• 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 Votes to Strip Funding

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
House Votes to Strip Funding for Mandatory
Country of Origin Labeling for Meat

(Billings, MT) The U.S. House voted 187 to 240 against an amendment by
Montana Representative Denny Rehberg to fully fund the implementation
of
Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for meat. Immediately
following
the vote Rehberg commented to the Montana Cattlemen's Association, "The
fight is a long way from over. Our consumers and our trading partners
desire
and deserve the ability to know where these products come from."

Rehberg, who ranches near Billings, has long supported MCOOL. In
closing
comments on the House floor Rehberg talked about the success of MCOOL
for
fish and read a quote from Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs,
"Texas loves to buy Texas products, and this way they'll know they're
getting the quality they love, in turn sales will increase, providing a
boost to Texas shrimp producers, and the state's economy."

"Montana producers are 100% united in support of Mandatory Country of
Origin
Labeling," said MCA President Dennis McDonald. "MCA will now focus our
efforts to reinstate funding for COOL through the U.S. Senate."

Upon the defeat of the Rehberg amendment, Senator Conrad Burns' office
contacted Montana Cattlemen's Association with these comments from
Senator
Burns, "When the Senate takes up the Agriculture Appropriations bill
later
this month, I will fight to ensure that COOL implementation is funded,
and
that it remains the law of the land." Senator Burns is a senior member
of
the Senator Appropriations Committee and will be key to the
implementation
of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling.

"I am relieved to hear Senator Burns' supportive comments of mandatory
COOL," said MCA Director Leon Perrin. "I have been disappointed in the
past
by Senator Burns' reluctance to move up implementation of COOL in the
Appropriations Committee. It is nice to see Montana's delegation now
realizes Montana's producers are prepared for mandatory COOL today."

Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for beef, lamb, pork, fish,
fruits,
vegetables, and nuts was passed in the 2002 Farm Bill and initially
scheduled for implementation on September 30, 2004. "The opponents to
mandatory COOL are attempting to divide the support among the
commodities,"
said McDonald. "The original law was delayed for two-years, except for
fish.
Now meat labeling will be delayed for yet another year, but fruits and
vegetables will be labeled in 2006. Ask yourself, who benefits from not
labeling where our beef and meat comes from? The answer is the people
who
import cheap foreign live cattle and beef and then pass it off as a
U.S.
product, through misinformation that the USDA Grade Stamp or USDA
Inspected
sticker means the product is from the United States. Our consumers
deserve
the truth about where their food comes from."

Meat processors and their associations have joined together in an
effort to
kill MCOOL. The kill COOL coalition is made up of Tyson, Cargill,
National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork Producers, and American
Farm
Bureau Federation.

In closing on the House floor Representative Rehberg said, "They won't
[label meat] for purely economic reasons. It's time we send a message
to
those who are standing in the way, and allow us the opportunity to tell
the
American consumer, born, raised, and processed in America means
something -
buy American."
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Its hard for me to believe the ncba would fight Mcool,and harder to believe a cattle man would not see this.............good luck PS its all about numbers,slowly but surely we will win.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
You just wait ,when the FDA rule comes in Dec. everyone that moves food will have to account for the records of where the food came from and where its stored and the worker that done the storage ,even packing plants whether meat or veg. products were produced and when, how,and who shipped it to the wholesaler and retailer.ONE BIG LEG OF COOL.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I can't understand how anybody representing consumers could vote to delay COOL. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Judging by the origins of Bonilla's "donations", it's obvious he isn't representing the consumers.

I also am floored by NCBA's reversal on their position. How can an outfit representing producers lobby against legislation that would help their members distinguish their product from their competitors?

Individual states are enacting their own COOL laws - doesn't say something?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
I can't understand how anybody representing consumers could vote to delay COOL. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Judging by the origins of Bonilla's "donations", it's obvious he isn't representing the consumers.

I also am floored by NCBA's reversal on their position. How can an outfit representing producers lobby against legislation that would help their members distinguish their product from their competitors?

Individual states are enacting their own COOL laws - doesn't say something?

"Meat processors and their associations have joined together in an
effort to
kill MCOOL. The kill COOL coalition is made up of Tyson, Cargill,
National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork Producers, and American
Farm
Bureau Federation."

I think that statement says it all-- "Meat processors and their associations"--All bought and paid for by the big bucks-- I've already let the local Farm Bureau people know they will not see any more of my money if they are going to use it to back the current Packer Fraud going on- will donate those dues to R-CALF....altho the local and state affiliate supported M-COOL they couldn't defeat the pork and chicken people (Tyson and buddies?).....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sand: "I can't understand how anybody representing consumers could vote to delay COOL."

I can't understand how anybody representing producers could think the the government can do a better job of providing consumers with what they want than the free enterprise system.


Sand: "Judging by the origins of Bonilla's "donations", it's obvious he isn't representing the consumers."

Typical "factually void" Sandhusker discrediting tactic!


Sand: "I also am floored by NCBA's reversal on their position."

We agree!

I am floored they ever supported segregating 5% of the U.S. beef consumption at the cost of labeling all beef. Hey wait, when they researched the issue, that's when they reversed their position.

Meanwhile the R-CULT clones charge head long for the cliff like the blind followers they are.


Sand: "How can an outfit representing producers lobby against legislation that would help their members distinguish their product from their competitors?"

It wouldn't! The flawed law you support prohibited the means to enforce it making it absolutely worthless.

COOL has nothing to do with traceback. Remember, "we want COUNTRY of origin not FARM of origin. Came the "M"COOL proponent's battlecry!


Sand: "Individual states are enacting their own COOL laws - doesn't say something?"

Yeh, it says that there is people in every state that think a government mandate is more important than allowing consumer demand to trigger source verified branded beef programs.

"M"COOL - SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!



~SH~
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,052
Reaction score
131
Location
Big Muddy valley
Rehberg, who ranches near Billings, has long supported MCOOL. In
closing
comments on the House floor Rehberg talked about the success of MCOOL
for
fish and read a quote from Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs,
"Texas loves to buy Texas products, and this way they'll know they're
getting the quality they love, in turn sales will increase, providing a
boost to Texas shrimp producers, and the state's economy."



Yes Texas loves Texas products butM COOL would only tell country has nothing to do with raised in Montana. You would have to buy some of SW's beef to get that. And he did it without being mandated by the government.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SH, "Typical "factually void" Sandhusker discrediting tactic!"

If you would take the time to research Bonilla's "standings" in the house "donations" list and where his "donations" come from, you wouldn't make such silly statements. ( well, anybody else wouldn't).

SH, "I am floored they ever supported segregating 5% of the U.S. beef consumption at the cost of labeling all beef. Hey wait, when they researched the issue, that's when they reversed their position."

Oh, so they researched the issue. :roll: When was that? What did their research suggest? Who did the research? If you know they researched it and what their conslusions were, surely you could provide that report for all of us to peruse. Let's see it.

SH, "Yeh, it says that there is people in every state that think a government mandate is more important than allowing consumer demand to trigger source verified branded beef programs."

No, it means that people want to know where the heck the food came from that they are feeding to their families and they're getting tired of the Feds jacking around returing favors for the "donations" made to them.
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
i think the point should be made that once you get out of cattle country consumers are not so averse to trying something new in the way of beef. this headlong rush to mcool is not without some risk. if you start identifying different sources and types of beef (grassfed, organic, argentinian, australian) you might be surprised at the willingness to try something new and different. if canada can present a good product the symbol of canada won't be a disadvantage in many markets.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
reader (the Second), you're right on the money except the West coast and the East coast are trend precursors. If I was selfish, I'd be against MCOOL.

SH, the point about state MCOOL is that it is working without the sky falling. The smoke and mirror is from the opposition to MCOOL.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sand: "Oh, so they researched the issue. When was that? What did their research suggest? Who did the research? If you know they researched it and what their conslusions were, surely you could provide that report for all of us to peruse. Let's see it. "

When?

Just prior to their change of position of course, duh!


What did their research suggest?

All the points I have made repeatedly regarding this flawed law.


Who did the research?

Numerous land grant universities and NCBA did their own research into actual consumer purchase patterns.

As far as a producing a report on this research, my "Facts on Country of Origin" labeling is a report on that research. If you want more, do the research yourself.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top