unaware of the proposal to collect fees for labeling compliance. But, he added, "We would certainly have some concerns about ... a USDA program that's going to be funded on the backs of retailers."

Lyons said the Retailers Association has not taken a position on the labeling law. "Small independent grocers around the state have a good relationship with the ag community," he said. "But they're concerned about how they're going to implement this program."

The 2002 farm bill included mandatory labeling, but the USDA insisted it didn't have the money to implement it, and congressional leaders have delayed putting it into place.

That version of COOL is now supposed to take effect this September, unless the new farm bill is approved and signed by the president.

Herseth Sandlin said the delay in the new farm bill could mean a delay in putting COOL into place because of logistics.

"At the same time, I want to make sure if it is delayed, it's not an unreasonable delay," she said.

Contact Steve Miller at 394-8417 or [email protected]..

 

[Sandhusker]

Cutterone, "Trade can be a good thing but safety and producer concerns should always take presidence over corporate and government interests"

AMEN!

 

[PORKER]

The 2002 farm bill included mandatory labeling, but the USDA insisted it didn't have the money to implement it, and congressional leaders have delayed putting it into place.

That version of COOL is now supposed to take effect this September, after the new farm bill is approved and signed by the president.

Now What happens if Bush veto's The Farm Bill? We revert back to the old Farm bill in 49 or 36 and still will have the 2002 COOL law which is much tougher.

In Ruminatin by Steve Dittmer, in Calf News.his veiwpoints below.

Now what does that do to COOL ? Well that law was passed in 2002 and according to Steve Dittmer it would revert to its orginal strict language. If Bush signs the bill the way it is, then COOL will be easier ,but still will need recordkeeping and a traceback database from retailer to farm of origin whether imported or local.
This really Puts Canada and Mexico buyers of animals or meat in a pickle.USDA can't even start the rules until Congress passes the bill or Bush veto's it. This is getting interesting !

 

[alabama]

Why don't we see beef labeled as "born in the US?"
I suspect that those that package and sell that beef don't think that it will bring more money for the same beef. They don't think people will pay for the name. Or is there some other reason they din't want the extra money?
If I ran a small packing plant I would do all I could to label my product for as many things I could to get more for the same product.
So someone please tell my why they don't?

 

[Anonymous]

Why don't we see beef labeled as "born in the US?"
I suspect that those that package and sell that beef don't think that it will bring more money for the same beef. They don't think people will pay for the name. Or is there some other reason they din't want the extra money?
If I ran a small packing plant I would do all I could to label my product for as many things I could to get more for the same product.
So someone please tell my why they don't?

Because under the current labeling law- all beef is allowed packaged with the USDA label which most consumers assume means USA beef...

We've had several small packing plants that promoted a USA label- and went broke, because consumers said why should we pay more for shipping and everything, when we can buy US beef at the store anyway- thinking the USDA inspected label was guaranteeing them USA beef....

When all beef is correctly labeled and the packers can no longer use the Fraud of sticking just a USDA inpected stamp on imported beef and passing it off as US beef- then I think you will see the true value of country of origin labeling......

 

[RobertMac]

Why don't we see beef labeled as "born in the US?"
I suspect that those that package and sell that beef don't think that it will bring more money for the same beef. They don't think people will pay for the name. Or is there some other reason they din't want the extra money?
If I ran a small packing plant I would do all I could to label my product for as many things I could to get more for the same product.
So someone please tell my why they don't?

Because under the current labeling law- all beef is allowed packaged with the USDA label which most consumers assume means USA beef...

We've had several small packing plants that promoted a USA label- and went broke, because consumers said why should we pay more for shipping and everything, when we can buy US beef at the store anyway- thinking the USDA inspected label was guaranteeing them USA beef....

When all beef is correctly labeled and the packers can no longer use the Fraud of sticking just a USDA inpected stamp on imported beef and passing it off as US beef- then I think you will see the true value of country of origin labeling......

Also, anything that is put on the label that is considered by FSIS to be a label claim must be approved by them. I have "Born and raised in Mississippi, USA" on my label, but I had to send a complete production protocol to FSIS in Washington, D.CO. to have my label approved because I had the word "Grassfed" in my business title. And Mississippi has a country of origin label law.

 

[Sandhusker]

Why don't we see beef labeled as "born in the US?"
I suspect that those that package and sell that beef don't think that it will bring more money for the same beef. They don't think people will pay for the name. Or is there some other reason they din't want the extra money?
If I ran a small packing plant I would do all I could to label my product for as many things I could to get more for the same product.
So someone please tell my why they don't?

They don't want people knowing they can get US product and then asking for it. That ties their hands as far as suppliers go. They want brand loyalty, not country loyalty. They're always going to charge whatever the market will bear, and it makes more sense for them to sell the beef they bought from country x or y for 50 cents instead of the beef they bought locally for 75.

But, the NCBA folks will tell you that they're our "partners in industry" and that we're all in this together. Pretty good partners, eh?