• 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 enforcement

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Big Stockyards, salebarns and packers run on computers , Forget affidavits

Salebarns etc will need double the time to make sure the right paperwork in the form of a affidavit, goes with the right buyer's animal and costs will rise across the board with more manpower needed using affidavits. Only a electronic database will be able to keep the status quo.Another problem is five years down with paper records to prove born,raised where?
 
Maybe you can put a DNA sample of the the calf,the calves sire. dam, the original owner and his sire on all copies of the paperwork. That should help simplify things for you fellers down there. Y'all gonna need a pick-up truck to haul all your papers around. :D :lol:
 
8/15/2008 6:00:00 AM
Capital Press - Salem,OR,USA
COOL law comes, finally
Country-of-origin labeling for most fresh and frozen agricultural commodities takes effect Sept. 30, four years after the first deadline set by Congress.

It's been almost a decade after populist groups in the cattle industry first talked up the concept as a way to encourage consumers to eat beef born and raised in the United States.

The law exempts ingredients in processed foods and exempts restaurants from labeling food they sell.

It's worthwhile to look back on some of the tortured legislative history of what's become known simply as "COOL" to most food producers. It's also worthwhile to look at the revised economic statement that accompanies the U.S. Department of Agriculture interim COOL rule that's out for comment until the end of this month.

First, a brief history of COOL, which was nothing more than a concept until Rep. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., and Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., tacked language on to a 2001 draft of what became the 2002 Farm Bill. Their target was fresh produce. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., added meat muscle cuts in the conference committee that crafted the original law. The theory is that if U.S. consumers know which country their food comes from, they will favor the domestic producer.

The law that finally emerged in 2002 put the burden on the supermarket, with fines of up to $10,000 for every offense of selling meat or produce with an incorrect label. It took the 2008 Farm Bill to knock that fine down to $1,000 and provide grocers with alternatives to labels such as a sign at the produce bin. The current law also made clear that a U.S. meat origin label is only for animals born and raised in the United States.

From passage of the 2002 bill down to the multi-page economic statement issued July 29 by USDA, the agency has said producers, handlers and grocers face significant start-up expenses. The most recent estimate is a cool $2.5 billion for the first year of mandatory COOL. Keeping up those records in each following year is estimated at $499 million of added costs.

"The estimated benefits associated with this ... rule are likely to be small," says the small type in the economic analysis.

For the record, the first year cost estimate is $1.4 billion less than one USDA issued in 2003 as it geared up for what was to be mandatory labeling by October 2004. A couple of years of budget riders killed implementation. It wasn't until the 2008 Farm Bill that COOL got back together, although labeling of fresh fish and shellfish did take effect on the original October 2004 schedule.

Because the grocer can't say where the food came from without some paperwork to back up his label or sign, producers face establishing what lawyers would call a "chain of custody" that verifies country of origin. Whether you turn out calves that change hands five times before becoming meat in the supermarket cabinet or mushrooms grown in a handler-operated facility, there will be paperwork. All of it will have to be kept for one year and be presented for audit if a USDA inspector turns up to check the records.

What is the producer cost going to be? The average added expense per farm will be $376, says USDA. But for beef cattle with all of the potential ownership changes from farm to food case, the agency estimates that will add 7 cents a pound. That compares with a quarter cent a pound for the vertically integrated U.S. broiler industry. For typical fruit and vegetable operations, COOL paperwork is estimated to add a penny to a 40-pound box of fresh produce.

Wholesale meat and produce handlers, USDA says, face first-year costs of about $54,000 each to set up the computer trace systems.

The grocery retailer, who has known some form of COOL was coming for at least six years, needs over $200,000 worth of equipment. Many grocers, who participated in some voluntary COOL programs as early as 2002, probably have the computer programs ready to roll.

Here are some USDA estimates of how many operations have to fill out the new paperwork: 971,400 cattle operations, about 69,000 hog farms, 65,540 sheep and goat operations, 6,807 livestock slaughter facilities, 2,706 meat wholesalers, and over 79,000 fruit and vegetable farms. There are 36,392 grocery retailers subject to the law.

So will country-of-origin labeling help producers? If your concern is food safety, the answer is no, because just tracking which country something comes from has little relationship to whether the food is free of pathogens that might make consumers sick. If your concern is keeping the U.S. cattle herd free of foreign disease, the answer is no. Although the interim rules do say that animal health ear tags applied as part of a border inspection process are one way to show country of origin, there's no substitute for examination of animals at time of purchase, slaughter and during processing. In fact, dating back to the 2002 law, the secretary of agriculture is "prohibited from establishing a mandatory identification system to verify the county of origin of a covered commodity."

Like it or not, we have COOL, almost. With that distraction out of the way, let's hope the nation's food producers get on with addressing the main concerns they know all too well affect consumer confidence. Food safety is at the top of the list, individual food animal identification is not far behind.
 
Regulation changes to be seen on food packaging
Origin of country required on lables of products as of Sept. 30

anthony kovats / county market
Monday August 18, 2008

Canada is getting a COOL reception south of the border.
Tory Ag Minister Gerry Ritz said the government is disappointed with the U.S. Congress' recent passage of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill).
He added the government here would analyze the recently released rule to determine the economic impacts on integrated North American markets.
Under the Country of Origin Labelling legislation livestock producers are not directly regulated by the COOL interim final rule, as livestock are not considered covered commodities -- but only producers have first-hand knowledge concerning the origin of their animals.
Definitive origin information must be provided to slaughterhouses so that meat covered commodities can be accurately labelled at retail.
Presumption of origin by packers and other entities in the marketing chain is not permitted.
From the U.S. perspective, the COOL law provides for the use of producer affidavits to provide origin information to packers.
But Canada views the legislation as potentially discriminatory against Canadian products.

Canada's beef and pork producers wanted the federal government to take a more aggressive stance against the U.S. initiative citing the implementation of country of origin labels and tracking rules on meat products would cost Canada's producers $500 million per year.
Take into account such an action would also violate the North American Free Trade Agreement as well as restrictions imposed by the World Trade Organization and advocates from The Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council have a case.

Since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which evolved into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), trade between Canada and the U.S. has tripled.
But this U.S. legislation requires the mandatory COOL rule for beef, lamb, pork, chicken and goat meat, along with perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng and macadamia nuts, to be implemented by Sept. 30 of this year.
"Clearly it's got protectionist intentions and it's a genuine threat to the red meat industry in all areas of Canada, so we'll be working closely with the Government of Canada in whatever it can do," exclaimed Alberta Liberal Party leader Kevin Taft in a previous interview as the threat of U.S. labelling loomed.
He said Party affiliation is easily tucked away when it comes to an issue of such national importance.
"This is the kind of extreme threat that pulls Canadians together."
Taft said this legislation will not only hinder Canadian interests, but the interests of U.S. grocery chains right through to their own meat packers and fully expected those groups to join the Canadian lobby.
Nobody is convinced that this is a health and safety issue. Nobody. And this is not the first time, or last time, some Americans have tried to use this kind of protectionism," said Taft, referring to R-CALF, the Montana-based cattlemen's lobby that tried to keep U.S. borders closed to Canadian beef during the BSE (Mad Cow) crisis.
Ritz said the federal government understands that this new rule could have an impact on highly integrated sectors like the beef and pork sectors.
"The Government of Canada will continue to work with industry and the provinces and territories to minimize any impact on Canadian farmers and ranchers," said Ritz.
"Should the implementation of the rule result in undue restrictions on the exportation of any products or animal from Canada, the government will have to consider its options."
As it did in 2003, 2005 and 2007, the Canadian government will submit comments to the U.S. Federal Register, outlining its views on the rule.
 
Canada is getting a COOL reception south of the border.

Tory Ag Minister Gerry Ritz said the government is disappointed with the U.S. Congress' recent passage of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill).

He added the government here would analyze the recently released rule to determine the economic impacts on integrated North American markets.

Under the Country of Origin Labelling legislation livestock producers are not directly regulated by the COOL interim final rule, as livestock are not considered covered commodities — but only producers have first hand knowledge concerning the origin of their animals.

Feedlots will need documentation on where the cattle were before the feedlot, place of birth and stocker operation, backgrounder, order buyer,auction market.

Feedlot owners need to begin thinking about what type of documentation they will require from sellers and how that information will be transferred through the marketing channel (auction market, order buyer, trucker). Cattle feeders should also discuss COOL with their buyers to determine what information must be forwarded with the cattle when sold.

As the law requires, COOL will require retailers to develop and maintain an 1 year audit trail on the products they sell to verify the label indicating the country of origin. Members of the supply chain will have to keep sufficient records to support their claim of origin which is done easily with traceback computer systems.


Definitive origin information must be provided to slaughterhouses so that meat covered commodities can be accurately labelled at retail. Presumption of origin by packers and other entities in the marketing chain is not permitted.

From the U.S. perspective, the COOL law provides for the use of producer affidavits and database computer records to provide origin information to packers and retailers.
 
New food labeling law called COOL

The price of groceries, already surging because of inflation, could set consumers back more than $2.5 billion next year if the cost of a new food labeling law reaches the checkout stand.

While industry players say the cost of the program is likely to be passed on to all consumers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says the benefits from the "country-of-origin" labeling law "will be small and will accrue mainly to those consumers who desire" this kind of information.

"We're an industry with a net profit of just 1% to 2% of sales, so any increase is going to have an effect on cost to consumers," said Bill Greer, director of communications for the Food Marketing Institute, the supermarket industry's largest trade group.

Under the federal mandate, supermarkets, large grocery stores and wholesale clubs must let consumers know where staples like beef, chicken, pork, lamb, vegetables and fruit come from. The law, part of the 2008 Farm Bill passed this summer, takes effect at the end of next month.

The Agriculture Department, the agency charged with policing the new edict, has estimated it will take $2.517 billion for retailers, producers, and intermediaries, such as packers, to get their operations into compliance with the law during its first year.

The first year cost for food retailers is pegged to be the most for any of the affected groups - $952 million of the $2.52 billion.

On a consumer level, the $952 million equates to an increase of 7 cents a pound for beef and 4 cents a pound for pork, lamb and goat, with the difference attributed to processing costs.

The Department of Agriculture currently estimates that it will cost food retailers $26,149 per store to put in systems to comply with the new law.

However, if the implementation goes anything like what happened in 2005 when companies had to start labeling fish and shellfish, the outlays will be much higher.

The Agriculture Department had estimated the cost for getting the seafood program up and running to be roughly $1,530 per store, but the actual tag ranged from $9,000 to $16,000, according to a Food Marketing Institute survey of members who collectively operated more than 1,000 supermarkets and other large food stores.

Also, there will be further expenses down the line in the form of an estimated $247 million in annual maintenance costs for retailers' systems.

Food suppliers and intermediaries such as salebarns are facing significant costs - the rest of the $2.517 billion, as well as the annual maintenance charges - and these fees could also find their way down to the retail level, and then to consumers, food industry analysts say.

Target Corp. (TGT) spokeswoman Brandy Doyle said the retailer, which has been making a push into the grocery field, has been working with its vendors for the last few months, trying to coordinate systems and asking them to pass along as few price increases as possible. Passing the costs to customers "is a last resort," Doyle said.

Safeway (SWY) Inc. "will be in complete compliance," spokeswoman Teena Massingill said. "There will be no negative effects on customers."

Spokeswomen at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and Kroger Co. (KR) wouldn't discuss any expected impact on customers, saying only that their companies were working with suppliers to assure compliance with the law.

The Food Marketing Institute has had "reservations about the new labeling for some time," Greer said. "But now we will go about implementation in as cost effective manner as possible."

Hopefully, lessons learned from the seafood labeling program could make the new requirements for the other foods easier to implement, Greer said.

The impact is expected to vary by what kinds of systems supermarkets already have in place and how easily they can be modified, as well as how effectively staff is trained.

Mom-and-pop grocery stores are exempt from the new law, sales below $230,000.00 as are restaurants, school cafeterias, food stands and other smaller purveyors of food.

The food labeling can be done through stick-ons, tags, placards or other designations in or around bins or on packaging.

Supermarkets must keep their country-of-origin records for one year and face up to $1,000 for each violation of the law.
 
Thanks for making my point Porker.

R-CALF was a driving force behind "M"COOL.
R-CALF insisted on proving where an animal was "born".
Proving where an animal was born requires a traceback system.
R-CALF is against a traceback system.

Such a dilema!

Unfortunately, blamers have a tendency to always blame someone else for everything including the problems they create themselves.

The limited value of segregating 5% of our total beef consumption as imported beef will not be offset by the inconveniences and added record keeping that this law will require. 75% of imported beef ends up in food service and food service is exempt from labeling.

Cinch,

You have no point! CAB requirements are not even close to proving where an animal was "born, raised, and processed". Try again!

Chief,

I'm sure you'd just love to silence those who can actually think for themselves.


Bottom line, "M"COOL will require a traceback system. Why not just be honest and admit that you can't have an enforceable labeling law and not have a traceback sytem to enforce it.


~SH~
 
Mabe we could all get a branding iron that says USA and send sherif Dick to Washington to explain how it will work :lol: 8)
 
Sand: "So a carcass can become 300 packages, so what? I'll guarantee you there is a label on all 300 today."

Not a label requiring proof of birth origination. LOL!

Still the diverting illusionist you always were.

At some point you have to admit that you supported a mandatory traceback system because only a complete fool would think you could prove where a package of ribeyes were born without a traceback system.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Sand: "So a carcass can become 300 packages, so what? I'll guarantee you there is a label on all 300 today."

Not a label requiring proof of birth origination. LOL!

Still the diverting illusionist you always were.

At some point you have to admit that you supported a mandatory traceback system because only a complete fool would think you could prove where a package of ribeyes were born without a traceback system.


~SH~
Click to expand...

Does fish and seafood have a traceback system?
 
ScoringAg is the leading traceback and recordkeeping company in fish and shellfish when done by computers.

Also COOL and the SUPPLY Chain traceback

The legislation requires records to be maintained by everyone in the supply chain for one year and available within five days if the USDA requests it.
Additional legislation introduced earlier this year would require COOL information to be extended to include product ingredients, which could be detailed on manufacturers' Web sites. According to the AdWeek article, this would mean "for the first time, consumers would see the extent to which many venerable American brands outsource ingredients around the world."

The legislation was introduced in April by Reps. John Dingell and Bart Stupak, both Michigan Democrats and leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
 
USDA's first-year cost estimates to implement the law for retailers and their intermediary suppliers like packers with their suppliers like order buyers, salebarns, and stockyards are higher with the industry's actual expenses based on FMI case studies involving more than 1,000 stores:

USDA Estimate
Retailer cost per store: $1,530

Supplier cost per company: $1,890

Actual Cost
Retailer cost per store: $9,000-$16,000

Supplier cost per company: $200,000-$250,000

Some are not convinced that the COOL labeling system is going to work under the current law. "It's just going to be a train wreck," said.Jeremy Russell, communications director for the NMA. Russell explained that there are serious flaws in the law that will result in large numbers of livestock that will be virtually "unmarketable."

Grassley said that he would be willing to look at some changes, but only if "people are willing to accept the concept that consumers ought to know where their food comes from — just like they do if their clothes are imported."

Harkin, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, obviously has a lot of influence on the fate of COOL. He said Wednesday that he is not planning any changes to the current law.

"We have come to a time where we really do need to know where all our food is coming from," Harkin told Iowa Independent. "I'm sure there will be some efforts to water down or change COOL, so it's important the focus remain on keeping COOL intact in the farm bill but also keeping the pressure on USDA to write a common-sense and workable final rule."
The interim-final rule has many holes to fill.
 
Yet, with all the "need to know" they exempt small grocery stores, food service, and restaurants.......leaving MAYBE five percent of imported beef to be labelled!

THank you R-CALF....for nothing but costs and false perception in consumers minds that our food will magically be made be safer.......the little bit that has a COOL label, anyway.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Yet, with all the "need to know" they exempt small grocery stores, food service, and restaurants.......leaving MAYBE five percent of imported beef to be labelled!

THank you R-CALF....for nothing but costs and false perception in consumers minds that our food will magically be made be safer.......the little bit that has a COOL label, anyway.

mrj
Click to expand...

So, mrj, how much has this cost you?
 
Tex, didn't you notice that it doesn't take effect till Sept. 30?

We plan on making money from age and source verification of our cattle.

Won't it take some time for the retailers affected by COOL to see what their costs are and drop the prices they pay for beef?

mrj
 
mrj said:
Tex, didn't you notice that it doesn't take effect till Sept. 30?

We plan on making money from age and source verification of our cattle.

Won't it take some time for the retailers affected by COOL to see what their costs are and drop the prices they pay for beef?

mrj
Click to expand...

Then those costs you mentioned are nothing more than smoke. I guess you would call this a pre whine.

I agree that there are too many loopholes. This meat industry is so whiny that they whine before they have reason to.

They have hired the USDA to do it for them. What a captive agency. We need to take half the USDA off the public payroll and make them go to the industries they represent for pay. I for one am tired of them being so one sided against consumers and the little guy when it comes to truth about where our food comes from.

By the way, MRJ, I agree with you about one thing: Just letting consumers know all the information isn't good enough. Making sure it is safe to be sold in the U.S. is the most important thing and it hasn't been happening. There are more rules and regulations the USDA enforces here in the U.S. than on the food that is imported. That is just down right wrong and discriminatory to domestic producers.
 
Country of Origin Rule for Foods Draws Criticism From Hill
By Aliya Sternstein, CQ Staff -- Congressional Quarterly Today, August 6, 2008 Wednesday


Advertisement

Sponsored Links
A proposed rule for country of origin labeling is meeting resistance from food safety advocates in Congress as the Sept. 30 deadline for implementation approaches.

The Agriculture Department's interim final rule, issued July 28, does not meet the requirements in the 2008 farm law, said one of the House's primary food safety watchdogs, Agriculture Appropriations Chairman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

The law (PL 110-246) requires retailers to label the source of many foods, including beef, chicken, produce and pecans, by Sept. 30. But the Agriculture Department (USDA) plan for implementing the law "does not make sense," DeLauro said.

"Under the proposed rule, for example, if peas are frozen and bagged, they are covered and to be labeled. If carrots are frozen and bagged, they too are to be labeled. However, if you put the peas and carrots in the same bag, they're not covered and will not be labeled," she said.

In the proposed rule, covered foods do not need labels if they are part of a processed food item or combined with at least one other covered food. A "processed food item" is defined as a retail item derived from a covered commodity that has undergone specific processing -- such as cooking, curing, smoking or emulsifying -- resulting "in a change in the character of the" covered food.

Examples of exempt foods under the proposal include corned beef, teriyaki flavored pork loin, roasted peanuts, breaded chicken tenders, fruit cups, and salad mixes with lettuce and a dressing packet.

The interim final rule "changes the definition of a processed food item such that a greater number of products are now exempt from" country of origin labeling requirements, according to USDA documents.

After receiving comments, the department decided on "excluding products that would be more costly and troublesome for retailers and suppliers to provide country of origin information," the proposal states.

The new processed food definition was based on historical precedent -- the existing fish rule exempts seafood medleys, breaded shrimp and marinated fish fillets -- and extensive input from stakeholders during an initial comment period, said Agricultural Marketing Service Administrator Lloyd Day.

He said the exemption for food services is expressly provided for in the farm law, which defines such an as establishment as "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."

"Congress had a very prescriptive piece of legislation and we are implementing it based on what they have written," Day said. "If folks wanted different things covered in legislation, they had opportunity to do it."

Scott Openshaw, the Grocery Manufacturers of America's communications director, noted that all packaged or processed foods imported into the United States are already required to display country or origin markings in accordance with Customs regulations.

But Senate Agriculture Committee aides said they take issue with the department overextending exceptions for food service establishments and processed foods.

Restaurants, cafeterias, delicatessens, food stands, bars and services that set out ingredients for consumers to concoct their own take-home meals would be exempted from sticker requirements, according to the rule.

Overall, "USDA's rule is long overdue and an important step to getting product labeled. Although some details of the rule still need to be worked out, consumers will not have to wait much longer to know where their food comes from," said Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Aides said they hope the agency will modify the rule before it takes effect.

A spokesman for Bart Stupak, D-Mich. -- who has held nine food safety hearings this Congress as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee -- said it seems there are sizeable gaps in the labeling of processed food in the proposed rule.

"Finding a way to exempt as many foods as possible is not what Congress had in mind," the spokesman said, noting that Stupak has not yet thoroughly vetted the directive.

Stupak and full committee Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., are finalizing draft legislation that may contain a processed food labeling provision, as part of a massive overhaul of the Food and Drug Administration.

The Agriculture Department has been slow in rolling out the program, first enacted in 2002 (PL 107-171), partly because Congress has changed it over the years. Lawmakers twice postponed the start date for full operation, and altered which specific foods would be covered. Only fish has been required to carry country of origin labeling since 2005.

Source: CQ Today Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill. ©2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2008 Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
 
Leave it to the USDA to show how incompetent they are. You will not be disappointed in this regard.

I am glad we have a little oversight that points this out. Go Bart Stupak!!!!

I bet he wishes he could fire some of these fools. I sure wish he could.
 
Tex said:
Leave it to the USDA to show how incompetent they are. You will not be disappointed in this regard.

I am glad we have a little oversight that points this out. Go Bart Stupak!!!!

I bet he wishes he could fire some of these fools. I sure wish he could.
Click to expand...

I agree Tex-- I've watched several of those hearings-- and Stupak is one sharp character that little gets by...

I truly have faith that after Jan many changes will come about..,
 
A spokesman for Bart Stupak, D-Mich. -- who has held nine food safety hearings this Congress as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee -- said it seems there are sizeable gaps in the labeling of processed food in the proposed rule.... COOL LAW

"Finding a way to exempt as many foods as possible is not what Congress had in mind,"

The proposed rule for country of origin labeling COOL is meeting resistance from food safety advocates in Congress as the Sept. 30 deadline for implementation approaches.

The Agriculture Department's interim final rule, issued July 28, does not meet the requirements in the 2008 farm law, said one of the House's primary food safety watchdogs, Agriculture Appropriations Chairman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

The law is being altered on which specific foods would be covered by COOL , that was in the original bill passed by the congress in the 2008 Farm Bill mandate. Senate Agriculture Committee aides said they take issue with the department overextending exceptions for food service establishments and processed foods.
Could this be the way that they intend to kill the COOL law internally ????
 

Latest posts

Top