• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

For MRJ

Mike

Well-known member
The link is an actual letter from Tyson/IBP informing producers of the requirements of COOL.

http://agecon.unl.edu/mark/COOL/IBP%20COOL%20Letter.pdf


MRJ wrote:How can it honestly be called "carrying water for packers" to state the fact that M-COOL requires packers to provide data that they are forbidden to require cattle producers to give them????

How can you say that packers were "Forbidden to require producers to give them"?

I see you are back on the gin. :mad:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike, "I see you are back on the gin."

That's what happens when you get your information from the likes of SH. You make incorrect misinformed statements.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey Boys, Boys-- don't go bothering Maxine with facts....She admits she is no longer active in her elitist group and doesn't have time to keep up with whats happening - like facts or anything important like that...Allow her to fantasize with her gin bottle about "the good old days" of NCBA and remember them back before they sold out to AMI & the Multinational Corporate World..... :wink: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT, what the hell would you know about facts? I doubt you know what the word means. Someone saying what you want to believe is hardly a fact.

You want facts on this issue? Here's the facts!

"M"ID was prohibited from "M"COOL

That's a fact!

Want proof?

Here's proof from Tyson's letter verifying that "M"ID was prohibited from "M"COOL......

USDA has stated self-certification will not be allowed, nor will the government step in to certify where livestock were born or raised.


Well if the government is not going to "STEP IN TO CERTIFY WHERE LIVESTOCK WAS BORN AND RAISED" since "M"ID was prohibited, WHO WILL????? Explain that OT!

The law, due to a lack of enforcement becomes absolutely worthless.

Kinda like a 55 mph speed limit BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IT!

How frickin stupid!

Now you as a former "SUPPOSED" law man should know that a law that is not enforced is worthless yet you support it anyway to be part of the "GOOD OL' BOYS" import blaming club proving what a lemming you really are.

Ibp can request whatever they want, fact remains, "M"ID was prohibited from "M"COOL making the law unenforceable. Secondly, contrary to what Sandbag was spinning to you ("R-culters didn't want a BURDENSOME traceback"), R-CULT voted against "M"ID by a landslide because they didn't want to be BURDENED WITH TRACEBACK. Once again proving that Sandbag didn't know what he was talking about.

During "M"COOL listening sessions, Leo admitted to helping to write this FLAWED, UNENFORCEABLE law and sang the praises of watered down enforcement and "M"ID being prohibited.

That is why nothing has happened with this law. It's self defeating and contradicting.

The law, AS WRITTEN, is absolutely unenforceable.

The only INCENTIVE to comply with this law is that producers who do not want to be burdened with traceback and producers who refuse to abide by the packer and retailer requirements of source verification will not have a market for their cattle. In the end, they will have to ID their cattle whether they like it or not because they forced the packers to ID beef and only a complete idiot would think you could ID beef without IDing the cattle the beef came from.

So what's your point MIKE?

The law, as written, is unenforceable and a law that is unenforceable is worthless.

This stupid law forced packers to request ID. How the hell else were they supposed to ID the beef? At the same time, the law prohibited USDA from enforcing it making the law worthless.

Oh yeh, the SIMPLISTIC R-CULT "just mark the imports, just mark the imports" solution huh? Bullsh*t! That isn't enforceable either.

This law is an absolute joke.

The end point is to "BWAME DA PACKAH" for requesting source verification information that will be required for packers and retailers to comply with this law which was written by import blamers WITH NOBODY ENFORCING IT BECAUSE "M"ID WAS PROHIBITED! This means anyone can claim anything making the validity of country of origin labeling an absolute joke.

Typical of the brilliance of R-CULT!

Now Mike if you'd like to step up to the plate and refute anything I have stated here with opposing facts, BRING IT!


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
I guess you forgot to read this part of the letter Scott:

"5. Audits. Provide retailers with the results of an audit conducted by USDA or another
certified independent third party to establish that packers have the systems in place to
ensure the accuracy of the country of origin information that they provide retailers."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well if the government is not going to "STEP IN TO CERTIFY WHERE LIVESTOCK WAS BORN AND RAISED" since "M"ID was prohibited, WHO WILL????? Explain that OT!

The same folk that were or are now certifying it for some of our foreign markets like Japan, Korea, Egypt, etc. that have requested it-- the folks that raised and fed the product- thru use of a paper trail (affidavits)- which the packers have to keep with the product and provide to the retailer/exporter to show where it came from....

Its also been done for years for the school lunch program....

And presently all imported animals and all imported meat is labeled or marked...Everything else is by default a US product...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "I guess you forgot to read this part of the letter Scott:

"5. Audits. Provide retailers with the results of an audit conducted by USDA or another
certified independent third party to establish that packers have the systems in place to
ensure the accuracy of the country of origin information that they provide retailers."

No Mike, I didn't forget that part. I'm the one who pointed out that "M"COOL is self-contradicting. You didn't! You pick and choose what fits your argument for that moment.

Why not admit the fact that "M"ID being prohibited from "M"COOL directly contradicts what you just posted? Present this law as it is rather than how you want it to be.

What part of "nor will the government step in to certify where livestock was born and raised" don't you understand???

The "M"ID and the quote above directly contradicts the part of the law that you just quoted about third party audits.

So which part of the law are we to believe Mike? Each producer will pick and choose what he wants to believe in a law that contradicts itself like you just did.

"M"ID has been prohibited Mike therefore there is no enforcement. Without enforcement, YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMACY IN THE LAW!


OT: "The same folk that were or are now certifying it for some of our foreign markets like Japan, Korea, Egypt, etc. that have requested it-- the folks that raised and fed the product- thru use of a paper trail (affidavits)- which the packers have to keep with the product and provide to the retailer/exporter to show where it came from...."

You are talking out of your ass again OT! You don't know what is SPECIFICALLY required by any of these countries and their requirements are not the same as "M"COOL.

"M"COOL, as written, requires proof of where animals were "BORN, RAISED, AND SLAUGHTERED". Is Japan, Korea, and Egypt's requirements for where the animal was "BORN, RAISED, AND SLAUGHTERED" beyond WHAT COUNTRY???

silence...............

A typical R-CULT oversimplistic look at this stupid law because you are not the one who has to enforce it.


OT: "Its also been done for years for the school lunch program...."

Bullsh*t again! You are just repeating the R-CULT mantra again.

HERE'S THE FACTS OT...........

In the COOL law, to be designated as U.S. origin requires meat products to be from cattle, hogs, and sheep that are born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. In contrast, USDA's commodity procurement program requires meat products to come from U.S. produced livestock which excludes only imported meat and meat from livestock imported for direct slaughter.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS OT????

It means that animals that were BORN IN CANADA and FED AND SLAUGHTERED IN THE US are eligible for the school lunch program WHICH IS NOT THE SAME REQUIREMENT AS "M"COOL.

APPLES TO ORANGES!

WRONG AGAIN OT!


OT: "And presently all imported animals and all imported meat is labeled or marked...Everything else is by default a US product..."


Marking the animals doesn't have a damn thing to do with tracking the beef that came from those animals. This is the R-CULTers oversimplistic look at enforcing this law.

You, the hypocrite who claims the packers hide foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp is suddenly going to trust them to label foreign beef correctly for "M"COOL WITHOUT A TRACEBACK SYSTEM FOR ALL BEEF???

How hypocritical can you be OT?


The problem is that you R-CULTers don't know anything about beef fabrication and source verification therefore you come up with your overly simplistic solutions to far more complex issues because YOU HAVE THE LUXURY OF NOT HAVING TO ENFORCE YOUR STUPID LAW.

"M"COOL, as currently written, will fail miserably. WRITE IT DOWN!



~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Why not admit the fact that "M"ID being prohibited from "M"COOL directly contradicts what you just posted?

The only thing prohibited about ID in COOL, is that the USDA could not mandate any one particular "SYSTEM" of identification.

IDENTIFICATION ITSELF WAS NOT PROHIBITED IN COOL!

I find it hard to believe that you cannot see that COOL left the "SYSTEM" of identifying cattle up to the entire industry and not the USDA.

I thought you were against goverment mandates dabbling in the producers/packers business?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "The only thing prohibited about ID in COOL, is that the USDA could not mandate any one particular "SYSTEM" of identification."

WRONG!

USDA CANNOT MANDATE ANY ID SYSTEM, PERIOD!

"M"ID WAS PROHIBITED, PERIOD!

That is a fact Mike!


Mike: "IDENTIFICATION ITSELF WAS NOT PROHIBITED IN COOL!"

MANDATORY ID WAS PROHIBITED!

You cannot have a MANDATORY COOL without a VOLUNTARY ID and be able to enforce it.


Mike: "I find it hard to believe that you cannot see that COOL left the "SYSTEM" of identifying cattle up to the entire industry and not the USDA."

I see that as plain as day. What you fail to see is that you cannot have an enforceable "M"COOL with a VOLUNTARY ID.

A law must be enforceable. You cannot enforece "M"COOL without "M"ID.

That's ONE REASON why this law is so stupid.


Mike: "I thought you were against goverment mandates dabbling in the producers/packers business?"

That dog won't hunt Mike! I don't support "M"ID or M"COOL. I say let the free enterprise work like it should with consumer driven source verification instead of an unenforceable "PLEASE GOVERNMENT, SAVE US FROM OURSELVES" flawed mandate.

I oppose "M"COOL and I oppose "M"ID but I'm simply pointing out the fact that you cannot have "MANDATORY" COOL without "MANDATORY" ID and make it enforceable.

I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the law. Flaws you fail to successfully argue.



~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
From the USDA website:

COOL

"The proposed rule does not require specific types of recordkeeping
systems. Thus, retailers and suppliers of covered commodities will be
able to develop their own least-cost systems to implement COOL
requirements.
For example, one firm may depend primarily on manual
identification and paper recordkeeping systems, while another may adopt
automated identification and electronic recordkeeping systems.
Alternative levels of stringency: USDA interprets the law as
providing essentially no discretionary authority for providing
alternative levels of stringency regarding the provision of country of
origin information for covered commodities by retailers as defined by
the statute. That is, retailers either provide the required country of
origin information to their customers or they do not, which provides no
scope for alternative levels of stringency. There is, however, some
degree of discretionary authority with regard to how the required
information may be substantiated and how USDA may enforce the law and
ensure compliance with this proposed rule.
USDA received numerous comments suggesting self-certification as a
means to identify country of origin, particularly for producers. USDA
does not consider self-certification alone, absent records to
substantiate the information, as a viable or credible alternative for
compliance with this proposed rule. In addition, with no mechanism to
verify compliance, such a system could be highly vulnerable to
misrepresentation. USDA believes that some type of certification could
be used as a means to transfer country of origin information from one
level of the supply chain to the next, but such certification would
need to be supported by adequate documentation to verify country of
origin claims.
An alternative to the proposed recordkeeping requirements would be
to supplement the recordkeeping requirements with required affidavits
attesting to the veracity of country of origin claims. Suppliers could
be required to provide an affidavit for each transaction to the
immediate subsequent recipient certifying that the country of origin
claims and, if applicable, designations of wild or farm-raised, being
made are truthful and that the required records are being maintained.
This system of providing affidavits could provide enhanced assurance
that each participant in the supply chain is fully accountable for
providing valid country of origin claims."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That changes nothing I have stated Mike.

FACT: "M"ID WAS PROHIBITED FROM "M"COOL.

FACT: "M"COOL WILL NOT BE ENFORCED WITHOUT SOME FORM OF ENFORCEABLE ID.

FACT: R-CULTers oppose "M"ID.

FACT: R-CULTers said consumers should have the right to know where their beef comes from and they contradicted that statement by saying they do not want to be burdened with traceback.

I agree that "M"COOL will require some form of Mandatory ID to be enforceable but that is not what "M"COOL proponents wanted or put in the law. They figured just marking the imports would allow this law to be enforceable. That's ridiculous.

You've contradicted nothing I have stated Mike!

"M"ID WAS PROHIBITED FROM "M"COOL, PERIOD!


Read what you just posted Mike:


"USDA does not consider self-certification alone, absent records to substantiate the information, as a viable or credible alternative for
compliance with this proposed rule."


"An alternative to the proposed recordkeeping requirements would be
to supplement the recordkeeping requirements with required affidavits
attesting to the veracity of country of origin claims."

It's obvious there is going to be records REQUIRED. A REQUIREMENT IS AS GOOD AS A MANDATE yet "M"ID was prohibited. What an incredibly stupid law.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
You have totally gotten off topic from my original post.

MRJ wrote:
to state the fact that M-COOL requires packers to provide data that they are forbidden to require cattle producers to give them????

She knows better than this and you do too. The packers WERE NOT prohibited from asking the producers for ANYTHING.

If they in fact asked the producer for a DNA sample with each head, the producer would have to provide it or sell his cattle somewhere else.

The COOL law as written is and was workable and brilliantly crafted to allow the industry to set the rules themselves.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "The packers WERE NOT prohibited from asking the producers for ANYTHING."

That's beside the point, without some form of Mandatory ID, there will be no way to enforce this law. That is a fact Mike, dance around it all you want.

Fact remains, some form of auditable ID (READ THAT AS MANDATED OR ENFORCEABLE) will be required to enforce this law which is exactly what the hypocrite proponents of this law did not want and that is why they prohibited "M"ID.

Why can't you admit that this law contradicts itself? An unenforceable law is worthless.


Mike: "If they in fact asked the producer for a DNA sample with each head, the producer would have to provide it or sell his cattle somewhere else."

I agree. That doesn't change the fact that "M"ID was prohibited from the law which is what will be required to enforce it.

DNA samples is a form of "M"ID which is exactly what the law prohibited. If USDA is not allowed to enforce it, then there will be no integrity in the law.


Mike: "The COOL law as written is and was workable and brilliantly crafted to allow the industry to set the rules themselves."

Brilliantly crafted? BRILLIANTLY CRAFTED????

BWAHAHAHAHA!

The stupid law prohibits exactly what it will requre for enforcement. Brilliantly crafted? More like self defeatingly crafted.

Par for the R-CULT course.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
What part of this don't you understand:?????????


From the USDA website:

COOL

"The proposed rule does not require specific types of recordkeeping
systems. Thus, retailers and suppliers of covered commodities will be
able to develop their own least-cost systems to implement COOL
requirements. For example, one firm may depend primarily on manual
identification and paper recordkeeping systems, while another may adopt
automated identification and electronic recordkeeping systems.


There is simply no need for a government mandated ID system if the suppliers determine one that will suffice.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
You are right Mike and www.ScoringAg.com covers both ends of the deal as it has paper records as well as computer records for FDA ,EPA, USDA, and FSIS.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
SH, if Montana butchers comply with COOL, then the packers should go over there and ask if they will learn them a thing or two. If I was a Montana butcher, I would charge heavily for this teaching.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "What part of this don't you understand:?????????


From the USDA website:

COOL

"The proposed rule does not require specific types of recordkeeping
systems. Thus, retailers and suppliers of covered commodities will be
able to develop their own least-cost systems to implement COOL
requirements. For example, one firm may depend primarily on manual
identification and paper recordkeeping systems, while another may adopt
automated identification and electronic recordkeeping systems.


There is simply no need for a government mandated ID system if the suppliers determine one that will suffice."

IF THE SUPPLIERS DETERMINE AN ID SYSTEM THAT WILL SUFFICE, THE ONLY WAY IT WILL SUFFICE IS IF IT'S ENFORCEABLE WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT A MANDATORY ID IS AND EXACTLY WHAT "M"COOL PROPONENTS DID NOT WANT!!!!

"Don't consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from"
"Don't burden me with traceback"
"Don't consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from"
"Don't burden me with traceback"

Back to back R-CULT arguments that I heard over and over and over again!

This law contradicts itself by prohibiting "M"ID because some form of ID will have to be APPROVED by USDA (read that as MANDATED BY USDA). You can't get around that fact Mike! USDA may not come up with the ID system that is suitable but they will have to approve it which means it's mandated by USDA.

Bottom line Mike, I don't care whether the ID is approved by USDA OR MANDATED BY USDA, there will be an enforceable ID to comply with this law WHICH IS WHAT PROPONENTS OF THIS LAW DID NOT WANT.

That's what you can't admit Mike. The writers of this law did not want to be burdened with traceback but the law is not enforceable without it. You can't argue that. I know the intent of this law and I know how it reads.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
You are right about one thing here, SH. Under the current management of the USDA there can be no enforcement. The USDA is full of packer lackeys and it should have a good house cleaning with real penalties to the sellout of the department.

I would like Congress to find out why. Maybe we would solve some of these problems.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Under the current management of the USDA there can be no enforcement."

There can be no enforcement of a dumb assed law that tracks beef without a mandated tracking system for enforcement.

"DON'T CONSUMERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE THEIR BEEF COMES FROM"

"DON'T BURDEN ME WITH TRACEBACK"

Hypocrites!


~SH~
 
Top