• 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 COUNTRY OF ORGIN

M... COOL CREATES FAIRNESS

  • YES... LET THE CONSUMER DECIDE

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO...IT IS UNNECESSARY

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
In every American supermarket, labels tell shoppers where their seafood came from, but there are no such labels for meat, produce or nuts.

Behind the contradiction is a lesson in political power in Washington, D.C., where lobbyists and members of Congress have managed to hold off the enforcement of a five-year-old law that required country-of-origin labeling on meat and produce as well as fish.

Now, with Democrats in control of Congress and mounting questions about the safety of food imported from China, proponents of the labeling law say they believe that they finally have momentum on their side.

After all, they say, at a time when consumers are ever more concerned about where their food is coming from, why not just tell them on the package?

“No. 1, there’s a basic consumer right to know,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, an advocacy group that publishes Consumer Reports magazine and supports the labeling law. “People are more and more concerned about the food they eat.”

Yet the labeling law has formidable foes, including the meat lobby, which so far has outmaneuvered its opponents on Capitol Hill. In the years since the labeling law was enacted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, its opponents have successfully blocked all but seafood labeling from taking effect.

Opponents of the law say they believe that it is too onerous and expensive and is simply a way for American farmers and ranchers to block cheaper foreign competitors.

Besides, they contend, retailers can voluntarily offer country-of-origin labels, as they do with hormone-free milk and organic foods.

“No one was prohibited from putting labels on products,” said former Representative Henry Bonilla, Republican of Texas, who as head of the appropriations subcommittee on agriculture pushed through delays of mandatory origin labeling. “If consumers wanted this, they could have demanded it.”

Critics say meatpackers simply do not want consumers to know that an increasing amount of hamburger meat and produce is being imported.

The fate of the country-of-origin labeling, known as COOL for short, will likely be resolved in the coming months as Congress rewrites farm policy.

The battle over the labeling law comes at a time when American farmers are facing increasing competition from all corners of the world: soybeans from Brazil, wheat from Ukraine and apples from China, to name a few. American consumers, meanwhile, are eating more food grown and processed overseas.

During the last decade, the value of imported food has roughly doubled, to $65.3 billion in 2006.

The meat lobby has historically been a powerful and efficient operation in Washington, with deep ties to Capitol Hill and the Department of Agriculture. Along with the grocery industry, the meat lobby has waged an effective campaign to stymie efforts to carry out the law.

The law required country-of-origin labeling on beef, pork, lamb, fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood and peanuts. To date, the debate has mainly been driven by the meat industry, with the produce and peanut industries playing a much quieter role.

The biggest supporters of the labeling law in Congress come from Great Plains states where ranchers face stiff competition from Canada.

A central reason the seafood labeling was pushed through in 2005 was Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, who was chairman of the powerful Senate Committee on Appropriations at the time. He went to bat for Alaska fishermen, who benefited from a provision in the law that fish and shellfish include not only country of origin but whether it was farm-raised or caught in the wild.

Today, both sides of the debate over origin labeling contend that the seafood labels support their arguments.

For instance, in March, the Food Marketing Institute, a trade organization, said seafood labeling had cost 10 times more than original estimates and failed to increase sales of American seafood.

The United Fishermen of Alaska tell a different story, saying that origin labeling has increased demand and prices for their wild salmon. And with the current concerns over Chinese seafood, labeling of seafood gives consumers the option to buy something else, advocates say.

The push for origin labeling started in the mid-1990s, when cattle ranchers grew frustrated by the influx of imported beef, particularly from Canada, as a result of trade agreements that opened the border to imports.

The thinking behind the proposal was that, given a choice, consumers would likely choose products from the United States over imported ones, even if they cost more. Origin labeling is not just about patriotism or a desire to help American farmers. Part of its appeal is better food oversight, and some proponents of the measure have played to consumer anxiety by calling into question the safety of meat from places like Mexico, Uruguay and Canada. China exports a negligible amount of meat to the United States.

“The consumer, upon seeing the U.S.D.A. label, would naturally presume that it’s a U.S. product,” said Bill Bullard, chief executive of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal fund, United Stockgrowers of America, an organization of cattle ranchers better known as R-Calf. He said the effect for meatpackers was that “they are able to bring in a cheaper product and sell it under the reputation of the U.S. cattle industry.”

Opponents of origin labeling say the measure is simply protectionism, aided by false claims about imported products. American meatpackers may stop buying imported cattle altogether given the costs of segregating and keeping track of such products.

They also say it would be difficult and expensive to label ground meat like hamburger, since it often includes meat from different cows.

“They talk about how the quality is better in the United States,” said Mark D. Dopp, senior vice president for regulator affairs and general counsel for the American Meat Institute, a trade group. “The standards are all the same. For these people to talk about how all this inferior product is coming in, it’s just nonsense.”

Legislation for origin labeling floundered until the 2002 Farm Bill was coming together, in part because of a strong push by Thomas A. Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, where support for the labeling law is strong. As a compromise, origin labeling was made voluntary for the first two years before becoming mandatory in 2004.

Those efforts were quickly undone by the meat lobby.

Just after the law was passed, the secretary of agriculture at the time, Ann M. Veneman, called it “unfortunate” and suggested that origin labeling could violate trade agreements, drawing a strong rebuke from the law’s advocates in Congress.

During Veneman’s tenure, the top ranks of the Department of Agriculture included executives with ties to the meatpacking industry. For instance, her chief of staff, Dale Moore, was the former head of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The same trade group employed her director of communications, Alisa Harrison, and the deputy under secretary, Charles Lambert, who would have overseen the origin labeling program.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which represents both ranchers and meatpackers, opposes origin labeling.

The Department of Agriculture estimated that the cost of paperwork to manage the program in its first year would be $1.9 billion, a figure the Government Accountability Office said was questionable and not supported by the agency’s records.

The real undoing of origin labeling occurred in Congress.

In 2003, a year before the labeling was supposed to go into effect, Bonilla pushed through a delay of mandatory origin labeling for another two years.

Two years later, again largely because of Bonilla’s efforts, the House passed an appropriations bill that prohibited the Department of Agriculture from spending money to put into effect origin labeling until September 2007.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign spending, Bonilla received $158,328 in campaign funds in 2006 from the livestock industry, making him the top recipient in Congress. He was also the top recipient of campaign funds from the livestock industry in 2004, with $132,900, and ranked second in 2002, with $78,350.

Bonilla, who was defeated in 2006 by Ciro Rodriguez, said it was common for committee chairmen to receive contributions from the industries that they oversee. Besides, he said his Congressional district was a huge cattle ranching and agricultural region.

Bonilla does not dispute that he delayed the labeling law from taking effect, but he said it was a bad idea that would be costly to not only cattle producers and meatpackers but grocery stores as well.

Now, with Democrats in charge of Congress, advocates of the labeling law are trying to mount their own lobbying and public relations blitz on Capitol Hill. And for now, they are receiving a warmer welcome from some Congressional leaders.

For instance, Bonilla’s successor on the subcommittee, Representative Rosa L. DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, is a supporter of the labeling law. Ms. DeLauro received $100,750 in campaign contributions from agribusiness in her 2006 campaign, $4,000 of which came from the livestock industry.

“There will be mandatory COOL by 2008 at the latest,” she said.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Label the all the beef to the country it was processed including American and then put it in the meatcase with all the chicken that doesn't have that extra cost attached.

THEN let the consumer decide if consumers want US or Canadian or some other beef or a cheaper protien source.

According to Sadhusker and OVI ALL US BEEF will also have to be labeled product of USA. No generic no-name beef in the cooler.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill, think about this; Tyson sells beef and chicken. They make more money on chicken. You and your one-man "foundation" claim COOL puts beef at a disadvantage to chicken. Now why is Tyson still against it? Either Tyson doesn't understand what helps and hurts them or Dittmer is spreading crap and you're buying it.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill, think about this; Tyson sells beef and chicken. They make more money on chicken. You and your one-man "foundation" claim COOL puts beef at a disadvantage to chicken. Now why is Tyson still against it? Either Tyson doesn't understand what helps and hurts them or Dittmer is spreading crap and you're buying it.

The question when comparing chicken and beef is not what Tyson makes on one or the other but how much do YOU OR I make off chicken Sadhusker? I make absolutely zilch off chicken so I see them as being in direct competition with me. If something influences beef prices negatively and not chicken I question it. I don't blame Tyson or Dittmer in some feeble attempt to deflect attention to the obvious. One meat will have extra costs attached to it and one won't.

I don't trust Dittmer's every word just as I have learned that Bankers also damn sure look after themselves first. What's your real agenda for spending all the Banks time that you do on this site. If I was a customer of your bank's I would ask what the heck I am paying you for and if you have that much spare time is your position even necessary? Does the bank support it or is that part of your job description to try drum up support for organizations such as R-Calf?
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Bill,you remind me of one of them chickens you keep comparing beef to,comparing beef to chicken is like comparing ...night to day,you have a lame argument at best,and since you are giving advice on productivity,might I suggest the time you spend here would be better served positioning yourself for the COOL law,maybe chickens ?.............good luck
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Go on a personal attack like SH liked to and you'll end up with the same credibility.

You didn't get what I said. Tyson makes more money selling chicken than they do beef. If COOL just makes beef more expensive, people will go to the competing meat, chicken, and Tyson will make more money selling the higher margin product. If that is the case, why isn't Tyson pushing COOL instead of fighting it? The answer is obvious.

Just like Walmart, Tyson knows the money is made in the buying, not the selling. Without COOL, they can buy the cheapest beef in the world to sell - and I guarantee that the US nor Canada will have the cheapest beef. COOL throws water on that plan because an informed consumer likely won't want the world's cheapest beef dujour. If you're fighting COOL, you're just picking up the packers gun and pointing it to your own head.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
If you're fighting COOL, you're just picking up the packers gun and pointing it to your own head.

Thats the part with the Canadians I just can't understand...Why they think they need the USDA stamp and their beef passed off as US Beef in order to sell it....

I would think with the quality of barley fattened beef they sell they would want folks to know the truth- and what is Canadian beef....But the Bills of the north are afraid to put their beef up against the Mex, US, or South American openly labeled as such....
 

Bill

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Bill,you remind me of one of them chickens you keep comparing beef to,comparing beef to chicken is like comparing ...night to day,you have a lame argument at best,and since you are giving advice on productivity,might I suggest the time you spend here would be better served positioning yourself for the COOL law,maybe chickens ?.............good luck

Canadian beef is labeled product of Canada and what we sell locally has our own stamp on it. We pay checkoff on everything we sell and support the Beef Information Centre.

What more do you want?

How much beef so you sell that carries your farm name Hayseed? Or are you like OVI and simply not raise Beefs?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Do your COOL and see what happens. The fear of canadian cattlemen is not that Canadian beef won't outsell the US beef but that corrupt and inept goverment officials controlled by extremeist groups will see how canadian beef is starting to dominate the US market will start switching labels and put COOL Canadian origin labels on 3rd world beef to discredit canadian beef. This is what will happen make my words.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Do your COOL and see what happens. The fear of canadian cattlemen is not that Canadian beef won't outsell the US beef but that corrupt and inept goverment officials controlled by extremeist groups will see how canadian beef is starting to dominate the US market will start switching labels and put COOL Canadian origin labels on 3rd world beef to discredit canadian beef. This is what will happen make my words.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Bill said:
HAY MAKER said:
Bill,you remind me of one of them chickens you keep comparing beef to,comparing beef to chicken is like comparing ...night to day,you have a lame argument at best,and since you are giving advice on productivity,might I suggest the time you spend here would be better served positioning yourself for the COOL law,maybe chickens ?.............good luck

Canadian beef is labeled product of Canada and what we sell locally has our own stamp on it. We pay checkoff on everything we sell and support the Beef Information Centre.

What more do you want?

How much beef so you sell that carries your farm name Hayseed? Or are you like OVI and simply not raise Beefs?

You have known for years the Maple leaf label does not reach the American house wife.
You allowed your product to be passed of as "product of the USA",without a word.........now when your product is going to be labeled,you start hollering and whining,what does that say about ole billy boy :D :D
good luck
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
QUESTION said:
Do your COOL and see what happens. The fear of canadian cattlemen is not that Canadian beef won't outsell the US beef but that corrupt and inept goverment officials controlled by extremeist groups will see how canadian beef is starting to dominate the US market will start switching labels and put COOL Canadian origin labels on 3rd world beef to discredit canadian beef. This is what will happen make my words.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now THAT my friends is an unfounded conspiracy! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Bill

Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:
Bill said:
HAY MAKER said:
Bill,you remind me of one of them chickens you keep comparing beef to,comparing beef to chicken is like comparing ...night to day,you have a lame argument at best,and since you are giving advice on productivity,might I suggest the time you spend here would be better served positioning yourself for the COOL law,maybe chickens ?.............good luck

Canadian beef is labeled product of Canada and what we sell locally has our own stamp on it. We pay checkoff on everything we sell and support the Beef Information Centre.

What more do you want?

How much beef so you sell that carries your farm name Hayseed? Or are you like OVI and simply not raise Beefs?

You have known for years the Maple leaf label does not reach the American house wife.
You allowed your product to be passed of as "product of the USA",without a word.........now when your product is going to be labeled,you start hollering and whining,what does that say about ole billy boy :D :D
good luck

While your still chirpin' Hayseed answer the question.

How much of the beef you produce carries your name. How much DO YOU identify as American or is even traceable back to your farm. Or are you afraid to be identified for what you produce?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? Or is it easier to whine about what the gov't should do for you.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19716

Basically these are AMERICAN companies and you blame and expect Canadians to hold them accountable BECAUSE you can't. :roll:
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote__"Thats the part with the Canadians I just can't understand...Why they think they need the USDA stamp and their beef passed off as US Beef in order to sell it...."


And obviously you never will! I believe the Canadian cattle producers would be proud, if the beef sold in the US, or any-other country, from the cattle they bred, raised and fed carried the Maple leaf.

The Canadians don't need the USDA stamp! The USDA stamp is required, by The Meat Inspection Act law passed by Congress in 1906.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ben Roberts said:
The Canadians don't need the USDA stamp! The USDA stamp is required, by The Meat Inspection Act law passed by Congress in 1906.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Wherein lies another FRAUD, because most of it is never looked at by a USDA inspector or US employee....

The product should receive the inspection stamp of the agency of the country that actually slaughters/manufactures it and inspects it-- CFIA, Mexican Graft Agency, Chinese Poisonadded Inc., whatever....

This stamping everything (imports) with a USDA/FDA label when 99.95% is never looked at by either agency is why we are going the direction we are on M-COOL- and what will eventually force everything to be IDed and labeled...It took poisoned dogs to do it- but they will get it done...
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Bill said:
HAY MAKER said:
Bill said:
Canadian beef is labeled product of Canada and what we sell locally has our own stamp on it. We pay checkoff on everything we sell and support the Beef Information Centre.

What more do you want?

How much beef so you sell that carries your farm name Hayseed? Or are you like OVI and simply not raise Beefs?

You have known for years the Maple leaf label does not reach the American house wife.
You allowed your product to be passed of as "product of the USA",without a word.........now when your product is going to be labeled,you start hollering and whining,what does that say about ole billy boy :D :D
good luck

While your still chirpin' Hayseed answer the question.

How much of the beef you produce carries your name. How much DO YOU identify as American or is even traceable back to your farm. Or are you afraid to be identified for what you produce?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? Or is it easier to whine about what the gov't should do for you.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19716

Basically these are AMERICAN companies and you blame and expect Canadians to hold them accountable BECAUSE you can't. :roll:

Dang you ramble on billy boy,it aint about identifying the best beef in America,its about identifying your's .........we want it labeled,and since you wont do it ..we will, its called M COOL :wink:
good luck
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote_"Wherein lies another FRAUD, because most of it is never looked at by a USDA inspector or US employee...."

So, sue them!

Oldtimer wrote_"The product should receive the inspection stamp of the agency of the country that actually slaughters/manufactures it and inspects it-- "

It does!


Oldtimer wrote_"This stamping everything (imports) with a USDA/FDA label when 99.95% is never looked at by either agency is why we are going the direction we are on M-COOL- and what will eventually force everything to be IDed and labeled...It took poisoned dogs to do it- but they will get it done..."[/quote]

Oldtimer, M-COOL became law with the 2002 Farm Bill, The law would have been implemented in 2008, poisoned dog or not.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Oldtimer wrote_"Wherein lies another FRAUD, because most of it is never looked at by a USDA inspector or US employee...."

So, sue them!

Oldtimer wrote_"The product should receive the inspection stamp of the agency of the country that actually slaughters/manufactures it and inspects it-- "

It does!


Oldtimer wrote_"This stamping everything (imports) with a USDA/FDA label when 99.95% is never looked at by either agency is why we are going the direction we are on M-COOL- and what will eventually force everything to be IDed and labeled...It took poisoned dogs to do it- but they will get it done..."

Oldtimer, M-COOL became law with the 2002 Farm Bill, The law would have been implemented in 2008, poisoned dog or not.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts[/quote]

Ben you just dont get it,The American rancher does not want to be economically integrated with any other country.
We are tired of these so called free trade agreements like nafta that are no ,more than a glorified shell game.
its obvious you come across as a self proclaimed trade expert,explain to me why R CALF is not the best route the US cattle men have at a fair shake .
What has Nafta done for the cattle man that I missed ?
good luck
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Hay Maker wrote_"Ben you just dont get it,The American rancher does not want to be economically integrated with any other country.
We are tired of these so called free trade agreements like nafta that are no ,more than a glorified shell game.
its obvious you come across as a self proclaimed trade expert,explain to me why R CALF is not the best route the US cattle men have at a fair shake .
What has Nafta done for the cattle man that I missed ?
good luck"[/quote]


Hay Maker, I couldn't agree with you more! I don't want to be economically integrated with any other country either!

The WTO, changed all of that for us though. The WTO is the most powerful legislative and judicial body in the world. By promoting the "free trade" agenda of multi-national corporations above the interests of local communties, working families and the environment. So you can be, as tired of these "free trade" agreements all you want. We are now forced to live in a global economy like it or not.

I'm not a self proclamed "trade expert" as you insinuate that I am.Nor, am I a selfish person, I would like to bring about changes that will ensure ourselves and future generations our proper place in this reconstructed society.

With "beef cow" numbers "world wide" at 224 million head and 29% of those "beef cows" being in China, 23% in Brazil and the United States with only 15% of the total. With the global demand of beef in the developing world by 2020, up 80% from 1995. I don't want to, or believe that cattle producers in the United States need to belong to a protectionist organization that is trying to shackle the very country that can help us compete in the global market place.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Ben Roberts said:
Hay Maker wrote_"Ben you just dont get it,The American rancher does not want to be economically integrated with any other country.
We are tired of these so called free trade agreements like nafta that are no ,more than a glorified shell game.
its obvious you come across as a self proclaimed trade expert,explain to me why R CALF is not the best route the US cattle men have at a fair shake .
What has Nafta done for the cattle man that I missed ?
good luck"


Hay Maker, I couldn't agree with you more! I don't want to be economically integrated with any other country either!

The WTO, changed all of that for us though. The WTO is the most powerful legislative and judicial body in the world. By promoting the "free trade" agenda of multi-national corporations above the interests of local communties, working families and the environment. So you can be, as tired of these "free trade" agreements all you want. We are now forced to live in a global economy like it or not.

I'm not a self proclamed "trade expert" as you insinuate that I am.Nor, am I a selfish person, I would like to bring about changes that will ensure ourselves and future generations our proper place in this reconstructed society.

With "beef cow" numbers "world wide" at 224 million head and 29% of those "beef cows" being in China, 23% in Brazil and the United States with only 15% of the total. With the global demand of beef in the developing world by 2020, up 80% from 1995. I don't want to, or believe that cattle producers in the United States need to belong to a protectionist organization that is trying to shackle the very country that can help us compete in the global market place.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts[/quote]

I dont believe in these packer paid economist forecasts,the so called developing world cannot afford to buy shoes much less beef,what makes you or anyone else think that will change after decades of poverty,all these so called trade agreements do is one thing..........allow the multinational corporations to capitalize on cheap labor/products and pass them off as made in America without labeling laws,this is why we need COOL and we need it now..............good luck
 
Top