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

House Ag chairman talks about mandatory COOL, NAIS

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
March 12, 2007
House Ag chairman talks about mandatory COOL, NAIS

When it comes to two hot topics for the livestock industry, country of origin labeling (COOL) and an animal ID system, it’s worth listening to the chairman of the House Ag Committee, Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn.). Here’s what he had to say last week at a meeting of the National Farmers Union.

On COOL: Peterson said he wants mandatory COOL implemented by September 2008, and not this September. The reason he favors a delay: he considers the implementing regulations written by USDA to be unworkable, and wants them re-written.

He also said he’s warned the American Meat Institute, and other opponents that mandatory COOL “will happen no later” than September of 2008. And, he said, if they try to repeal the law, there will be a floor vote and the law “will pass by 300 votes.”

On animal ID: Mandatory COOL will lead to a system of mandatory ID for meat animals, Peterson said. He noted that producer reaction to the announcement of a mandatory ID program led USDA to back off and say the program would be voluntary. But he noted that other developed countries have mandatory ID, and “In the end these (two systems) are going to get married.”

This speech came as the Food Marketing Institute released a report claiming that mandatory COOL for seafood has not delivered the benefits promised by the law, and has cost retailers and suppliers much more than USDA estimated.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
On animal ID: Mandatory COOL will lead to a system of mandatory ID for meat animals, Peterson said. He noted that producer reaction to the announcement of a mandatory ID program led USDA to back off and say the program would be voluntary. But he noted that other developed countries have mandatory ID, and “In the end these (two systems) are going to get married.”
 

Tam

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
March 12, 2007
House Ag chairman talks about mandatory COOL, NAIS

When it comes to two hot topics for the livestock industry, country of origin labeling (COOL) and an animal ID system, it’s worth listening to the chairman of the House Ag Committee, Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn.). Here’s what he had to say last week at a meeting of the National Farmers Union.

On COOL: Peterson said he wants mandatory COOL implemented by September 2008, and not this September. The reason he favors a delay: he considers the implementing regulations written by USDA to be unworkable, and wants them re-written.

He also said he’s warned the American Meat Institute, and other opponents that mandatory COOL “will happen no later” than September of 2008. And, he said, if they try to repeal the law, there will be a floor vote and the law “will pass by 300 votes.”

On animal ID: Mandatory COOL will lead to a system of mandatory ID for meat animals, Peterson said. He noted that producer reaction to the announcement of a mandatory ID program led USDA to back off and say the program would be voluntary. But he noted that other developed countries have mandatory ID, and “In the end these (two systems) are going to get married.”
This speech came as the Food Marketing Institute released a report claiming that mandatory COOL for seafood has not delivered the benefits promised by the law, and has cost retailers and suppliers much more than USDA estimated.

So what do you think Haymaker? You posted it do you agree the law should be re-written and M'COOL and M'ID legally married. :wink: And if they are married do you think the M'COOL will be implemented before a system is in place to ID your US cattle?
 

Kato

Well-known member
I just spent some time reading the rule on the USDA website.

Does anyone here care about the fact that chicken is exempt? :!:

Does anyone here care that this bill will hand the poultry industry a competitive adavantage on a silver platter? They will not have to absorb the extra costs of labelling their products. I would think making chicken another level cheaper than beef can do more harm to the beef market than any Canadian cattle could ever do.

Can anyone compete with turkey for 40 cents a pound????

This is what the opinion of the hog producers is on this. They at least seem to be giving this more than a knee jerk reaction meant simply to close the border to imports without seeing the bigger picture.


MCOOL for Meat: A Permanent Advantage for Poultry

The mandatory country-of-origin labeling provision (MCOOL) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 will have a dramatic effect on the competitiveness of U.S.-origin pork in U.S. retail meat cases. The U.S. chicken and turkey industries will gain a permanent cost advantage over pork because:

Chicken and turkey are not covered by the MCOOL law, and

The current structure of the U.S. chicken and turkey industries would allow them to meet MCOOL law's requirements at virtually no additional cost.

Chicken and turkey are not covered by the MCOOL law. This is true regardless of whether chickens and/or turkeys are sold in a retail meat case or a restaurant. Why? Because the poultry sector did not ask to be covered under the law. The exclusion of the poultry sector, which accounts for just less than 50 percent of U.S. per capita meat consumption in 2002, speaks volumes about the supposed issues of "food safety" or a "consumer's right to know." If the law is about food safety and "consumers right to know" about the origin of food they eat, why is the poultry sector exempted? The answer is that this law is NOT about food safety or consumers' right to know. It is about keeping imported pork, beef, lamb and other covered products out of U.S. retail meat cases by imposing additional costs on these products. The trouble for U.S. producers is that the law imposes costs on ALL of the covered products, not just the imported products because it requires some type of "verifiable" proof of the origin of ALL covered products, even those of U.S. origin.
It wouldn't make any difference if chicken and turkey were included as covered products in the MCOOL law. Virtually all U.S. chicken and turkey comes from vertically integrated production and processing systems. These systems, by design, control the product from the genetic stock all the way through laying flocks, egg production, setting, hatching, growing, slaughtering, processing and distribution. These systems KNOW the source of every bird and every product made from those birds. Record keeping for chickens or turkeys is far simpler than for market hogs simply due to the shorter lengths of their life cycles. Furthermore, since virtually no chicken or turkey is imported into the U.S., chicken and turkey companies can be more certain that all of their production is "born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.," automatically qualifying it under the law to carry the "Product of the U.S." label. Including chicken and turkey as covered products in the MCOOL law would impose no additional records, auditing, segregation or logistical costs on chicken and turkey products. Thus, including chicken and turkey under the law will not level the playing field for other U.S. meat species.

What is the answer? The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) is calling on Congress to repeal the mandatory provision of the country-of-origin labeling law for hogs and pork products. NPPC believes that the MCOOL law will hand a permanent advantage to the U.S. chicken and turkey industries that will work to the long-term detriment of thousands of pork producers. Including chicken and turkey in MCOOL will not fix the law or level the playing field. The vertically integrated nature of the poultry industry allows it to meet the requirements of the MCOOL law at virtually no additional cost. So, the poultry industry's advantage is not due to its exclusion from the MCOOL law but due to the inclusion of the other meat sectors whose structure makes fulfilling MCOOL requirements more difficult and expensive. NPPC urges Congress to replace the MCOOL provision with a workable voluntary COOL program. If there are consumers willing to pay a premium for country-of-origin labeled pork, a voluntary system would allow entrepreneurs to create and capture such value through the pork chain. NPPC believes that this trade protectionist law, as currently structured, will force thousands of independent pork producers out of business because it confers a permanent cost advantage to the chicken and turkey industries. This cost advantage will inevitably encourage U.S. consumers to purchase chicken and turkey in lieu of pork products.

:shock: :shock: :shock:


As well, from what I read, it seems that the onus is not just on imported products to be identified, but also that American products must also be verified as being American? They are not presumed to be American by default. They must be identified, and recorded at every transaction along the supply chain as being American. This starts at the farm, goes to the auction marts, to other producers who may buy the cattle/hogs/etc., and on and on until slaughter. Affidavits and traceability all along the way.

How do you do this without mandatory ID?

You don't. :!: You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
How do you do this without mandatory ID?


Very simple-- Everything coming into the US right now is labeled-- boxed beef is labeled as to country, plant, run, lot, etc.....Live imported animals are all coming under manifest and seal (with Canadian eartags) or are Permanent hot iron branded as to identity of origin of cattle-- Mexico- MX-- Canada C^N- and eartagged...

Everything else here is US.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
How do you do this without mandatory ID?

It doesn't take a government mandated ID, but it does take some type of ID. That's a given.

That was all recognized in the COOL legislation on the table.

Most packers had already sent out letters to feedlots (before COOL was laid to the side) describing what type of ID they were requiring on bought cattle.

To be able to prove where something DIDN'T come from, first you must prove where it DID come from.
 

Kato

Well-known member
http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/ls0304.txt

USDA says otherwise.

However, the law requires suppliers to provide country of
origin information to retailers, including the ``born, raised, and
slaughtered'' information required to make U.S. origin claims for the
covered commodities beef, pork, and lamb.
The records needed to
substantiate this information can only be created by persons having
first-hand knowledge of the country designation for each production
step declared in the country of origin claim. Thus, livestock producers
will need to create and/or maintain these records to enable retail
suppliers to provide retailers with correct country of origin
information.
This proposed rule is issued pursuant to the Farm Bill and the

and so on...

Recordkeeping Requirements

The law states that the Secretary may require any person that
prepares, stores, handles, or distributes a covered commodity for
retail sale to maintain a verifiable recordkeeping audit trail that
will permit the Secretary to verify compliance. As such, records and
other documentary evidence to substantiate origin declarations and, if
applicable, designations of wild or farm-raised, are necessary in order
to provide retailers with credible information on which to base origin
declarations.
Under this proposed rule, any person engaged in the business of
supplying a covered commodity to a retailer, whether directly or
indirectly (i.e., distributors, handlers, etc.), would be required to
maintain records to establish and identify the immediate previous
source and immediate subsequent recipient of a covered commodity, in
such a way that identifies the product unique to that transaction, for
a period of 2 years from the date of the transaction. The supplier of a
covered commodity that is responsible for initiating a country of
origin declaration and, if applicable, designation of wild or farm-
raised, must possess or have legal access to records that substantiate
that claim. For an imported covered commodity, the importer of record
as determined by CBP, must ensure that records: (1) Provide clear
product tracking from the U.S. port of entry to the immediate
subsequent recipient, and (2) substantiate country of origin claims,
and, if applicable, designations of wild or farm-raised and maintain
such records for a period of 2 years from the date of the transaction.
To the extent that existing records contain the necessary information
to substantiate an origin declaration and, if applicable, designations
of wild or farm-raised, it is not necessary to create or maintain
additional records.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The law made the mistake of leaving it to bureaucrats (that are bought out and owned by the Packers) to write up rules that are the least restrictive and least hardship on all- thinking that Washington Bureaucrats actually have common sense...This is the reason the law may be relegislated with mandated rules that neither the Packer, the Retailer, or the Producer will be happy about...

But like Representaive Peterson said- there will be a mandatory country of origin labeling law.....The wave is too big to stop now....
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Tam said:
HAY MAKER said:
March 12, 2007
House Ag chairman talks about mandatory COOL, NAIS

When it comes to two hot topics for the livestock industry, country of origin labeling (COOL) and an animal ID system, it’s worth listening to the chairman of the House Ag Committee, Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn.). Here’s what he had to say last week at a meeting of the National Farmers Union.

On COOL: Peterson said he wants mandatory COOL implemented by September 2008, and not this September. The reason he favors a delay: he considers the implementing regulations written by USDA to be unworkable, and wants them re-written.

He also said he’s warned the American Meat Institute, and other opponents that mandatory COOL “will happen no later” than September of 2008. And, he said, if they try to repeal the law, there will be a floor vote and the law “will pass by 300 votes.”

On animal ID: Mandatory COOL will lead to a system of mandatory ID for meat animals, Peterson said. He noted that producer reaction to the announcement of a mandatory ID program led USDA to back off and say the program would be voluntary. But he noted that other developed countries have mandatory ID, and “In the end these (two systems) are going to get married.”
This speech came as the Food Marketing Institute released a report claiming that mandatory COOL for seafood has not delivered the benefits promised by the law, and has cost retailers and suppliers much more than USDA estimated.

So what do you think Haymaker? You posted it do you agree the law should be re-written and M'COOL and M'ID legally married. :wink: And if they are married do you think the M'COOL will be implemented before a system is in place to ID your US cattle?

I think the feeble attempts at smoke screening the *US* cattle man the usda is coming up with now, is laughable and an insult to the cattle mans intelligence,they know M COOL is being fast tracked,this is just another attempt to stall it.
I say M COOL gets enacted this year,then we can do the rewriting,to include all beef period.
The usda cannot even track the imports, much less the domestic herd,when they can track the imports ,then we will talk about the domestic herd...............good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato- You better hope we get that M-COOL implemented and working before Tyson starts shipping beef up from FMD countries (under USDA proposed rule change) like Argentina to go thru the US and into Canada marked as US beef under NAFTA.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Kato said:
That doesn't change the fact that US beef has to be proven to be US beef, it won't just be assumed.

I believe so too, Kato. If USA beef was not marked/labeled by default, all one would have to do is remove the Argentina label from theirs, to instantly make it become USA beef.
 

Tam

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Tam said:
HAY MAKER said:
March 12, 2007
House Ag chairman talks about mandatory COOL, NAIS

When it comes to two hot topics for the livestock industry, country of origin labeling (COOL) and an animal ID system, it’s worth listening to the chairman of the House Ag Committee, Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn.). Here’s what he had to say last week at a meeting of the National Farmers Union.

On COOL: Peterson said he wants mandatory COOL implemented by September 2008, and not this September. The reason he favors a delay: he considers the implementing regulations written by USDA to be unworkable, and wants them re-written.

He also said he’s warned the American Meat Institute, and other opponents that mandatory COOL “will happen no later” than September of 2008. And, he said, if they try to repeal the law, there will be a floor vote and the law “will pass by 300 votes.”
On animal ID: Mandatory COOL will lead to a system of mandatory ID for meat animals, Peterson said. He noted that producer reaction to the announcement of a mandatory ID program led USDA to back off and say the program would be voluntary. But he noted that other developed countries have mandatory ID, and “In the end these (two systems) are going to get married.”
This speech came as the Food Marketing Institute released a report claiming that mandatory COOL for seafood has not delivered the benefits promised by the law, and has cost retailers and suppliers much more than USDA estimated.

So what do you think Haymaker? You posted it do you agree the law should be re-written and M'COOL and M'ID legally married. :wink: And if they are married do you think the M'COOL will be implemented before a system is in place to ID your US cattle?

I think the feeble attempts at smoke screening the *US* cattle man the usda is coming up with now, is laughable and an insult to the cattle mans intelligence,they know M COOL is being fast tracked,this is just another attempt to stall it.
I say M COOL gets enacted this year,then we can do the rewriting,to include all beef period.
The usda cannot even track the imports, much less the domestic herd,when they can track the imports ,then we will talk about the domestic herd...............good luck

Tell us Haymaker does chairman of the House Ag Committee, Rep Colin Peterson work in or for the USDA? As he is the one saying there should be a year delay to re-write the unworkable rule. He is the one saying that M'ID will be married to the M'COOL bill not the USDA. If Peterson has the power to get M'COOL through by Sept 2008 Do you think he has the power to force MANDATORY ID on the US beef producers?
 

Tam

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Do you think he has the power to force MANDATORY ID on the US beef producers?
Yes, he has the Votes.
If he has the votes to do it, do you think he will delay doing it for very long? Or will he push to have the two systems married as soon as possible? M COOL and M ID legally married on implementation :?
 
Top