• 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 IS HERE TO STAY,GET USED TO IT.

H

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Location
Texas
Mexico suspends meat shipments from 30 U.S. plants
Friday, December 26, 2008, 2:43 PM

by Bob Meyer

Mexico has apparently suspended meat imports from 30 U.S. packing plants in 14 states.
Reports say shipments were turned back at the border on Wednesday: Among the plants shut-off, two Smithfield operations in North Carolina and Florida. Three John Morrell plants, two in South Dakota and one in Iowa. A Farmland Foods pork plant in Nebraska, a Moyer Packing beef plant in Pennsylvania, six Tyson Foods operations in Iowa, Texas and Nebraska. Other plants include Cargill, Con Agra, JBS Swift, Seaboard Corporation and 11 small private operations in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah.

The suspensions are all effective December 23rd and came as a complete surprise. Speculation is Mexico did it in retaliation for the United States implement mandatory Country of Origin Labeling. Canada filed a complaint against COOL with the World Trade Organization on December 1st saying it discriminates against Canadian ag exports. Mexico joined Canada in the complaint last week.

PS On the joining with mexico deal,you canuckleheads mite wanna remember that ole sayin about gettin fleas .
good luck
 
Its unbelievable that Canada would try something like this,deny a poor houewife the privelege of knowing what she is feeding her family.
I am ashamed of you canuckleheads :D
good luck
 
It's only okay when were the one's getting the raw deal.I don't begrudge anyone for trying to make the best living possible.Label it and price it where you can make a profit and let the consumer decide.Easy as pie. If the price is 10 cents a lb. cheaper for canadian beef it would sell fine but label it Mexican and I bet it would turn rancid first.Don't drink the water carries alot of clout..With the ethanol industry in the upper midwest I see people in this area at an advantage for cheap feedstuffs.Which will turn the profits greater for those of us close enough to capitalize on these feedstocks.
 
I can see mexico having a big problem with M Cool,never could understand why those canuckleheads are so afraid of it.
good luck
 
December 28, 2008 5:30 a.m. EST



Linda Young - AHN Editor
Chicago, IL (AHN) - Mexico, a leading buyer of U.S. meat, has suspended purchases from 30 meat plants, including some of Americas largest, alleging sanitation and other issues, however, observers say it is retaliation for new U.S. rules requiring labels to disclose country of origin.

Mexico has denied that it was retaliating against the new labeling law and said it suspended purchases for technical reasons.

The suspensions went into effect on Wednesday and could be lifted as early as Monday. But news of the suspensions caused hog and cattle futures prices to plummet Friday in trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Suspensions affected plants such as Cargill Foods, ConAgra Foods, Pilgrims Pride, Tyson, Smithfield, Campbell Soup, Vienna, Gold Kist Inc., and others.

Mexico says that it suspended importation of meat from the 30 U.S. plants because the affected plants didn't meet standards on packaging, labeling and some transport conditions.

But Mexico is upset about the new labeling law. It has alleged that the new U.S. rules requiring food products to be labeled with their country of origin will result in consumers refusing to buy agricultural products imported from other countries and lower Mexican meat exports to the U.S.

Mexico and Canada both opposed a law requiring Country of Origin Labeling of food products that was advanced under consumers right to know.

The law has caused at least some shoppers to switch to higher priced products that are identified as being from the USA after being confronted by labels on beef stating that the lower priced meat was produced in either the USA, Canada or Mexico.

Mexico and Canada have joined together to challenge the Country of Origin Labeling law because they say it discourages U.S. meat packers from importing livestock from those countries.
 
Since you aren't importing as many live cattle you shouldn't have to export as much beef. :wink:
Maybe Mexico is planning to stop slaughtering US horses and use those plants to process their own beef. :o
 
gcreekrch said:
Since you aren't importing as many live cattle you shouldn't have to export as much beef. :wink:
Maybe Mexico is planning to stop slaughtering US horses and use those plants to process their own beef. :o
Click to expand...

I dont think they are smart enough to do something like that.
good luck
 
gcreekrch said:
Since you aren't importing as many live cattle you shouldn't have to export as much beef. :wink:
Maybe Mexico is planning to stop slaughtering US horses and use those plants to process their own beef. :o
Click to expand...

Who would care a kill horse has a tough time bringing $200 anyhow.
 
Last year, Mexico sold more than 870,000 head of live cattle to the U.S. to be partly raised and then processed into meat. The country's sales of live cattle here so far this year have fallen far below that. The Mexican government has said it thinks the new law could be partly to blame.



Earlier this year, Mexico had warned some U.S. meat plants of alleged "point of entry" violations that could include paperwork or labeling problems.
 
1/7/2009 11:14:00 AM


Cattle ID: Private Treaty Sales Should Include Origin Documentation



Mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) became law September 30, 2008. The legislation is a retail labeling law that requires retailers of beef, pork, lamb, chicken and goat to indicate the country of origin on the product label. While the retailer bears the most obvious responsibility in providing information to consumers, ultimately that information has to begin with the producers and be transferred to others in the production chain.



An industry coalition developed several universal affidavits to simplify the movement of origin claims along the production chain. Among other sites, these documents are available on both Kansas Livestock Association and Kansas Cattlemen's Association web sites. Many producers have already been introduced to this type of documentation if they have sold cattle through a sale barn or to feedlots. Producers that have signed documents at a sale barn or other location should read them and take them seriously. If information provided in sales contracts is false, the contract may be breached and liability incurred.



An important step for producers buying or selling breeding stock or any private treaty sale is to include origin information with sales transaction documents. The following statement signed and dated by the seller along with the buyer's name, identification of the specific animals involved in the sale and number of head should be included. "I attest that all livestock referenced by this document and transferred are of ___________ (country) origin."



The interim final rule for COOL states that all livestock present in the U.S. on or before July 15, 2008, that have remained here continuously are considered of U.S. origin. Therefore, producers should have an inventory record of all animals in their possession on July 15. This would eliminate the need to recreate the paper trail associated with these animals at a later date. The USDA web site for COOL information is

www.ams.usda.gov/cool.



Source: Kansas State Ag Extension
 
COOL effective against trade: U.S. analysts
Staff 1/8/2009 7:38:00 PM



Related ItemsMore News by TopicLivestock Photos in this Story Mandatory COOL has so far been "quite effective" in stifling North America's cattle trade, according to the authors of the CME's D...

Full caption and actual photo size
The U.S. government's mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) for meat has so far been "quite effective" in squelching cross-border cattle trade, according to two well-known U.S. market analysts.

Steve Meyer and Len Steiner, authors of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's (CME) Daily Livestock Report, said in their commentary Wednesday that for the period from July 14 to Dec. 27, 2008, total U.S. imports of Canadian feeder cattle were 187,866 head, 38 per cent lower than the same period the previous year.

Imports of slaughter Canadian steers and heifers during the same period were 262,929 head, 35 per cent lower than a year ago. "As for Canadian cow imports, it is hard to make any good year to year comparisons because imports only started in November of 2007," Meyer and Steiner wrote.

Most imports from Mexico, meanwhile, were feeder cattle going to southern U.S. feedlots, they noted. For the period July 14 to Dec. 20, imports of Mexican feeder cattle were 323,105 head, 39 per cent lower than year-ago levels.

"Ironically, the reductions in imports from both countries came at a time when a significant devaluation in the value of the peso and Canadian dollar normally would have been conducive of increased imports from these two countries," Meyer and Steiner wrote.

"Under normal circumstances, one would expect cattle imports to actually increase rather than be cut by almost 40 per cent."

In other words, charting the decline in imports shows that "so far the legislation has been quite effective, if you measure effectiveness by the degree to which it has been able to stifle cattle trade in North America."

At a time when demand for cattle is down, they wrote, "it will be hard to quickly reverse current trends."

Further, they said, it's important to note not just the date mandatory COOL became effective (Sept. 30, 2008), but also the provision in the last U.S. Farm Bill that all cattle imported in the U.S. before July 15 would be considered of U.S. origin, while those imported after that date would be considered of foreign origin.

Therefore, that Farm Bill provision impacts the terms under which the cattle designated as "foreign" were sold to packing plants.

"This 'grandfather clause' naturally had the most impact on feeder cattle imports," they wrote, "since by the time those animals came out of feedlots they would be considered of non-U.S. origin and be treated as such by packing plants."

Cross-border trade in live hogs has been impacted "just as severely," they wrote, and "one can understand the action Canada and Mexico took by referring the matter to the World Trade Organization."

Ottawa said Dec. 1 it would seek formal consultations with the U.S. on COOL under the WTO dispute settlement process. The Mexican government followed suit later last month.
 
don said:
COOL effective against trade: U.S. analysts
Staff 1/8/2009 7:38:00 PM



Related ItemsMore News by TopicLivestock Photos in this Story Mandatory COOL has so far been "quite effective" in stifling North America's cattle trade, according to the authors of the CME's D...

Full caption and actual photo size
The U.S. government's mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) for meat has so far been "quite effective" in squelching cross-border cattle trade, according to two well-known U.S. market analysts.

Steve Meyer and Len Steiner, authors of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's (CME) Daily Livestock Report, said in their commentary Wednesday that for the period from July 14 to Dec. 27, 2008, total U.S. imports of Canadian feeder cattle were 187,866 head, 38 per cent lower than the same period the previous year.

Imports of slaughter Canadian steers and heifers during the same period were 262,929 head, 35 per cent lower than a year ago. "As for Canadian cow imports, it is hard to make any good year to year comparisons because imports only started in November of 2007," Meyer and Steiner wrote.

Most imports from Mexico, meanwhile, were feeder cattle going to southern U.S. feedlots, they noted. For the period July 14 to Dec. 20, imports of Mexican feeder cattle were 323,105 head, 39 per cent lower than year-ago levels.

"Ironically, the reductions in imports from both countries came at a time when a significant devaluation in the value of the peso and Canadian dollar normally would have been conducive of increased imports from these two countries," Meyer and Steiner wrote.

"Under normal circumstances, one would expect cattle imports to actually increase rather than be cut by almost 40 per cent."

In other words, charting the decline in imports shows that "so far the legislation has been quite effective, if you measure effectiveness by the degree to which it has been able to stifle cattle trade in North America."

At a time when demand for cattle is down, they wrote, "it will be hard to quickly reverse current trends."

Further, they said, it's important to note not just the date mandatory COOL became effective (Sept. 30, 2008), but also the provision in the last U.S. Farm Bill that all cattle imported in the U.S. before July 15 would be considered of U.S. origin, while those imported after that date would be considered of foreign origin.

Therefore, that Farm Bill provision impacts the terms under which the cattle designated as "foreign" were sold to packing plants.

"This 'grandfather clause' naturally had the most impact on feeder cattle imports," they wrote, "since by the time those animals came out of feedlots they would be considered of non-U.S. origin and be treated as such by packing plants."

Cross-border trade in live hogs has been impacted "just as severely," they wrote, and "one can understand the action Canada and Mexico took by referring the matter to the World Trade Organization."

Ottawa said Dec. 1 it would seek formal consultations with the U.S. on COOL under the WTO dispute settlement process. The Mexican government followed suit later last month.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Ottawa would do better to find out why Canadian labeled beef/pork is not being sold as much here in the U.S. and work on those problems than whining that they are losing markets because they have to tell the truth of where U.S. consumer's food comes from.

If it is BSE then invest in the bse testing programs. You might be able to push the U.S. into reviewing its "Government knows best" attitude and their push for government religion the administration has taken with Creekstone.

Our legislators have sold our markets out to the globalists and they are busy devaluing the currency here in the U.S. with their deficit spending plans. Get ready, Canada, it might get worse before it gets better unless your country does the same thing.

Our governments in both our countries don't deserve the power that is given them by the people. They continually sell policy to the highest bidder and act like none of the economic policies are their fault at all. It is like Phil Gramm citing sound ethical advice his grandmother would give for public consumption while selling her house and land out from under her for his own benefit because he has the power of attorney and lack of morals to sell out his own grandmother.
 
i posted that article to make two points:
1. cool is a non-tariff trade barrier. it has to be and that is the way it is working. i have no doubt that was the hope when some interests in the states advocated for it.

2. what is happening shows that even cutting supplies of high quality beef and cattle has not helped american cattle producers achieve a higher price for their production. even though american cattle numbers are at the lowest in over half a century prices have slumped. american producers have no more power in the market than canadian producers. maybe it is time ranchers on both sides of the border started fighting the bigger battle: corporate control over govt. policy.

as an aside i'll make the point that the canadian cattle that used to come into the states took up pen space not being utilized by american cattle now. i'm sure there are feeders who would like more economical access to canadian cattle. makes for fewer employees, less feed consumed.
 
don said:
i posted that article to make two points:
1. cool is a non-tariff trade barrier. it has to be and that is the way it is working. i have no doubt that was the hope when some interests in the states advocated for it.

2. what is happening shows that even cutting supplies of high quality beef and cattle has not helped american cattle producers achieve a higher price for their production. even though american cattle numbers are at the lowest in over half a century prices have slumped. american producers have no more power in the market than canadian producers. maybe it is time ranchers on both sides of the border started fighting the bigger battle: corporate control over govt. policy.

as an aside i'll make the point that the canadian cattle that used to come into the states took up pen space not being utilized by american cattle now. i'm sure there are feeders who would like more economical access to canadian cattle. makes for fewer employees, less feed consumed.
Click to expand...



When the truth becomes a trade barrier, it is time to trade in definitions.

When hiding the truth is part of getting sales, we need different companies who are allowed to sell.

If there is a problem with perception, work on the perception.

Market concentration has helped cattle sellers to get less for their cattle and increase the margins for the processors who are the bottleneck in more and more control.

Tyson just kept up production of chicken, even when it was unprofitable, to push other industry players (the largest poultry company in the world--Pilgrim's Pride) to the brink (they have filed for bankruptcy) just because they would not collude with Tyson on production. Tyson was able to do this because of the profitability in their other meats--beef and pork.

The Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced and the government of the United States is allowing the meats industry to consolidate just as they are the seed business, and many others. There is becoming a huge concentration of wealth in the U.S. due to these type of policies and the consequences of this balance of power is throwing our country into the worst financial mess we have seen since the depression.

don, I am not going to argue with you over Canadian cattle. I welcome them as long as they are safe (back to the bse question). I don't want packers to use Canadian cattlemen like they have for their own benefit and I don't like seeing either of our governments cater to big money and power these people have. It is ruining our countries in many other industries. The short run policy of selling out the public interest has ended up in the long term result we see today.

If you think bse is a problem, test the animals and advertise the results. Creekstone was prevented from doing so in favor of the USDA's push of government religion on the subject. It has been a bad policy but what can you expect with all the packer lackeys in the USDA?

If you can't tell the truth about your product, keep it for yourself instead of allowing global meat packers to sell it to school lunch programs here in the U.S. Hiding the truth only makes the inevitable far worse.
 
would hiding the truth have anything to do with the usda bse testing program or regulations regarding the handling of downers? i'll grant that cfia is not doing the job it should (at the behest of usda, packers, aafc) but the states claim to the safest food in the world is becoming largely propaganda to quiet american consumers. to the extent that you want animals tested and results advertised canada is doing a better, if not perfect, job. cool is doing nothing to protect american consumers from bse because the american industry is not being required to verify the safety of american product.
 
don said:
would hiding the truth have anything to do with the usda bse testing program or regulations regarding the handling of downers? i'll grant that cfia is not doing the job it should (at the behest of usda, packers, aafc) but the states claim to the safest food in the world is becoming largely propaganda to quiet american consumers. to the extent that you want animals tested and results advertised canada is doing a better, if not perfect, job. cool is doing nothing to protect american consumers from bse because the american industry is not being required to verify the safety of american product.
Click to expand...

don, you are totally right that the USDA is hiding things. One of the first things an attorney will tell you is that in the U.S. with the burden of proof in the courts, if you can hide what you have done and no one can prove it, you are considered innocent. These are the rules for the court and they hold in our government only as long as the people believe the truth will come out in court or that the government is telling the truth. When it is believed the courts or government have no credibility, which they are getting closer to and closer to all the time, we get closer and closer to losing another leg of our democracy. The USDA's credibility when they play games of hiding the truth is already gone except to the uninformed. The organic movement and the direct sales at farmer's markets has grown substantially because of this erosion of faith in the government's ability to be credible and not be bought off. These are the long term consequences I was talking about.

With this in mind, plan a plan around getting around the distrust (this is the perception thing I was talking about).

People in the U.S. are having to do it and the segment is growing. Our food supply and its safety can not be trusted to a bought off government.

I don't believe the "we have the safest food" slogan you refer to and a whole lot of other people don't either. It is as believable as the proposition that we have had good politicians on the whole for the last 20 years. They abuse the integrity the offices they hold have for their own personal and political gain, not the nation's interests. The biggest problem is that our election/media system is not competent to bring out these problems for public judgment. This goes back to the concentration of power and wealth in this country and the abuse of the truth by powerful interests. The long run is catching up to the sum of the short runs, if it hasn't already.
 
Schaffer says;Among other things this year, the COOL program is

expected to conduct a retailer survey, accelerate and expand training for

state employees, begin retail surveillance reviews and supplier's audits,

initiate development of an audit tracking system, conduct outreach and

educational activities, and hire 10 temporary employees for program

administration.

He is using $3.2 million dollars of the farm bill.
 
PORKER said:
Schaffer says;Among other things this year, the COOL program is

expected to conduct a retailer survey, accelerate and expand training for

state employees, begin retail surveillance reviews and supplier's audits,

initiate development of an audit tracking system, conduct outreach and

educational activities, and hire 10 temporary employees for program

administration.
Click to expand...

Congress should have allowed consumers to sue any store that does not have their beef labeled for one thousand dollars each offense per person per month in small claims court if the meat was not labeled and the tracking back to the processor.

Rcalf should be able to do the same from the packers being able to track to a domestic supplier. If this was done, we wouldn't need ten temporary workers or retailer surveys. The USDA can not enforce this law because they do not want to. This should be the financial incentive for them to do it and USDA should be out of the picture. They only get in the way and play interference for the packers because they are full of packer lackeys.
 
In 7 CFR part 65, of the final COOL law, the definition of "NAIS-compliant system"
has been deleted in response to comments received as it is no
longer needed.

Link to GOVpdf;

http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-00600_PI.pdf
 

Latest posts

Back
Top