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

How MCool Was Killed by Packer Propaganda

Econ101

Well-known member
TSCRA asks for repeal of mandatory COOL

Members of Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association passed a resolution March 26 asking Congress to repeal mandatory provisions of the country-of-origin labeling law and to opt instead for a voluntary, market-driven approach.
TSCRA also passed resolutions opposing negotiation of any bilateral trade agreements or enlargement of Australian beef quotas that would be detrimental to U.S. beef producers; supporting the bovine sequencing initiative; and asking government agencies to cease distribution of Russian olives, an invasive species.
The action came on the final day of TSCRA’s 126th annual convention held March 23-26 in San Antonio. Approximately 2,390 ranchers, family members and representatives of allied industries participated in TSCRA’s annual convention, trade show and School for Successful Ranching.
The resolution on country-of-origin labeling originated in TSCRA’s Marketing Committee after an extensive examination of the issue. Barry Carpenter, deputy administrator of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, described the contents of the law and the guidelines that will be the basis for regulations developed to implement the mandatory program.
TSCRA members were particularly concerned that chicken—one of beef’s major competitors—is not included in the requirements and that food service establishments—which sell more than 50 percent of the beef purchased in the United States—are specifically excluded from the labeling requirements.
The law requires retailers to “maintain a verifiable recordkeeping audit trail” regarding country-of-origin claims. Those responsibilities are going to be pushed all the way down the production chain to the producer, said Mark Dopp, senior vice president for regulatory affairs and general counsel for the American Meat Institute.
The law provides that the retailer can be fined up to $10,000 for each violation, Dopp noted. “Retailers are already demanding of packers that contracts be adjusted,” Dopp said. “If the retailer is exposed to some civil penalty, they’re going to be looking to their suppliers for indemnification. So we will be looking for similar indemnification from our suppliers. A verifiable recordkeeping audit trail is required by our customers, and we, in turn, will require it of our suppliers.”
Dr. Ernest E. Davis, Extension economist, estimated that it will cost cow-calf operators $13.30 per animal to maintain the needed records.
Marketing Committee members also submitted a resolution on bilateral trade agreements, stating that such agreements “sometimes remove pressure from countries to earnestly negotiate in important multilateral negotiations.”
Instead TSCRA favors multilateral trade negotiations “that can benefit many exporting and importing nations, resulting in fairer trade rules for all producers and consumers globally.”
Cattle raisers are also concerned that “Australia has proposed the removal of import quotas on Australian beef under a proposed bilateral trade agreement between the United States and Australia.”
TSCRA opposes any enlargement in the Australian beef quota, noting that “federal and state laws and regulations have made it almost impossible for American ranchers to compete with many of our foreign competitors.”
TSCRA members also resolved “to play a key role in garnering the necessary support to advance the $50 million bovine genome sequencing initiative.“
The resolution was submitted by TSCRA’s Agricultural Research Committee after an in-depth presentation by Dr. Clare Gill, a professor of animal genomics at Texas A&M University. Dr. Gill serves on the steering committee for the bovine genome project.
She explained that information on the bovine genome would not only provide major economic benefits to the cattle industry, but would provide extensive benefits to human health research as well.
“The bovine model is relevant to human health research priorities such as obesity, female health, osteoporosis and communicable diseases,” Dr. Gill said. She added that bovine insulin has long been used to treat human diabetes, and in vitro fertilization techniques were first developed in cattle.
The cattle industry would benefit from information on productivity, growth characteristics, disease resistance, drought tolerance, marbling, tenderness, flavor and other important traits.

source:
http://tinyurl.com/y4twxe
 

Econ101

Well-known member
It seems to me many people have been duped about MCool and this organization's stance shows how the packers were able to do it.

While documentation of animals should begin at the border by our Homeland Security and protected borders, their ineptness at doing so has helped to scare domestic producers that the costs of such would be passed on to them.

Why shouldn't importers be responsible for labeling all meat that they bring into the U.S. themselves instead of scaring domestic producers that they would have to pay for it?

PACKER PROPAGANDA!!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You cannot enforce "M"COOL without source verification. R-CULT and their followers did not want source verification.

HENCE, R-CULT SHOT "M"COOL IN THE FOOT by prohibiting mandatory ID.

Secondly, 75% of the imported beef was exempted through the food service exemption that would have only labeled 5% of the beef as imported beef AT THE COST OF LABELING ALL BEEF.

"M"COOL, as written by Leo McDonnell, was an absolute joke.

1. Unenforceable due to prohibiting traceback.
2. Exempted 75% of the imported beef through the food service exemption.
3. Made a novelty item out of foreign beef.


Those are the facts!

This law is typical of what we have come to expect from the over emotional R-CULT import blamers in this industry that ACT ON EMOTION, rather than fact!

"M"COOL sunk itself in the way it was written Conman, not the packers!

"BWAME DA PACKAH"


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
You cannot enforce "M"COOL without source verification. R-CULT and their followers did not want source verification.

HENCE, R-CULT SHOT "M"COOL IN THE FOOT by prohibiting mandatory ID.

Secondly, 75% of the imported beef was exempted through the food service exemption that would have only labeled 5% of the beef as imported beef AT THE COST OF LABELING ALL BEEF.

"M"COOL, as written by Leo McDonnell, was an absolute joke.

1. Unenforceable due to prohibiting traceback.
2. Exempted 75% of the imported beef through the food service exemption.
3. Made a novelty item out of foreign beef.


Those are the facts!

This law is typical of what we have come to expect from the over emotional R-CULT import blamers in this industry that ACT ON EMOTION, rather than fact!

"M"COOL sunk itself in the way it was written Conman, not the packers!

"BWAME DA PACKAH"


~SH~

Sometimes bills are written in a way to make them get killed.

Fact:

Seafood has labeling

Fact:

Beef does not

How hard is it for the NCBA and the Ag committees to get this one right?


SH, I really don't care about the details of specific bills or if the first draft was written on a napkin.

The packers killed this bill because they wanted to sell beef other than U.S. beef as U.S. beef and got away with it to the detriment of producers.

The secretary of ag should be ashamed of his inability to get this law enacted. Instead, the committee members and other party leaders just get campaign contributions.

It is a shame that the USDA is so biased against U.S. producers and the NCBA can not represent their interest adequately.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
SH, ""M"COOL, as written by Leo McDonnell, was an absolute joke."

Leo McDonnell didn't write M-COOL.

Absence of facts hasn't stopped ~SH~ yet.

Hey Sandhusker, is voluntary animal ID spelled with a capital V ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
ocm said:
Sandhusker said:
SH, ""M"COOL, as written by Leo McDonnell, was an absolute joke."

Leo McDonnell didn't write M-COOL.

Absence of facts hasn't stopped ~SH~ yet.

Hey Sandhusker, is voluntary animal ID spelled with a capital V ?

As in Vaseline?

The joke going around town is that USDA's/NCBA's Mandatory "voluntary ID" is going to be the Administrations new answer to the Immigration problem...As each immigrant/terrorist swims the river we will give them each a cow- then we can track them from then on thruout the country by their cow :wink: :lol: Wouldn't want to put any costs, hardships, or violate the rights of these illegal immigrant/terrorists, so instead stick it to the citizen rancher..... :roll:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Why shouldn't importers be responsible for labeling all meat that they bring into the U.S. themselves instead of scaring domestic producers that they would have to pay for it?

Remove all food products from the J-list.
This should force importers to identify, TO THE END CONSUMER, the country of origin of the products THEY bring into the country...just as all other imported products. All the cost burden will be on the importers...as it should be!
Eliminating a law may be easier than enacting a new one! :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
You cannot enforce "M"COOL without source verification. R-CULT and their followers did not want source verification.

HENCE, R-CULT SHOT "M"COOL IN THE FOOT by prohibiting mandatory ID.

Secondly, 75% of the imported beef was exempted through the food service exemption that would have only labeled 5% of the beef as imported beef AT THE COST OF LABELING ALL BEEF.

"M"COOL, as written by Leo McDonnell, was an absolute joke.

1. Unenforceable due to prohibiting traceback.
2. Exempted 75% of the imported beef through the food service exemption.
3. Made a novelty item out of foreign beef.


Those are the facts!

This law is typical of what we have come to expect from the over emotional R-CULT import blamers in this industry that ACT ON EMOTION, rather than fact!

"M"COOL sunk itself in the way it was written Conman, not the packers!

"BWAME DA PACKAH"


~SH~

Those are not facts.

The COOL law is written with the implications that the retail folks will provide the necessary documentation to prove "Country of Origin", and it being auditable by a third party.

How in the hell could a retailer prove the Country of Origin of beef if there was no traceback?


The COOL law only prohibited that the USDA would determine any one particular "System" of traceback, thus leaving the means of traceback to private enterprise.

Please show us in the law where it prohibited "Traceback".

All along I thought you were in favor of getting the goverment out of our hair, and letting private enterprise set the means of identification.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
R-Calf Cattle Update: U.S. Cattle Producers Pleased with Rehberg Legislation

Today 4/20/2005 12:13:00 PM

R-Calf Cattle Update: U.S. Cattle Producers Pleased with Rehberg Legislation



(Billings, Mont.) – R-CALF USA is extremely pleased that U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., today introduced legislation that would remove all imported cattle from the J-List, the current list of imported products that are now exempt from the United States’ general requirement that all imported goods be identified with a mark of origin.



"Our hats are off to Representative Rehberg for leading the way on a matter of such critical importance not only to U.S. cattle producers, but also to U.S. beef consumers," said Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president and co-founder. "Rehberg has signaled loud and clear to his colleagues the importance of being able to clearly identify and track live cattle coming into the United States from any country we trade with."



The J-List is named after "Paragraph J" of the Treasury Department’s statute. Under U.S. and international trade laws, all countries are authorized to require imported goods and products to be identified with a country-of-origin marking. Livestock, however, were exempted at the request of the industry, and that meant cattle were excluded from the branding provisions of the statute, called the "Tariff Act of 1930."



Rehberg’s legislation specifically requires, that with respect to live cattle, each imported animal "shall be marked so as to identify the country of origin by means of branding or an equally permanent method of marking."



"Once cattle are removed from the J-List, all imported cattle will be marked with their respective country’s mark of origin, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will immediately have the ability to verify the origins of all cattle standing at the packer-house gate, and it won’t cost U.S. producers a dime," McDonnell explained. "This will allow for an earlier implementation date of the Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (M-COOL) law that has a current effective date of Sept. 30, 2006."



R-CALF USA has been working to get cattle removed from the J-List since the passage of M-COOL in the 2002 Farm Bill. M-COOL was to have taken effect in 2004, but opponents succeeded in delaying implementation until Sept. 30, 2006. USDA is one of those opponents. The agency has openly opposed M-COOL and continues to do so today. In fact, the agency issued a scare-tactic study that attempted to convince producers and consumers that M-COOL would cost billions of dollars, and someone – namely consumers – would have to foot the bill.



"This is a perfect example of how a government agency that’s supposed to represent your interests can make things much harder than they ever have to be," McDonnell noted. "We’ve explained time and time again to USDA ways to make COOL work without being a burden to anyone, with very little cost, if any involved.



"Just go check out the seafood display at your local grocery store and you’ll see tiny placards next to each item identifying which country that product came from," he pointed out. "COOL for seafood went into effect earlier this month, and it’s not costing those grocers an arm and a leg to make those labeling signs.



"We can do the same with live cattle by simply marking them with a permanent brand when they’re at our borders, and it’s simply not going to cost billions," McDonnell continued. "In fact, marking those animals probably will have a positive market effect because consumers will then know our government is keeping track of those animals – especially any Canadian cattle that might be imported in the future – unlike what the agency practices today."



In addition to enabling the immediate implementation of M-COOL, removing cattle from the J-List also will help USDA trace cattle for disease-related purposes. Because all foreign cattle would be permanently marked with a country-of-origin marking, USDA would be able to immediately identify and track cattle from a foreign country where a disease outbreak has occurred.



An independent 2003 study, completed in 2003 by five university economists and law professors, reinforces R-CALF USA’s position that M-COOL can be lawfully implemented without violating trade law and without imposing a cost on U.S. cattle producers. The study is titled "Country of Origin Labeling: A Legal and Economic Analysis," and can be viewed at:



www.r-calfusa.com by clicking on "Country of Origin Labeling." Visitors to the site will notice the study has been moved to the top of the items in that section for approximately one week.



"Again, R-CALF wants to express our gratitude to Denny Rehberg," McDonnell concluded. "He’s been a friend of agriculture for many years. He understands the cattle industry, and he’s not afraid to stand up and do what’s right for U.S. ranchers and U.S. consumers, and we commend him for that solid kind of leadership."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Once cattle are removed from the J-List, all imported cattle will be marked with their respective country’s mark of origin, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will immediately have the ability to verify the origins of all cattle standing at the packer-house gate, and it won’t cost U.S. producers a dime," McDonnell explained. "This will allow for an earlier implementation date of the Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (M-COOL) law that has a current effective date of Sept. 30, 2006."

This is so typical of R-CULT's deceptive spin jobs on blame based legislation. SO WHAT????? Marking the critter to the packing plant doesn't have a damn thing to do with tracking the 100 individual packages of beef that critter becomes to satisfy the legalities of Country of Origin Labeling. This is just more empty lip service from Leo McDonnell.


McDonnell: ""We’ve explained time and time again to USDA ways to make COOL work without being a burden to anyone, with very little cost, if any involved."

No, what you provided was a simplistic approach to marking animals that doensn't have a damn thing to do with tracking beef. Unfortunately, R-CULT is not in charge of enforcing their flawed law.


McDonnell: ""Just go check out the seafood display at your local grocery store and you’ll see tiny placards next to each item identifying which country that product came from," he pointed out. "COOL for seafood went into effect earlier this month, and it’s not costing those grocers an arm and a leg to make those labeling signs."

APPLES TO ORANGES!

Labeling seafood, just like labeling clothing, doesn't have a damn thing to do with tracking 300 individual packages of beef that came from 1 carcass when only 5% of the total beef would be labeled.


McDonnell: "In addition to enabling the immediate implementation of M-COOL, removing cattle from the J-List also will help USDA trace cattle for disease-related purposes. Because all foreign cattle would be permanently marked with a country-of-origin marking, USDA would be able to immediately identify and track cattle from a foreign country where a disease outbreak has occurred."

Yet the R-CULT hypocrites don't want 95% of the beef, that would be labeled under your flawed law, to be traced in the US. The ultimate in R-CULT hypocrisy.


Conman: "The packers killed this bill because they wanted to sell beef other than U.S. beef as U.S. beef and got away with it to the detriment of producers."

Yet another bold faced lie from the "Lying King".

Packers are not against source verification or they would not be selling source verified US beef. They are against this law because it's stupid. It only segregates 5% of the total beef consumption at the cost of labeling all beef AND OFFERS NO OTHER FORM OF VALUE. "M"COOL is a damn joke.


Conman: "It is a shame that the USDA is so biased against U.S. producers and the NCBA can not represent their interest adequately."

Another lie!

If that was true, they would not be promoting source verified US beef products.


Sandbag: "Leo McDonnell didn't write M-COOL."

If that is the case, then Leo lied during the "M"COOL listening session in Billings Montana where he claimed to have helped write the law. I suppose now you R-CULTers want to credit this flawed law to someone else huh? TYPICAL BLAMERS!


Ocm: "Absence of facts hasn't stopped ~SH~ yet."

I see you have still found your comfort zone in being a cheerleader unable to refute my points with facts to the contrary. Same-O, Same-O factually void liberal OCM!


RM: "This should force importers to identify, TO THE END CONSUMER, the country of origin of the products THEY bring into the country...just as all other imported products. All the cost burden will be on the importers...as it should be!"

Which doesn't have a damn thing to do with tracking the 300 individual packages of beef from those imported carcasses within plants that slaughter cattle of mixed origins.

Country of Origin Labeling is an abosolute joke in the advent of source verified branded beef programs. An empty feel good solution for import blamers that will provide nothing of value to consumers.


Mike: "How in the hell could a retailer prove the Country of Origin of beef if there was no traceback?"

EXACTLY! BRAVO! GOOD JOB!!!!

Why don't you ask R-CULT, they are the ones who wrote the law and prohibited Mandatory ID.

R-CULT Today: "DON'T CONSUMERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE THEIR BEEF COMES FROM"

R-CULT Tomorrow: "DON'T BURDEN ME WITH TRACEBACK TO PROVE ORIGINATION"

Damn hypocrites!


Mike: "The COOL law only prohibited that the USDA would determine any one particular "System" of traceback, thus leaving the means of traceback to private enterprise."

No, the COOL law prohibited "MANDATORY" traceback, PERIOD!

You tell me how you can have a MANDATORY labeling law that allows for VOLUNTARY TRACEBACK for enforcement.

Let's hear it.


You blind leading the blind "M"COOL supporters cannot spin out of the facts surrounding this law. "M"COOL, as written, IS UNENFORCEABLE, PERIOD!


Mike: "All along I thought you were in favor of getting the goverment out of our hair, and letting private enterprise set the means of identification."

I am which is why I oppose "M"COOL and "M"ID.

The point you are not getting is that you cannot enforce "M"COOL without "M"ID because once those branded hides are removed, there is no longer a means of traceback to enforce this law WITHIN THE LAW. Read that again SSI promoters, I didn't say it couldn't be done, I SAID A MANDATORY MEANS OF TRACEBACK IS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS LAW.

Not one of you "M"COOL proponents can refute the facts of this law as they are. USDA says the law is unenforceable as written, prove them wrong with more than cheap talk. I doubt most R-CULTers have ever been inside a packing plant let alone understand the logistics of traceback. Packers of all sizes joined together to oppose this stupid law brought to us from the blaming segment of this industry and imposed on the packing side of this industry.

The reason "M"COOL failed was because it was poorly written and offered no value by segregating only 5% of the total beef consumption as imported. Typical emotionally driven legislation from R-CULT.


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Dated: May 1, 2002
"Subtitle D-Country of Origin Labeling

"SEC. 281. DEFINITIONS.

"In this subtitle:
"(1) BEEF.-The term 'beef means meat produced from cattle (including veal).
"(2) COVERED COMMODITY.-
"(A) IN GENERAL.-The term 'covered commodity' means-
"(i) muscle cuts of beef, lamb, and pork;
"(ii) ground beef, ground lamb, and ground pork;
"(iii) farm-raised fish;
"(iv) wild fish;
"(v) a perishable agricultural commodity; and
"(vi) peanuts.
"(B) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'covered commodity' does not include an item described in subparagraph (A) if the item is an ingredient in a processed food item.
"(3) FARM-RAISED FISH.-The term 'farm-raised fish' includes-
"(A) farm-raised shellfish; and
"(B) fillets, steaks, nuggets, and any other flesh from a farm-raised fish or shellfish.
"(4) FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT.-The term 'food service establishment' means a restaurant, cafeteria, lunch room, food stand, saloon, tavern, bar, lounge, or other similar facility operated as an enterprise engaged in the business of selling food to the public.
"(5) LAMB.-The term 'lamb' means meat, other than mutton, produced from sheep.
"(6) PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY; RETAILER.- The terms 'perishable agricultural commodity ' and 'retailer' have the meanings given the terms in section 1(b) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499a(b)).
"(7) PORK.-The term 'pork' means meat produced from hogs.
"(8) SECRETARY.-The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Agricultural Marketing Service.
"(9) WILD FISH.-
"(A) IN GENERAL.-The term 'wild fish' means naturally-born or hatchery-raised fish and shellfish harvested in the wild.
"(B) INCLUSIONS.-The term 'wild fish' includes a fillet, steak, nugget, and any other flesh from wild fish or shell-fish.
"(C) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'wild fish' excludes net-pen aquacultural or other farm-raised fish.

"SEC. 282. NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

"(a) IN GENERAL.-
"(1) REQUIREMENT.-Except as provided in subsection (b), 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.
"(2) UNITED STATES COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.-A retailer of a covered commodity may designate the covered commodity as having a United States country of origin only if the covered commodity-
"(A) in the case of beet; is exclusively from an animal that is exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States (including from an animal exclusively born and raised in Alaska or Hawaii and transported for a period not to exceed 60 days through Canada to the United States and slaughtered in the United States);
"(B) in the case of lamb and pork, is exclusively from an animal that is exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States;
"(C) in the case of farm-raised fish, is hatched, raised, harvested, and processed in the United States;
"(D) in the case of wild fish, is-
"(i) harvested in waters of the United States, a territory of the United States, or a State; and
"(ii) processed in the United States, a territory of the United States, or a State, including the waters thereof; and
"(E) in the case of a perishable agricultural commodity or peanuts, is exclusively produced in the United States.
"(3) WILD FISH AND FARM-RAISED FISH.-The notice of country of origin for wild fish and farm-raised fish shall distinguish between wild fish and farm-raised fish.
"(b) EXEMPTION FOR FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS.-Subsection (a) shall not apply to a covered commodity if the covered commodity is-
"(1) prepared or served in a food service establishment; and
"(2)(A) offered for sale or sold at the food service establishment in normal retail quantities; or
"(B) served to consumers at the food service establishment.
"(c) METHOD OF NOTIFICATION.-
"(1) IN GENERAL.-The information required by subsection (a) may be provided to consumers by means of a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the covered commodity or on the package, display, holding unit, or bin containing the commodity at the final point of sale to consumers.
"(2) LABELED COMMODITIES.-If the covered commodity is already individually labeled for retail sale regarding country of origin, the retailer shall not be required to provide any additional information to comply with this section.
"(d) AUDIT VERIFICATION SYSTEM.-The Secretary may require that any person that prepares, stores, handles, or distributes a covered commodity for retail sale maintain a verifiable recordkeeping audit trail that will permit the Secretary to verify compliance with this subtitle (including the regulations promulgated under section 284(b)).
"(e) INFORMATION.-Any person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer shall provide information to the retailer indicating the country of origin of the covered commodity.
"(f) CERTIFICATION OF ORIGIN.-

"(1) MANDATORY IDENTIFICATION.-The Secretary shall not use a mandatory identification system to verify the country of origin of a covered commodity.


"(2) EXISTING CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS.-To certify the country of origin of a covered commodity, the Secretary may use as a model certification programs in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including-
"(A) the carcass grading and certification system carried out under this Act;
"(B) the voluntary country of origin beef labeling system carried out under this Act;
"(C) voluntary programs established to certify certain premium beef cuts;
"(D ) the origin verification system established to carry out the child and adult care food program established under section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766); or
"(E) the origin verification system established to carry out the market access program under section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623).


"SEC. 283. ENFORCEMENT.

"(a) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), section 253 shall apply to a violation of this subtitle.
"(b) WARNINGS.-If the Secretary determines that a retailer is in violation of section 282, the Secretary shall-
"(1) notify the retailer of the determination of the Secretary; and
"(2) provide the retailer a 30-day period, beginning on the date on which the retailer receives the notice under paragraph (1) from the Secretary, during which the retailer may take necessary steps to comply with section 282.
"(c) FINES.-If, on completion of the 30-day period described in subsection (b)(2), the Secretary determines that the retailer has willfully violated section 282, after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the Secretary with respect to the violation, the Secretary may fine the retailer in an amount of not more than $10,000 for each violation.

"SEC. 284. REGULATIONS.

"(a) GUIDELINES.-Not later than September 30, 2002, the Secretary shall issue guidelines for the voluntary country of origin labeling of covered commodities based on the requirements of section 282.
"(b) REGULATIONS.-Not later than September 30, 2004, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement this subtitle.

"(c) PARTNERSHIPS WITH STATES.-In promulgating the regulations, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, enter into partnerships with States with enforcement infrastructure to assist in the administration of this subtitle.

"SEC. 285. APPLICABILITY.

"This subtitle shall apply to the retail sale of a covered commodity beginning September 30, 2004.
 

William Kanitz

Well-known member
Labeling seafood, just like labeling clothing, doesn't have a damn thing to do with tracking 300 individual packages of beef that came from 1 carcass when only 5% of the total beef would be labeled.

Yes ,we do that ,and at the cost of $0.0025 per package, even the guts going out to rendering.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
William Kanitz said:
Labeling seafood, just like labeling clothing, doesn't have a damn thing to do with tracking 300 individual packages of beef that came from 1 carcass when only 5% of the total beef would be labeled.

Yes ,we do that ,and at the cost of $0.0025 per package, even the guts going out to rendering.

So it is economical!!! We have been told by the packer crowd it would cost too much!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
William Kanitz said:
Labeling seafood, just like labeling clothing, doesn't have a damn thing to do with tracking 300 individual packages of beef that came from 1 carcass when only 5% of the total beef would be labeled.

Yes ,we do that ,and at the cost of $0.0025 per package, even the guts going out to rendering.

No - you must be wrong-- the self professed M- COOL "expert" from Kadoka SD says that its impossible to track those 300 packages...And we know that he only deals in "Facts" :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top