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

Mandatory COOL implementation moving forward

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Mandatory COOL implementation moving forward
Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 4:34 PM

by Tom Steever

Audio related to this story

Mandatory country of origin labeling is moving toward implementation over the next year and a half, but with some changes, according to Bruce Knight, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

“I’ll be going through things to see if there’s options for flexibility or not,” Knight told Brownfield Tuesday in Jefferson City, Missouri.

Whether people embrace the issue or not, Knight says those who are on middle ground are rare, and most do not like the original proposed rule because of its exemptions of poultry and retail food service items.

“I want to re-launch that rule making process, I want to go through a robust economic analysis (and) figure out how to make this law that’s on the books workable and implementable by September 30, 2008,” Knight said.

The administration stance is that COOL should be voluntary and market driven, according to Knight, however he says consumers are not willing to voluntarily pay for a “grown-in-the-U.S.” label.

“The debate will continue,” said Knight. “It is law, however, and we will move forward and implement that law.”
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
The only question I have is are we going to be able to live with this or is USDA, who we know does not want this program, going to make the rules a nightmare and next to impossible to comply with? I know my state association was very concerned about the draft rules that were being discussed before cool was put on the back burner by congress.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Marketing versus health issues confuse animal I.D. issue

By SUE ROESLER, For The Prairie Star
Friday, January 19, 2007 1:56 PM MST




DICKINSON, N.D. - The livestock industry needs to “source identify” for two reasons - worldwide consumer demand and the ability to quickly trace a diseased animal, according to Dr. Robert Cannell, beef and pork purchaser for McDonald's USA Corp.

“We buy 1.3 billion pounds of beef annually,” says Cannell, adding that McDonald's interest in animal I.D. was twofold. “Not just as a way of bringing good quality beef to our customers, but also because what happens to the beef industry affects us. Our stock prices dropped after the Christmas cow, but rebounded quickly.”

Cannell was one of a group of expert panelists gathered to answer producer questions and explain their organizations' viewpoint at the Animal Identification Action Summit held at Dickinson State University in Dickinson Nov. 6.



He said McDonald's tries to purchase as much beef from the U.S. as it possibly can and claims only 9 percent is from foreign sources - currently New Zealand and Australia. However, as a producer in the audience pointed out, the company can only source verify back to the USDA packer. Cattle utilized there are not only from the U.S., but from Mexico and Canada also.

“If you could implement COOL, that would enable you to trace that beef,” Cannell told producers.

McDonald's only buys beef from a pre-approved packer list that has specific meat safety rules in place.



As to whether or not McDonald's buys the cheapest beef, Cannell said price had nothing to do with his purchasing decisions.

“It is more about competitiveness,” he said. “We have to compete with the (fast food) restaurant down the road.”

Cannell pointed out that customers do trust the scientists in this country to keep the beef safe, and that played a part in consumer confidence after a U.S. cow was determined to have BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in December 2003 - often referred to as the “Christmas cow.” However, McDonald's in other countries definitely suffered after BSE, he said.

Allen Bright, a cattle producer from western Nebraska who is on the staff at the U.S. Animal Identification Organization (USAIO), said identifying animals is still 15 to 20 years away in this country.
( System now is no longer working or being Used)

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) began the USAIO, and one of its members sits on the board, but the NCBA doesn't manage the program.

One of the main tenets of the USAIO is that state health authorities need to have access to records about animals in order to protect the beef industry, but the state veterinarian and producers are the only ones who should have access to this information.

As a private, non-profit organization, there is a cost to producers who choose to take part in the USAIO's animal I.D. program that hovers in the to 30 cents (per head) range,” Bright said. The USAIO's database records an animal's identification number, premise and movement data, he said.

Cost is a major concern for producers regarding a national identification program, Bright said.

“When you talk about identifying, what are we talking about? If we had every cow in all the breeding stocks identified - well, we have longhorn cows in this country that are 19 years old and still having calves. We have Angus cows 14 to 15 years old having calves,” he said.

“We'll never be able to identify all cattle even if we force a mandatory branding system on states,” he added.

The NCBA has adopted a “voluntary” animal identification program.

But Bright said the technology available for animal identification currently is not ready yet and that some are not affordable.

Demonstrations of the current technology took place in the DSU ag arena. The low frequency ear tags required the purchase of a reader to read each calf's identification number. That number was then inputted into a computer software program, which corresponded to data available on the calf.

Since calves are so mobile, each one was run through a chute where its head was anchored to read the tags. A concern with these tags is the reader has to be held within 3 inches of the calf's ear for the number to register. (Not Anymore since I.D.ology RFID reader works at -30 below 0 and the reader operates out a 2ft. plus reading distance at 100% read rate. )

DSU demonstrated a high frequency tag where about 40 head of cattle wearing the tags were run back and forth from one pen to another. The tags proved accurate ? percent of the time,” and several calves' tags could be read at once from a distance of several feet away. However, the technology still needs to be developed to reduce the size of the tag and to reduce the costs.

Bright said animal identification is “well respected as a way of protecting our markets.” One proof of that was with the brucellosis project, where cattle could not be shipped into other states unless they had been vaccinated.

Wade Moser, executive vice-president of the N.D. Stockmen's Association, said the cost of any identification program needs to be “known and built into the (animal I.D.) system.”

Not every producer can afford the USAIO's program - nor wants it. Many breeders have a data program that comes from their own breed association.

Dr. Richard Bowman, chair of the R-CALF USA Animal I.D. committee, said the organization has been involved with animal identification for a long time, well before the “Christmas cow.” Diseases such as foot and mouth could have a “devastating effect on individuals and the industry as a whole if there was an outbreak,” he said.

Health protection was the original focus of animal I.D., and “misconceptions” didn't arise until the marketing concept was introduced, Bright pointed out. When the USDA went mandatory, that caused further concern about the health I.D. program. The current program has been muddled with electronic identification that is a “difficult way (of identification) and not all that efficient,” Bowman said.

There are simpler programs that would work on a national level such as those recommended by the N.D. Stockmen's (branding and premise) and other proven devices such as metal clips in the ears, according to Bowman.

“Our goal is to develop a system that could talk to each other (such as Nebraska's program being able to correspond directly with Alabama's program). All the tagging systems need to have the same type of infrastructure. Everybody needs to be on the same page,” Bowman said.

He added that there were limited state and federal funds out there for an I.D. program, and public funds need to be funneled into the “animal health issue for the public good.”

Bowman said that identification cannot be market driven.

“I don't think that's what the producers want,” he said. The market will pay for its own identification program, he added. “The new technology will spread once people see the premiums in the marketplace.”

Roger Johnson, North Dakota ag commissioner, said health information is the only information gathering that is going on in North Dakota at a state level.

“That's the way the federal government should go, too,” Johnson said.

Bright agreed, saying in Nebraska, producers do not feel the feds are entitled to private information.

“We feel it's our information and you are not entitled to it,” he said. “Confidentiality is an issue to the majority of producers, and when the majority of producers want it, we'd better listen.”
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The Montana senators, Sen. Craig Thomas and Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and senators from North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and New Mexico have submitted this legislation, Senate Bill 404. If labeling is good enough for T-shirts, it is good enough for T-bones, noted Thomas.

“It’s a disgrace that this labeling has been delayed,” added Baucus.



Congress passed the Country-of-Origin Labeling law in 2002, requiring retailers to notify consumers of the country-of-origin of beef, pork, lamb, produce, peanuts and seafood.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Mandatory country of origin labeling is moving toward implementation over the next year and a half, but with some changes, according to Bruce Knight, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

“I’ll be going through things to see if there’s options for flexibility or not,” Knight told Brownfield Tuesday in Jefferson City, Missouri.

Whether people embrace the issue or not, Knight says those who are on middle ground are rare, and most do not like the original proposed rule because of its exemptions of poultry and retail food service items.

“I want to re-launch that rule making process, I want to go through a robust economic analysis (and) figure out how to make this law that’s on the books workable and implementable by September 30, 2008,” Knight said.

The administration stance is that COOL should be voluntary and market driven, according to Knight, however he says consumers are not willing to voluntarily pay for a “grown-in-the-U.S.” label.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Mandatory country of origin labeling is moving toward implementation over the next year and a half, but with some changes, according to Bruce Knight, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

“I’ll be going through things to see if there’s options for flexibility or not,” Knight told Brownfield Tuesday in Jefferson City, Missouri.

Whether people embrace the issue or not, Knight says those who are on middle ground are rare, and most do not like the original proposed rule because of its exemptions of poultry and retail food service items.

“I want to re-launch that rule making process, I want to go through a robust economic analysis (and) figure out how to make this law that’s on the books workable and implementable by September 30, 2008,” Knight said.

The administration stance is that COOL should be voluntary and market driven, according to Knight, however he says consumers are not willing to voluntarily pay for a “grown-in-the-U.S.” label.

While at the same time Checkoff money will not be allowed to be used to advertise for this. There are A LOT of people who will bypass S. American beef that they know is being used which depletes rain forests. There is another case to be made that shipments from Australia will make the ground beef less fresh.

The packer driven USDA will not allow perceptions of consumers to be aware of these differences with the Beef Checkoff. It is not in the best interest of the major packers who have overseas operations.

NCBA is limp on being effective in these matters because they don't see the opportunity and don't want to put forward producer interests over packer interests.

Of course, they will always have MRJ.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ, you need to draw a long, slow, cleansing breath between each of your posts. Give your computer time to cool down a bit! Give others a chance to make a post. Give us all a chance to see what people other than 'serial posters' like you have to say.

Maybe with a little time to think and do some research, you will understand the law creating the Beef Checkoff is very clear about what it may and may not be used for. That was crafted by and for CATTLE PRODUCERS from many organizations across the nation after voluntary checkoff programs were found less effective than desired.

You do not even make it clear what you mean by saying "Checkoff money will not be allowed to be used to advertise for this". Advertise for what? M-COOL? Changes to the rules for M-COOL? An economic analysis of M-COOL? Do you want the beef checkoff to advertise to keep exemptions of poultry and retail food service beef exempt from COOL? Or to keep M-COOL voluntary and market driven? Or should we use beef checkoff $$$ to advertise against "Rain Forest beef" for the EPA and Peta? What do you want? Get a grip, man!

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ, you need to draw a long, slow, cleansing breath between each of your posts. Give your computer time to cool down a bit! Give others a chance to make a post. Give us all a chance to see what people other than 'serial posters' like you have to say.

Maybe with a little time to think and do some research, you will understand the law creating the Beef Checkoff is very clear about what it may and may not be used for. That was crafted by and for CATTLE PRODUCERS from many organizations across the nation after voluntary checkoff programs were found less effective than desired.

You do not even make it clear what you mean by saying "Checkoff money will not be allowed to be used to advertise for this". Advertise for what? M-COOL? Changes to the rules for M-COOL? An economic analysis of M-COOL? Do you want the beef checkoff to advertise to keep exemptions of poultry and retail food service beef exempt from COOL? Or to keep M-COOL voluntary and market driven? Or should we use beef checkoff $$$ to advertise against "Rain Forest beef" for the EPA and Peta? What do you want? Get a grip, man!

MRJ

MRJ, I believe that if cattlemen are paying for the advertising for their product, they should get the benefits for that advertising. You don't. You want to share it with the packers, foreign beef, and beef in general. Cattlemen don't sell beef, they sell cattle. The Checkoff money comes from cattlemen, not beef (packer checkoff) You think the world should get those benefits. How much has Australia chipped in to marketing beef in the U.S.? You overlook so many things it makes me wonder about your banking prowess.

Advertising against rain forest beef is not for the benefit of peta, or the epa. All advertising is for the benefit of those who are paying for that advertising. It astounds me that you want to give it all away. Whose money is it? Do you even know the concept of stewardship?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Econ, you need to draw a long, slow, cleansing breath between each of your posts. Give your computer time to cool down a bit! Give others a chance to make a post. Give us all a chance to see what people other than 'serial posters' like you have to say.

Maybe with a little time to think and do some research, you will understand the law creating the Beef Checkoff is very clear about what it may and may not be used for. That was crafted by and for CATTLE PRODUCERS from many organizations across the nation after voluntary checkoff programs were found less effective than desired.

You do not even make it clear what you mean by saying "Checkoff money will not be allowed to be used to advertise for this". Advertise for what? M-COOL? Changes to the rules for M-COOL? An economic analysis of M-COOL? Do you want the beef checkoff to advertise to keep exemptions of poultry and retail food service beef exempt from COOL? Or to keep M-COOL voluntary and market driven? Or should we use beef checkoff $$$ to advertise against "Rain Forest beef" for the EPA and Peta? What do you want? Get a grip, man!

MRJ

MRJ- Hopefully you are acting dumber than you are--but remember 92% of US checkoff payers polled in the USDA poll wanted their money to go toward promoting Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the USA BEEF-- and in order to do this the USDA needs to implement COOL....Even over 70% would give up the money raised from the import checkoff to promote US beef over the cheap imports.....

This is what USDA, The Beef Board, and NCBA should be listening to......
 

mrj

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MRJ said:
Econ, you need to draw a long, slow, cleansing breath between each of your posts. Give your computer time to cool down a bit! Give others a chance to make a post. Give us all a chance to see what people other than 'serial posters' like you have to say.

Maybe with a little time to think and do some research, you will understand the law creating the Beef Checkoff is very clear about what it may and may not be used for. That was crafted by and for CATTLE PRODUCERS from many organizations across the nation after voluntary checkoff programs were found less effective than desired.

You do not even make it clear what you mean by saying "Checkoff money will not be allowed to be used to advertise for this". Advertise for what? M-COOL? Changes to the rules for M-COOL? An economic analysis of M-COOL? Do you want the beef checkoff to advertise to keep exemptions of poultry and retail food service beef exempt from COOL? Or to keep M-COOL voluntary and market driven? Or should we use beef checkoff $$$ to advertise against "Rain Forest beef" for the EPA and Peta? What do you want? Get a grip, man!

MRJ

MRJ- Hopefully you are acting dumber than you are--but remember 92% of US checkoff payers polled in the USDA poll wanted their money to go toward promoting Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the USA BEEF-- and in order to do this the USDA needs to implement COOL....Even over 70% would give up the money raised from the import checkoff to promote US beef over the cheap imports.....

This is what USDA, The Beef Board, and NCBA should be listening to......


You may need to read the full report, which I've not yet done myself, but have been told that there were some definite qualifications by those responding which make the numbers you quote much less "impressive".

You apparently fail to understand that large scale changes to the beef checkoff cannot be made immediately even if they are requested by a poll, but require the law to be opened up to Congress to approve such changes.

More later on this, for sure!

MRJ
 

PORKER

Well-known member
CBW Exclusive: COOL implementation could mean recalls



(MEATPOULTRY.com, February 26, 2007)
by MEAT&POULTRY Staff



By Steve Kay (Cattle Buyers Weekly)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture might have a headache on its hands if mandatory Country of Origin Labeling is implemented as currently written. As CBW previously reported (Feb. 19, 2007), the law is due to be implemented on Oct. 1, 2008. CBW has learned that companies would have to institute a Class 3 recall of product that was mislabeled as to its country of origin. For example, a packer might put into commerce a beef product saying it was a U.S. product (under the law’s current definition, it would have to be from cattle born, raised and processed in the United States).

For more information, visit Cattle Buyers Weekly (www.cattlebuyersweekly.com).
 

Econ101

Well-known member
PORKER said:
CBW Exclusive: COOL implementation could mean recalls



(MEATPOULTRY.com, February 26, 2007)
by MEAT&POULTRY Staff



By Steve Kay (Cattle Buyers Weekly)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture might have a headache on its hands if mandatory Country of Origin Labeling is implemented as currently written. As CBW previously reported (Feb. 19, 2007), the law is due to be implemented on Oct. 1, 2008. CBW has learned that companies would have to institute a Class 3 recall of product that was mislabeled as to its country of origin. For example, a packer might put into commerce a beef product saying it was a U.S. product (under the law’s current definition, it would have to be from cattle born, raised and processed in the United States).

For more information, visit Cattle Buyers Weekly (www.cattlebuyersweekly.com).

You mean that truth in labeling may actually have an economic impact to those who are not truthful? How impetuous can we be!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think MCOOL should include poultry and poultry products. It is a big loophole for poultry companies. Poultry is a meat, why shouldn't it be?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
I think that the Safe Food ACT in congress now addresses that Econ101. Poultry is just another meat.Changes to the rules for M-COOL !
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Safe Food Act will create Random inspection of all food processing plants, the increased oversight of imported foods, and the adoption of more stringent standards for tracing foods to their point of origin.

Lawmakers are hoping such a consolidation would eliminate the bureaucratic confusion caused by the existing setup.

We don't need removing ground beef from the labeling requirements and relaxing what U.S. beef means.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ, you need to draw a long, slow, cleansing breath between each of your posts. Give your computer time to cool down a bit! Give others a chance to make a post. Give us all a chance to see what people other than 'serial posters' like you have to say.

Maybe with a little time to think and do some research, you will understand the law creating the Beef Checkoff is very clear about what it may and may not be used for. That was crafted by and for CATTLE PRODUCERS from many organizations across the nation after voluntary checkoff programs were found less effective than desired.

You do not even make it clear what you mean by saying "Checkoff money will not be allowed to be used to advertise for this". Advertise for what? M-COOL? Changes to the rules for M-COOL? An economic analysis of M-COOL? Do you want the beef checkoff to advertise to keep exemptions of poultry and retail food service beef exempt from COOL? Or to keep M-COOL voluntary and market driven? Or should we use beef checkoff $$$ to advertise against "Rain Forest beef" for the EPA and Peta? What do you want? Get a grip, man!

MRJ

MRJ, I believe that if cattlemen are paying for the advertising for their product, they should get the benefits for that advertising. You don't. You want to share it with the packers, foreign beef, and beef in general. Cattlemen don't sell beef, they sell cattle. The Checkoff money comes from cattlemen, not beef (packer checkoff) You think the world should get those benefits. How much has Australia chipped in to marketing beef in the U.S.? You overlook so many things it makes me wonder about your banking prowess.

Advertising against rain forest beef is not for the benefit of peta, or the epa. All advertising is for the benefit of those who are paying for that advertising. It astounds me that you want to give it all away. Whose money is it? Do you even know the concept of stewardship?


Econ, you still look to be hallucinating. Do you have a fever?

Do you pay anthing into the beef checkoff? I do. There are ranchers far wiser and more educated than you or I who run the checkoff programs and most understand full well that advertising and selling more beef, even imported beef, is better for US cattle producers than if LESS beef is sold. Is there a surplus of beef rotting in the stores? I don't think so. It is all being sold.

Cattle producers who do not understand that they DO sell beef and that the CONSUMER is their customer do not even deserve to stay in business, IMO.

It seem quite obvious you want cattle producers to stay down on the farm, not bother with any silly checkoff, and just haul our cattle in to the auction barn, ask "what will you give for them?" and go home happy while you or some other 'order buyer' and the auction barn owners pocket the easiest money in the business.

BTW, I'm NOT the banker in the family, and still I can understand that advertising beef pays all the players, while you insist it only benefits all segments of the industry above the cattle producer! Silly you!

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ
BTW, I'm NOT the banker in the family, and still I can understand that advertising beef pays all the players, while you insist it only benefits all segments of the industry above the cattle producer! Silly you!

Just like selling more pickups pays off for all players- Dodge, GM, and Ford....But you don't see Dodge buying ads for GM pickups, or GM buying ads for Dodge Rams....They know that they get the biggest return for their buck by advertising their own product.....

And since I don't raise Mexican, or Uruguain, or Australian beef I want my buck spent to advertise Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the USA BEEF....Instead of advertising every piece of meat that the Tyson/Swift/Cargil/etal crew want to drag across the border and sell......

Just common sense- something NCBA lost when they sold their souls to the Packer boys.....
 

Jason

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
MRJ
BTW, I'm NOT the banker in the family, and still I can understand that advertising beef pays all the players, while you insist it only benefits all segments of the industry above the cattle producer! Silly you!

Just like selling more pickups pays off for all players- Dodge, GM, and Ford....But you don't see Dodge buying ads for GM pickups, or GM buying ads for Dodge Rams....They know that they get the biggest return for their buck by advertising their own product.....

And since I don't raise Mexican, or Uruguain, or Australian beef I want my buck spent to advertise Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the USA BEEF....Instead of advertising every piece of meat that the Tyson/Swift/Cargil/etal crew want to drag across the border and sell......

Just common sense- something NCBA lost when they sold their souls to the Packer boys.....

Is US beef as unique as Chev is compared to Ford or Dodge? Each automaker advertises best in class.

CAB, CHB, Laura's Lean, those are brands comparable to Chev, Ford and Dodge. Brand specific advertising has to have something to differentiate it from their competition.

"US beef it ain't high quality Canadian". There's your first slogan OT, no charge.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ, you need to draw a long, slow, cleansing breath between each of your posts. Give your computer time to cool down a bit! Give others a chance to make a post. Give us all a chance to see what people other than 'serial posters' like you have to say.

Maybe with a little time to think and do some research, you will understand the law creating the Beef Checkoff is very clear about what it may and may not be used for. That was crafted by and for CATTLE PRODUCERS from many organizations across the nation after voluntary checkoff programs were found less effective than desired.

You do not even make it clear what you mean by saying "Checkoff money will not be allowed to be used to advertise for this". Advertise for what? M-COOL? Changes to the rules for M-COOL? An economic analysis of M-COOL? Do you want the beef checkoff to advertise to keep exemptions of poultry and retail food service beef exempt from COOL? Or to keep M-COOL voluntary and market driven? Or should we use beef checkoff $$$ to advertise against "Rain Forest beef" for the EPA and Peta? What do you want? Get a grip, man!

MRJ

MRJ, I believe that if cattlemen are paying for the advertising for their product, they should get the benefits for that advertising. You don't. You want to share it with the packers, foreign beef, and beef in general. Cattlemen don't sell beef, they sell cattle. The Checkoff money comes from cattlemen, not beef (packer checkoff) You think the world should get those benefits. How much has Australia chipped in to marketing beef in the U.S.? You overlook so many things it makes me wonder about your banking prowess.

Advertising against rain forest beef is not for the benefit of peta, or the epa. All advertising is for the benefit of those who are paying for that advertising. It astounds me that you want to give it all away. Whose money is it? Do you even know the concept of stewardship?


Econ, you still look to be hallucinating. Do you have a fever?

Do you pay anthing into the beef checkoff? I do. There are ranchers far wiser and more educated than you or I who run the checkoff programs and most understand full well that advertising and selling more beef, even imported beef, is better for US cattle producers than if LESS beef is sold. Is there a surplus of beef rotting in the stores? I don't think so. It is all being sold.

Cattle producers who do not understand that they DO sell beef and that the CONSUMER is their customer do not even deserve to stay in business, IMO.

It seem quite obvious you want cattle producers to stay down on the farm, not bother with any silly checkoff, and just haul our cattle in to the auction barn, ask "what will you give for them?" and go home happy while you or some other 'order buyer' and the auction barn owners pocket the easiest money in the business.

BTW, I'm NOT the banker in the family, and still I can understand that advertising beef pays all the players, while you insist it only benefits all segments of the industry above the cattle producer! Silly you!

MRJ


MRJ, I hope you are on some kind of medication so you can have an excuse for what you are saying!!!

When a bank advertises interest rates on CDS, does it advertise interest rates of banks in general, or of interest rates in their bank with their advertising dollar?

When a grocer advertises prices in its store, does it advertise groceries in all stores? After all, if people buy more groceries, they will benefit. Does Peter Pan advertise for all peanut butter or for their brand? What about Charmin?, BBQ sauce, Mayo, or any other product?

While you are at this line of thinking, maybe the checkoff should advertise just eating more meat. That includes poultry, lamb and pork. Wouldn't this accomplish the same effect you are advocating?

Does Tyson, Perdue, or Goldkist advertise generic chicken? Get a clue, MRJ, putting marketing in your hands is like a sharpshooter putting a gun in a 5 year old's hand and expecting a bulls eye. The goal is admirable but the reality is ignorant.

With people like you in the NCBA, there is no hope that producers can be intelligently represented. You are nothing more than a dummy being managed by those who are much smarter than you. You would think 63 years would make you smarter than that.

There is a distinct possibility that product differentiation and separate advertising may increase the consumption of beef. Differentiation allows the advertising dollar go to those who are paying for those advertising dollars. Branded beef programs all have this in common. They advertise THEIR OWN PRODUCT. Why are you so dense?
 
Top