• 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 in 08

A

Anonymous

Guest
The Northern Ag Network radio this morning was reporting this compromise and vote guarantees M-COOL in 08...According to Taylor Brown all beef will have to be labeled-- with each being labeled as to country or countries....

Only beef from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the US would be labeled Product of USA-- all other would have to be labeled with the countries they spent time in (example feeders from Mexico would be labeled a Product of US and Mexico)-- and mixed beef (ground beef) would have to be labeled with the names of all the countries product, but would not need the percentages......

-----------------------------------------------

US Meat Labels to Note Country of Origin
By MARY CLARE JALONICK 07.20.07, 12:13 AM ET




WASHINGTON - The House Agriculture Committee voted Thursday night to require country of origin labels on meats beginning next year, striking a compromise as reports of tainted food from China raise consumer awareness about imported food safety.

After days of negotiations between both sides, the committee agreed on to allow the mandatory labels but soften penalties and burdensome record-keeping requirements that had concerned many food retailers and meatpackers who opposed the law. The committee adopted by voice vote the labeling changes just before it approved a five-year farm law that would govern agriculture programs.

The Agriculture Department never put in place the 2002 law requiring the labels because then-majority Republicans repeatedly delayed it, most recently to 2008.

"I think that both (sides) gained momentum in the news of recent weeks," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, a South Dakota Democrat who has long pushed for the labeling, which would help smaller, independent ranchers in her home state who face competition from Canadian beef.

China is working to clean up its drug and food industries, which are under international scrutiny after substandard Chinese goods have been rejected around the world as dangerous.

Herseth and others, including consumer groups, were most concerned that meats could not be given a USA label unless the animals were born, raised and slaughtered in the United States.

"There has to be some reflection of the fact that these animals were born elsewhere," Herseth said after the vote.

The agreement maintains that standard, but it also allows the labels to list the United States as one of several countries of origin if the meat is mixed.


Virginia Rep. Robert Goodlatte, the top Republican on the Agriculture panel and a lawmaker who has never supported a mandatory labeling law, helped broker the agreement. He said the "overwhelming majority" of interests are behind it now.

"It has much greater flexibility that is needed," he said.

The agreement only applied to meats, but the law would also govern fruits, vegetables and peanuts. Those labeling programs have been far less controversial.

The law's leading opponents have been grocery stores and large meatpacking companies, many of whom mix U.S. and Mexican beef, and other businesses involved in getting products to supermarkets. They have said the tracking and the paperwork needed to comply with the law is too burdensome and would lead to higher prices.

Processed foods are exempt from the labeling requirements, as are restaurants and other food service establishments.

The labeling program was not delayed for seafood. The former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, put it in place to promote his state's lucrative fishing industry.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is how the Ag-Committee e-mail I received explains the labeling:


The Committee also approved language that will finally allow full implementation of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for meat in the Farm Bill. This language is a victory for consumers who overwhelmingly support the program.
It includes three categories of labeling,

one that indicates product was born, raised and slaughtered in the United States;

one that indicates that product was not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.;

and one that includes products entirely from other countries.

For ground meat, products can be labeled with a list of countries where product may have originated.
 

feeder

Well-known member
Ot, I'm a little slow in comprehending this compromise so could you enlighten me? I received an email yesterday that said a compromise was on the table that would allow any live cattle fed in the USA for a week or so to be labeled USA beef and any live cattle that was destined straight for slaughter would be labeled from that country. Did that compromise get voted down or are there loopholes in this compromise you posted? Thanks, Feeder
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
feeder said:
Ot, I'm a little slow in comprehending this compromise so could you enlighten me? I received an email yesterday that said a compromise was on the table that would allow any live cattle fed in the USA for a week or so to be labeled USA beef and any live cattle that was destined straight for slaughter would be labeled from that country. Did that compromise get voted down or are there loopholes in this compromise you posted? Thanks, Feeder

That is how I read it-- If the cow was born and raised in US, but had spent 5 minutes in Canada it would have to be labeled Product of US and Canada...

Now I might be reading all the articles wrong- but that was what they were explaining on the radio too....

A little hesitant tho, as every organization/politician seems to be claiming success- so must be some holes in it somewhere.... :roll:
 

feeder

Well-known member
Thanks OT, I have visions of the packers getting cattle in their lots from who knows where and then get to label it USA beef. I guess time will tell.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Looks like Mandatory ID for US cattle is next.

Great news. :D

Why?

Same here,why are you so concerned about the USA's ID system Bill ? M ID may/may not be mandated,but only after M COOL,the old trick of trying to tie the two together so M COOL could be stone walled did not work..............good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
7/20/2007 11:09:00 AM


USCA: COOL Victory In House Ag Committee




San Lucas, Calif. (July 20, 2007) - After days of intense negotiations the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, on Thursday evening, July 19, unanimously passed its version of the 2007 Farm Bill. By voice vote the committee adopted clarifications to the country of origin labeling law (COOL) just before it approved the new five-year farm policy package in total. The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) was actively engaged in the negotiation process, helping fend off several attempts by opponents to weaken COOL.



Under the committee’s plan, three different labels were created to identify the country of origin for meat, including "Product of the U.S." meaning the meat is harvested from an animal born, raised and processed in the United States.



The committee approved a second label to be used for meat derived from animals that move across U.S. borders. For example, meat derived from Canadian feeder pigs or cattle brought to the U.S. for finishing and processing purposes would be labeled as a "Product of the U.S. and Canada." A third label would be used for product like ground beef comprised of meat from carcasses of U.S., Canadian and Mexican cattle as well as meat trimmings from New Zealand. Under the committee’s language that label will state "This product contains meat from the U.S., Canada, Mexico and New Zealand." According to the language adopted, the ground beef labels will not require percentage breakdowns of how much meat came from which country.



Additionally, the agreement reduces penalties for retailers and relaxes the paperwork to prove the origin of animals.



"At the end of the day, U.S. cattlemen prevailed in what was an intense series of negotiations over COOL," said Jess Peterson, USCA Director of Governmental Affairs. "This was by no means an easy process. Opponents of COOL saw the House Ag Committee as one of their last-ditch opportunities to gut the law, but thanks to the engagement of producers from across the nation we were able to hold the line and preserve U.S. ranchers’ right to distinguish their product under the labeling law."



USCA COOL Committee Chairman Danni Beer, South Dakota, congratulated cattle producers on the victory. "Events from the past week culminated in a milestone victory for cattle producers, but not without some deal-breaking moments. When ACOL, a coalition of agriculture and consumer groups, asked producers to apply pressure, they responded overwhelmingly with phone calls, faxes and emails to Capitol Hill. The industry needs to express its gratitude to National Farmers Union and its leadership for facilitating very sensitive negotiations," she continued. "We’re grateful for the national media exposure from CNN’s Lou Dobbs who, throughout the past several days, has highlighted the rights and needs of consumers and producers with regard to food labeling. This is also a victory for consumers who overwhelmingly support the program and we thank consumer groups for their support and partnership in this process. The industry is very fortunate to have Jess Peterson at work in Washington, DC. Jess literally worked around the clock on producers’ behalf and it was Jess who offered the information, insight and guidance that brought us to success."



The Farm Bill package is expected to come before the full House of Representatives for a vote before the end of July.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
feeder said:
Ot, I'm a little slow in comprehending this compromise so could you enlighten me? I received an email yesterday that said a compromise was on the table that would allow any live cattle fed in the USA for a week or so to be labeled USA beef and any live cattle that was destined straight for slaughter would be labeled from that country. Did that compromise get voted down or are there loopholes in this compromise you posted? Thanks, Feeder

feeder- This might answer your question of what happened on the big plan to gut the M-COOL....I'm glad now I spent the bucks/time on the few phone calls and e-mails that I made...Maybe, like with the immigration bill, the voters/citizens are getting some gain against the King in the White House, and the paid off politicians on the Hill and the Packer flunky's in USDA...

I did hear from a longtime muckey muck in the NCBA the other day, that they weren't going to put up such a life and death stand on M-COOL this time- already partly conceding that it was going to come---But instead were going to concentrate on killing any concentration or Packer ownership bills (which he was hoping to kill since the majority of his 10,000+ head are Packer owned/financed, and as he said he would be out of business if an ownership bill passed)......



From: Bill Bullard, CEO



Date: July 20, 2007



Subject: VICTORY!


You just defeated the incredibly powerful anti-COOL lobby on their own turf! The U.S. House Agriculture Committee has always been the stronghold of the meatpacker trade associations, including the American Meat Institute (AMI) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). These groups successfully prevented the House Agriculture Committee from including any of our competition reforms (captive supply reform and limitation on packer ownership) in the 2007 Farm Bill. They tried desperately to include an amendment that would have severely weakened the 2002 Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) Law.



But you stopped them in their tracks! The 13-page anti-COOL amendment drafted by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and David Scott (D-GA) was not introduced in the Agriculture Committee. When the anti-COOL amendment was drafted just a couple of days ago, the supporters knew they had the votes to pass it in Committee. But something unexpected happened. Members of R-CALF USA, the National Farmers Union, and consumer groups began making hundreds, if not thousands, of calls to members of the House Agriculture Committee. In addition, the CNN Lou Dobbs show began running pro-COOL segments on national television, on which R-CALF USA was featured. The combination of grass-roots lobbying and national attention quickly eroded the anti-COOL support. As a result, the supporters of the anti-COOL amendment lost their momentum and, knowing they no longer had the votes, they did not introduce their amendment.


You won and you won big! The momentum is back on our side.




Obviously, it’s not over yet. The next step will happen quickly. The Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee (Collin Peterson (D-MN) wants to add a COOL amendment that would essentially direct USDA on how to write the COOL rules. In other words, he wants to put more prescriptive language in the law to prevent the USDA from writing another bad implementation rule. We will be working over the weekend to see if this is possible.



The next step is for the 2007 Farm Bill to be voted on by the full House of Representatives. This is expected to take place the last week in July. We must continue building support among the entire 435 members of the House of Representatives so they will stand their ground if the anti-COOL supporters try to offer an anti-COOL amendment on the full floor.



I will provide you with more details in this week’s Washington Countdown Report. In the meantime, thank you for your hard work. Congratulations!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
General News
House Ag panel approves COOL

By Tom Johnston on 7/20/2007 for Meatingplace.com




The House Agriculture Committee voted Thursday night to require country-of-origin labels on meat product beginning next year, finally allowing full implementation of the rule provided in the 2002 Farm Bill.

Following days of debate, as well as media reports about food scares emanating from China, the committee compromised by agreeing to require the labels, but ease penalties and tedious record-keeping requirements opposed by many food retailers and meatpackers.

"Our top priority from the beginning has been that the benefits of COOL must outweigh the costs for cattle producers," Jay Truitt, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said in a statement. "We took some major steps in that direction last night."

The measure creates three categories of labeling: one that indicates product was born, raised and slaughtered in the United States; one that indicates product was not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.; and one that includes products entirely derived from foreign countries. Ground meat product can be labeled with a list of countries where product may have originated.

The law is set to take effect in September of 2008.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Our top priority from the beginning has been that the benefits of COOL must outweigh the costs for cattle producers," Jay Truitt, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said in a statement. "We took some major steps in that direction last night." "

So what does he know about the costs/benefits now that he didn't when he was trying to kill the whole deal? :roll: What a politician....
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Under the committee’s plan, three different labels were created to identify the country of origin for meat, including ("Product of the U.S.") meaning the meat is harvested from an animal born, raised and processed in the United States.



The committee approved a second label to be used for meat derived from animals that move across U.S. borders. For example, meat derived from Canadian feeder pigs or cattle brought to the U.S. for finishing and processing purposes would be labeled as a ("Product of the U.S. and Canada.")


A third label would be used for product like ground beef comprised of meat from carcasses of U.S., Canadian and Mexican cattle as well as meat trimmings from New Zealand. Under the committee’s language that label will state ("This product contains meat from the U.S., Canada, Mexico and New Zealand.") According to the language adopted, the ground beef labels will not require percentage breakdowns of how much meat came from which country.



(Additionally, the agreement reduces penalties for retailers and relaxes the paperwork to prove the origin of animals.)




Brake out the champagne and confetti for a party tonight, then look at it again in the morning. What did you win! This is what you were fighting for!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
According to the language adopted, the ground beef labels will not require percentage breakdowns of how much meat came from which country.



Here you go Oldtimer, those Canadians, Australians, Mexicans, and who ever wants to ship beef to the USA, can do so now! And still sell it as US product. You just don't know, how much.

1 lb. Ground Beef

product of us and australia

It could be 9/10ths Australian 1/10th USA


Best Regards
Ben Roberts








 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ben Roberts said:
According to the language adopted, the ground beef labels will not require percentage breakdowns of how much meat came from which country.



Here you go Oldtimer, those Canadians, Australians, Mexicans, and who ever wants to ship beef to the USA, can do so now! And still sell it as US product. You just don't know, how much.

1 lb. Ground Beef

product of us and australia

It could be 9/10ths Australian 1/10th USA


Best Regards
Ben Roberts


Ben- As the Farmers Union spokesman said "Simply put all it does is tell the consumer the truth"....

It really disillusions me that you seem to disagree with the concept of folks knowing the truth..... :roll: :( :cry:

And as far as the Aussie and Mexican ground beef-- it also gives folks like me a chance to source Product of USA ground beef, which is what I think you'll see a lot more of showing up (if they want to sell it in my area anyway)...
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote-"It really disillusions me that you seem to disagree with the concept of folks knowing the truth..... :roll: :( :cry:"

No Oldtimer I can live with the truth ( I may not like it but I can live with it ) false accusations on the other hand, is something I have a hard time living with.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Kato

Well-known member
Under the committee’s plan, three different labels were created to identify the country of origin for meat, including ("Product of the U.S.") meaning the meat is harvested from an animal born, raised and processed in the United States.

Next debate. Mandatory I.D. :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

I wonder if this might lead to a whole lot of labels that just say "May Contain"? Saves a lot of time at the packers, especially if they find consumers don't care. Perhaps we need to inform them of our higher standards regarding SRM's and the credibility and good reputation of our inspection system, and "May Contain Canadian beef" just might be the preferred label. :wink: :D :D :D :D :D
 

PORKER

Well-known member
AMI misleads Congress, Consumers on COOL

In a recent letter to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., from the American Meat Institute (AMI), AMI makes several decisively false claims about country-of-origin labeling, a law established in the 2002 Farm Bill that has yet to be implemented because of political pressure by multinational packers, processors and retailers. R-CALF USA, in turn, sent a letter to DeLauro and Kohl to counter AMI’s false claims.



The AMI letter asks, “If mandatory country-of-origin labeling were truly a food safety issue, should not all food products be covered through commerce?”



“The answer is ‘yes’, but for more than food safety reasons,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry. “COOL provides consumers with basic information about where their food is produced, and consumers deserve this information to use as they see fit.”


AMI’s letter also states that “to assert that any country-of-origin labeling regime would have an impact on food safety or the integrity of a food product is absurd,” – a decisively false claim.



The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) itself has recently imposed COOL requirements on certain countries, such as Uruguay,” Thornsberry pointed out. “Fresh, chilled or frozen beef coming to the U.S. from Uruguay must be certified as originating only from cattle that are born, raised and slaughtered in Uruguay – the very same standards adopted by the COOL law for food products eligible to bear the USA label.


"There you go – straight from USDA – food safety and COOL do go hand-in-hand as a practiced and proven means of ensuring food safety and food product integrity,” he continued. “USDA implemented this origin-based food safety standard for Uruguay because of concerns related to foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Only with origin information can verification be made that the final food product underwent the food production practices of a particular country’s food production regime.”


R-CALF USA’s letter also states: “The recent melamine contamination problem further demonstrates that food production practices within a particular country impact food safety and food product integrity.”


AMI also claims there are 34 countries eligible to ship meat to the U.S., and that each of those countries’ food safety inspection systems must be USDA-certified to be considered equivalent to the federal food safety inspection system in the United States.


“While this claim is accurate in terms of what the current law requires, it has been proven decisively false in practice,” Thornsberry noted. “A December 2005 report by USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) revealed that Canadian plants were allowed to circumvent U.S. equivalency requirements for nearly two years – a perfect example of how COOL would afford consumers an additional level of protection against breaches in foreign food safety inspection systems.”


Additionally, AMI claims that COOL supporters “have, for too long, been mischaracterizing the mandatory labeling requirements that currently exist in this country…FSIS has had, for many years, mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements for red meat that enters the U.S.”


This claim also is accurate in terms of what the law requires, but it, too, has been proven decisively false in practice. An August 2003 General Accounting Office revealed the COOL information was not being maintained on imported meat as required by the Tariff Act of 1930, which requires imported products to maintain its import identity through to the ultimate purchaser.


“Again, you see the disparity between what current laws require and what actually is being practiced,” Thornsberry said. “The key here is that the 2002 COOL law remedies these problems whereby country-of-origin labels are not being properly passed on to consumers by packers, processors and retailers. The 2002 COOL law expressly requires that ‘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.’”


AMI also claims that the 2002 COOL law is noncompliant with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – again, a decisively false – and baseless – claim.


“In fact, AMI itself discredits this claim by stating that USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has had, for many years, mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements for red meat that enters the U.S.,” Thornsberry asserted. “The 2002 COOL law merely preserves this label for the benefit of consumers after imported product enters the U.S., and it requires that domestic products be similarly labeled.”
 
Top