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

M COOL,A TRADE RESTRICTION ?

DO YOU BELIEVE M COOL TO BE A TRADE RESTRICTION ?

  • NO........I BELIEVE ALL CONSUMERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE THEIR FOOD COMES FROM.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • YES,IT IS A TRADE RESTRICTION

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • UNDECIDED

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
The Canadian cattle and hog industries are gearing up to again battle mandatory country of origin meat labeling in the U.S. They will repeat their earlier arguments, that the law represents a trade restriction against their products.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Personally, I think its a travesty that when Canadian beef crosses the border the CFIA stamp disappears and a USDA stamp goes on. I assume it's done to prevent Canadian beef from standing out above the crowd, as it naturally would. Contrary to the song that old simpleton keeps singing on here. :wink:
 

Kato

Well-known member
I agree. For a lot of years Pacific Northwest packers exported prime Canadian beef to Japan and took the credit for it as American beef. I guess they were riding on our shirttails eh??? :wink: :D :D :D

The problem with MCOOL is not that our beef is identified, it's that it's going to cost money.

And who will pay for it? Not the consumers, not the packers, WE WILL. Canadians and Americans alike.

Go ahead and leave the maple leaf on the boxes you're getting now. It won't add to cost. We don't mind that at all. :D Our beef can compete with anyone's.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Would COOL be 'legal' so far as trade is concerned, IF it also identified US Beef, rather than the way it is now?

While I agree, "consumers have a right to know", that isn't accomplished with COOL.

Consumers also have an responsibility to pay for the knowledge, and they currently can know where their beef comes from if they purchase the brands of beef which include that information. No need for COOL, with it's flaws and failings, IMO.

MRJ
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you so much for holding this hearing. You are so well aware of how important this issue is to me. I have been in constant communication with you, and you have responded to my concerns, knowing that this is one of the issues that is most important to me before I leave Congress because this is an issue that just goes to the very, very heart of food safety. And it is a strong right-to-know issue.
As both parties wrestle with trying to understand how to attract the women's vote it is beyond me that this issue of labeling our meats is not front and center on some of our women's issues, concerns, because it certainly is. I am a mom and a grandmom and a wife, and I want to know where my food comes from before I feed it to our families.

It is very interesting. I was examining the label that is already contained on some of our food, and I wanted to point this out to you, Mr. Chairman. We have everything on this label including, well, everything but the book of Genesis, including the fact that it is guaranteed meats, and this came from hamburger, this label. Guaranteed meats, guaranteed what? It states the store, and it states the store's address on there. It talks about the fact you have to sell it by a certain date. It gives a net unit of pricing and a full price. It has the barcode that contains the information that I think most consumers want to know, and that is where did this pound of ground beef come from. It is difficult for the consumer to read barcodes because these barcodes when the meat comes into the country already contains all the information that they need to translate into this label.
They have taken a lot of space in safe-handling instructions. The fact is that you have to wash your hands and you have to cook it to a certain degree and so forth but nothing is said about where that meat came from and how many countries or different kinds of carcasses are mixed up in one pound of beef. But we label everything, including the clothes that we wear. Here is a cap from the Hawaii Cattlemen in Idaho. Their cap is labeled made in Taiwan. We label the toys we buy our children. This set of Hot Wheels came from Malaysia. This dog bone that we feed our dogs, now, we are really concerned about the kind of food we put in our dogs' tummies. This is labeled as coming from Brazil but shipped from Canada. They have all that information on the dog bones. Here is more dog bones. They proudly displayed the American label, and another one.
So, we label the cars that we buy. Here is Jeep Cherokee Sports 4 WD, and it states for parts information for vehicles in this car line it is a U.S./Canadian parts content of 74 percent, major sources of foreign parts content for the Jeep Cherokee, Japan, 15 percent, a final assembly was in Toledo, OH, country-of-origin engine parts, United States, transmission parts, Japan. And I just have to ask, Mr. Chairman, as a mom, as a wife, as a grandmom, why aren't we labeling the meat that we put in our bodies and the bodies of our families?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This dog bone that we feed our dogs, now, we are really concerned about the kind of food we put in our dogs' tummies. This is labeled as coming from Brazil but shipped from Canada. They have all that information on the dog bones. Here is more dog bones. They proudly displayed the American label, and another one.

as a mom, as a wife, as a grandmom, why aren't we labeling the meat that we put in our bodies and the bodies of our families?

John Tyson thinks higher of his dog than he does the grandmas and kids of the country... :roll: :( :( :mad:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "Would COOL be 'legal' so far as trade is concerned, IF it also identified US Beef, rather than the way it is now?"

Since the US Constitution forbids the United States from ceding power to any foreign body over the US, the answer to your questions is, "If we make it a law, it's legal."
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Would COOL be 'legal' so far as trade is concerned, IF it also identified US Beef, rather than the way it is now?

While I agree, "consumers have a right to know", that isn't accomplished with COOL.

Consumers also have an responsibility to pay for the knowledge, and they currently can know where their beef comes from if they purchase the brands of beef which include that information. No need for COOL, with it's flaws and failings, IMO.

MRJ

Packer talking points again, MRJ. When will you ever be for the producers?

Instead of denigrating COOL, how about working on fixing it instead of allowing packers to water it down? I know the real answer, you don't want to support real producers, you want to support packers and you buy the propaganda they put out.

You are a real piece of work, MRJ.

I hope that rkaiser is able to get his Celtic Beef off the ground so he can differentiate his quality meat from the commodity beef. That is the way producers get paid for the extra value they bring. Differentiation, and advertising of the quality product they produce. It isn't by mixing Australian trim to make more ground beef and it isn't by importing from the cheapest country. These are things that give less money to U.S. and Canadian producers, not more. It never ceases to amaze me how totally ignorant some people are. I guess it takes all kinds.

Some people need others to think for them. When this is the case, I question their ability to decide who is right.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
All beef shipped into this country is already labeled. Consumers also have an responsibility to pay for the knowledge.MRJ above Quote

NOT !

Consumer's should get this info for FREE, as it's provided at a price by the shipping Countrys.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Boys, I keep hoping you will grow up a bit.

Econ, you speak pure BS when you say I'm not "for producers"! We have to live with the reality of todays' marketplace while working to improve it. Or, we have the option to go our own way and build our own markets, as has RobertMac. Seems to work well for those in proximity to an adequate consumer base, and/or who can effectively ship the beef they produce to their customers.

First, yes, I DO believe consumers "have the right to know where our food comes from".......and we have a responsibility to help bear some of the costs (ada government regulation, inspection, for starters).

That right also includes the right to know which farm/ranch in the USA that food came from. You people and the politicians who pushed COOL through didn't want that. You blame others for the ills of COOL, but you did not want the responsibility of 'trace-back', and that is one of the most important features consumers should be able to know, IMO. We consumer DO pay for such labeling via the higher prices we pay for 'private label' branded beef.

So far as actual safety of beef or any other food, it is SUPPOSED to be 'safe' due to government rules, regulations, and inspections. Yes, there are mistakes and even failures from time to time. Some of you insist that is because of greed and chicanery, because that best serves your agenda.

IMO, that doesn't make sense, and the fact that bureaucracies are clumsy and not very efficient does make sense.

Get over it, and get to work to improve food safety in some way more useful than whining that greedy corporate entities are 'out to get us'!

Sandhusker, it is necessary, and within our laws to abide by rules governing international trade if we wish to export ANYTHING. It is cold hard fact that the USA has only about 6% of world population. We need to export our beef, and we are not going to be able to re-build our export markets unless we play 'fair' and abide by our agreements.

Obviously, some people do not see the value of exports and would willingly give them up to end imports. Pretty short sighted, given world population demographics, IMO. Such trade rules are not a substantial case of "ceding power to any foreign body".

MRJ

Porker, Ms. Chenoweth was a very fine person, and very instrumental in gaining ground against foes of property rights, but I believe she used more emotion than common sense in her testimony.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ, "Sandhusker, it is necessary, and within our laws to abide by rules governing international trade if we wish to export ANYTHING"

If it is within our laws, what is the legality question? If we make COOL law, it's legal. What's the problem?

MRJ, "Such trade rules are not a substantial case of "ceding power to any foreign body"

When a group of non-elected non-citizens rule what we can and can not do, that is the very definition of ceding power, MRJ. Whether it is substantial or not doesn't matter - it's not constitutional.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "Sandhusker, it is necessary, and within our laws to abide by rules governing international trade if we wish to export ANYTHING"

If it is within our laws, what is the legality question? If we make COOL law, it's legal. What's the problem?

MRJ, "Such trade rules are not a substantial case of "ceding power to any foreign body"

When a group of non-elected non-citizens rule what we can and can not do, that is the very definition of ceding power, MRJ. Whether it is substantial or not doesn't matter - it's not constitutional.

So, are you saying appointed trade delegations cannot legally make deals with foreign nations which include any rules or conditions those nations have set as a condition of trading with us?

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
MRJ, "Sandhusker, it is necessary, and within our laws to abide by rules governing international trade if we wish to export ANYTHING"

If it is within our laws, what is the legality question? If we make COOL law, it's legal. What's the problem?

MRJ, "Such trade rules are not a substantial case of "ceding power to any foreign body"

When a group of non-elected non-citizens rule what we can and can not do, that is the very definition of ceding power, MRJ. Whether it is substantial or not doesn't matter - it's not constitutional.

So, are you saying appointed trade delegations cannot legally make deals with foreign nations which include any rules or conditions those nations have set as a condition of trading with us?

MRJ

They can't if it violates our constitution. Making an agreement that says "you do this and I'll do that" is one thing, but when a nonelected and even nonUS group can rule on our laws - that's a big no-no.
 
Top