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

MCOOL Final Rule - let the arguments begin.........

Kato

Well-known member
Final U.S. Country-of-Origin Labeling Rule Draws Criticisms
Email | Print | A A A

By Alan Bjerga

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Longtime supporters of U.S. regulations requiring meat and fresh produce to be labeled by country of origin say the government’s final rule on the matter doesn’t do enough to distinguish U.S. meat from competitors.

The rule announced today allows U.S. meat produced in a domestic facility that also is processing imported animals to carry a multicountry designation. That blurs the distinction between U.S. and foreign meat, according to critics, especially ranchers in northern states who compete with Canadian cattle. They pushed for a U.S.-only label to spur consumer purchases.

Country-of-origin labeling, also called COOL, “is supposed to let Americans know where their steaks come from, and to help American ranchers market their products,” said Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, in an e-mailed statement. “It’s not supposed to be complicated or watered- down.”

The labeling requirements will take effect March 16. They were originally passed as part of the 2002 farm bill and first took effect under an interim rule Sept. 30. Some lawmakers and consumer advocates have also criticized provisions in the rule that exempt mixed vegetables and many processed foods.

Meat companies have opposed the rule, saying it will result in additional expenses for labor, labels and changes to facilities needed to separate foreign and domestic products.

Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said the new rule should resolve many rancher and company concerns, especially if they focus on its purpose.

Not ‘Food-Safety’

“This is not a food-safety issue,” he told reporters last week. “This is not a competitive issue or trade issue. This is a marketing issue. This is the ability of U.S. producers to label our beef.”

The Canadian government, which was concerned that country- of-origin labeling would harm trade, said the new rule shouldn’t disrupt integration of the North American livestock industry.

“The bottom line is that the changes to the final rule will help to keep livestock trade moving throughout the integrated North American market and will benefit producers, consumers and processors,” said Stockwell Day, Canada’s minister of international trade.

Tom Buis, head of the National Farmers Union, the second- largest U.S. farmer group and one that often allies with the Democrats who control Congress, said he was disappointed with the final rule.

In a statement, Buis said the group “will not hesitate to go to Congress for changes” should it not be implemented “in the best interest of consumers, farmers and ranchers.”

COOL was also included in the 2008 farm bill passed in June. The final rule was posted on the department’s Web site today and is to be published in the Federal Register on Jan. 15.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Bush crew hasn't enforced a law the way it was written since day one of the Administration- and has sold their souls to the multinationals and big corporates in bending and breaking laws- so who would expect them to start following the law now...

Country-of-origin labeling, also called COOL, “is supposed to let Americans know where their steaks come from, and to help American ranchers market their products,” said Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, in an e-mailed statement. “It’s not supposed to be complicated or watered- down.”

In a statement, Buis said the group “will not hesitate to go to Congress for changes” should it not be implemented “in the best interest of consumers, farmers and ranchers.”


The good news is Bush will be gone in 7 days--and with it his crew of thumbsuckers...Hopefully some change will come about...Remember Obama was one of the large bunch of Senators that signed onto the protest letter when USDA/Johanns/Schaffer tried to do this originally...
 

Kato

Well-known member
But changing a final law is not quite the same as changing an interim rule. I guess we'll have to do as we're told and get used to it eh? :wink:

Now that the speculation is over, why don't we all just get down to the real business of fixing our mutual problems of corporate concentration, and lack of competition that we all live with every day?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
But changing a final law is not quite the same as changing an interim rule. I guess we'll have to do as we're told and get used to it eh? :wink:

This is only the final "rule" as designated by the current USDA..."Rules" and regulations can be changed without Congress ever taking action by the new Agriculture Secretary...Especially if he believes its contrary to the actual "law"....

I'm quite sure Tester isn't going to leave this- as this is his baby... And its my understanding he has both the new Interior Secretary and Ag Secretary coming to Montana for a visit in the near future....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
But changing a final law is not quite the same as changing an interim rule. I guess we'll have to do as we're told and get used to it eh? :wink:

Now that the speculation is over, why don't we all just get down to the real business of fixing our mutual problems of corporate concentration, and lack of competition that we all live with every day?

COOL is part of the solution in battling corporate concentration and lack of competition.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The final way it will end up isn't done yet...

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America


“Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer”



For Immediate Release Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
January 12, 2009 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Some Improvements Appear in Final COOL Rule; Significant Work Still Ahead



Billings, Mont. – Today, the public gets a glimpse into the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) final 260-page rule on mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) before official publication of the document in Thursday’s Federal Register.



“We see both good and bad in this final rule,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “One good development is that USDA adopted our request for visual inspections, thus allowing a producer to look at an animal and determine if it has any foreign markings. If it does not, the producer can sign an affidavit declaring the animal is exclusively of USA origin.



“USDA also removed the authorization that gave packers legal access to producers’ records and, instead, requires only that packers possess records, such as a producer affidavit, for purposes of verifying the origins of cattle, but USDA should have gone one step further to authorize packers to conduct the visual inspection of animals for foreign markings, thus eliminating the need for producer affidavits at all,” he continued.



“Additionally, USDA has eliminated the provision that would have allowed USA products to be exported to a foreign country for additional processing and then re-imported into the United States while still maintaining the USA label,” Bullard said. “Also, USDA took out the specific references to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The agency previously attempted to use NAIS as a ‘safe harbor’ provision for COOL, even though NAIS requires far more information than is required by the COOL law.”



One of the most disappointing findings, according to Bullard, is that USDA has kept in place the loophole that allows U.S. packers to commingle one foreign animal in each day’s production, thus allowing the packers to label the entire day’s production as ‘mixed-country product,’ even if everything except one animal were exclusively of USA origin.



Other contentious points in the rule include:



* Continuing to allow bulk containers, such as a full-service meat counter, to have a ‘mixed origin’ label, even if some of the products are USA products and some are foreign. The entire meat counter could be labeled as product of USA, Mexico and Canada.



* USDA has further catered to the interests of foreign countries by watering down the labeling requirements for animals imported for immediate slaughter. The earlier COOL rule required meat from those animals to be labeled as product of the foreign country and then the U.S., in that order, but this final rule allows USDA to change the order, listing the U.S. first, if again, the packers also are slaughtering foreign animals that were not imported for immediate slaughter during that production day. It allows packers to emphasize U.S. origins and de-emphasize foreign origins of the animal.



* USDA has retained its exclusion of covered commodities when they are subject to minor processing like cooking, smoking, curing, breading or adding tomato sauce, for instance, thus significantly limiting the scope of commodities subject to labeling requirements.



* USDA continues to allow ground beef processors to include the name of a country on a ground beef label for as long as 60 days after the processor discontinued sourcing product from the foreign country. This could allow a processor to include the USA label on a ground beef product even if no USA products were sourced during a 60-day period.



“We still have a lot of work to do to ensure that USA products are clearly and properly labeled for consumers who wish to purchase food from U.S. farmers and ranchers,” said Bullard. “For months now, the packers have been effectively desensitizing U.S. consumers by mislabeling USA beef as if it were a North American product (i.e., ‘Product of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico’).



This is wrong and we will go right back to Congress if the packers do not immediately cease this deceptive practice,” he emphasized. “Consumers have the right to know where their food comes from, and USDA and the packers shouldn’t deny them that right.”



Note: To view/download the final COOL rule, visit:

http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-00600_PI.pdf, or visit the “Country of Origin Labeling” link at www.r-calfusa.com.

# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA directors and committee chairs are extremely active unpaid volunteers. R-CALF USA has dozens of affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The final way it will end up isn't done yet...

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America


“Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer”



For Immediate Release Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
January 12, 2009 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Some Improvements Appear in Final COOL Rule; Significant Work Still Ahead



Billings, Mont. – Today, the public gets a glimpse into the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) final 260-page rule on mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) before official publication of the document in Thursday’s Federal Register.



“We see both good and bad in this final rule,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “One good development is that USDA adopted our request for visual inspections, thus allowing a producer to look at an animal and determine if it has any foreign markings. If it does not, the producer can sign an affidavit declaring the animal is exclusively of USA origin.



“USDA also removed the authorization that gave packers legal access to producers’ records and, instead, requires only that packers possess records, such as a producer affidavit, for purposes of verifying the origins of cattle, but USDA should have gone one step further to authorize packers to conduct the visual inspection of animals for foreign markings, thus eliminating the need for producer affidavits at all,” he continued.



“Additionally, USDA has eliminated the provision that would have allowed USA products to be exported to a foreign country for additional processing and then re-imported into the United States while still maintaining the USA label,” Bullard said. “Also, USDA took out the specific references to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The agency previously attempted to use NAIS as a ‘safe harbor’ provision for COOL, even though NAIS requires far more information than is required by the COOL law.”



One of the most disappointing findings, according to Bullard, is that USDA has kept in place the loophole that allows U.S. packers to commingle one foreign animal in each day’s production, thus allowing the packers to label the entire day’s production as ‘mixed-country product,’ even if everything except one animal were exclusively of USA origin.



Other contentious points in the rule include:



* Continuing to allow bulk containers, such as a full-service meat counter, to have a ‘mixed origin’ label, even if some of the products are USA products and some are foreign. The entire meat counter could be labeled as product of USA, Mexico and Canada.



* USDA has further catered to the interests of foreign countries by watering down the labeling requirements for animals imported for immediate slaughter. The earlier COOL rule required meat from those animals to be labeled as product of the foreign country and then the U.S., in that order, but this final rule allows USDA to change the order, listing the U.S. first, if again, the packers also are slaughtering foreign animals that were not imported for immediate slaughter during that production day. It allows packers to emphasize U.S. origins and de-emphasize foreign origins of the animal.



* USDA has retained its exclusion of covered commodities when they are subject to minor processing like cooking, smoking, curing, breading or adding tomato sauce, for instance, thus significantly limiting the scope of commodities subject to labeling requirements.



* USDA continues to allow ground beef processors to include the name of a country on a ground beef label for as long as 60 days after the processor discontinued sourcing product from the foreign country. This could allow a processor to include the USA label on a ground beef product even if no USA products were sourced during a 60-day period.



“We still have a lot of work to do to ensure that USA products are clearly and properly labeled for consumers who wish to purchase food from U.S. farmers and ranchers,” said Bullard. “For months now, the packers have been effectively desensitizing U.S. consumers by mislabeling USA beef as if it were a North American product (i.e., ‘Product of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico’).



This is wrong and we will go right back to Congress if the packers do not immediately cease this deceptive practice,” he emphasized. “Consumers have the right to know where their food comes from, and USDA and the packers shouldn’t deny them that right.”



Note: To view/download the final COOL rule, visit:

http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-00600_PI.pdf, or visit the “Country of Origin Labeling” link at www.r-calfusa.com.

# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA directors and committee chairs are extremely active unpaid volunteers. R-CALF USA has dozens of affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

The USDA leadership needs to be purged for some of the things they did with writing these rules. There also needs to be an investigation into why the USDA is not able to enforce the laws passed as intended. If some are being paid off or going through the revolving door or being influenced by managers who don't know how to regulate, let them name names or be fired and face possible jail time if they are being bribed.

Packers who are influencing anyone with their money and donations need to be taxed more for the increased costs of implementing these policies.

Any box labeled with more than one country should have an added 10 cents per lb. tax assessed. It should be increased to 20 cents per lb. if they don't straighten up. Additional ten cents per lb. as needed to make them tell the truth. You can't make lying pay.

Whoever came up with allowing the COOL to apply to the whole meat case should be fired. The 60 day rule is another joke by the USDA. Whoever pushed that one in the USDA should be fired and his/her last 60 days of pay withheld. Let them sue the USDA to get their pay. The Secretary of Agriculture should also be fired for that one. Not being nice here? Who cares. We need the government to do its job and if they can't why should they get paid?

We need to clean up government. Ignoring these behaviors only encourages them. An effective House or Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman would do these things, despite the poor job performance by the executive branch. If they don't find these things out, the party should replace them as committee chair for not doing their job.

It is time for results, not excuses.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
This Stinks ,

is that USDA has kept in place the loophole that allows U.S. packers to commingle one foreign animal in each day’s production, thus allowing the packers to label the entire day’s production as ‘mixed-country product,’ even if everything except one animal were exclusively of USA origin.

This is not RIGHT

COOL DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY ?&****%#?
 

gcreekrch

Well-known member
Funny, the news hasn't been full of Mr and Mrs consumer demanding that they know whether their beef and pork is US produced or otherwise. :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Oh oh, the protectionists are crying in their beers now...

Rod

Rod, who is being a protectionist? I just want the truth to be labeled on a product like the country it was produced and the company who produced it. If you call that protectionism then it seems you are not proud enough of your product for it to be on the market. Selling to the U.S. consumer is not a right but a privilege. If you can not be honest about your product and where it was produced, then it shouldn't be sold in the U.S. whether you are a different country or a different company. We also have labeling laws in the U.S. about nutrition facts that are required on products.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Produced. That's the magic word.

Define produced.

If a steer is converted to beef in the U.S. it is American beef. If an American steer is converted to beef in Canada it is Canadian beef. That's what both our countries agreed to.

A calf that has spent two thirds of it's life in the U.S., eating American feed in American feedlots, generating income for Americans is much more American than Canadian. America is where whatever that calf may end up becoming is influenced and determined. The calf is the raw material. The beef is the American product produced. The calf ceases to be Canadian as soon as it hits the feedbunk in that American feedlot, because it's now out of our control. It's your calf. Not ours anymore.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Kato said:
Produced. That's the magic word.

Define produced.

If a steer is converted to beef in the U.S. it is American beef. If an American steer is converted to beef in Canada it is Canadian beef. That's what both our countries agreed to.

A calf that has spent two thirds of it's life in the U.S., eating American feed in American feedlots, generating income for Americans is much more American than Canadian. America is where whatever that calf may end up becoming is influenced and determined. The calf is the raw material. The beef is the American product produced. The calf ceases to be Canadian as soon as it hits the feedbunk in that American feedlot, because it's now out of our control. It's your calf. Not ours anymore.

Why does it matter? If it is Canada's reputation that needs to be defended, start doing that. If you have a better bse testing program than what the USDA mandated was allowed for Creekstone, and you think that is a selling point, get bse tester's tests and start promoting tested beef.

You might do some good on both sides of the border.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
So Tex tell where that 16 oz T bone was produced when a 400lb calf went to Texas from Saskatchewan to graze Winter Wheat then up to Kansas to finish at 1400 lb and on to Colorado to slaughter?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
Produced. That's the magic word.

Define produced.

If a steer is converted to beef in the U.S. it is American beef. If an American steer is converted to beef in Canada it is Canadian beef. That's what both our countries agreed to.

A calf that has spent two thirds of it's life in the U.S., eating American feed in American feedlots, generating income for Americans is much more American than Canadian. America is where whatever that calf may end up becoming is influenced and determined. The calf is the raw material. The beef is the American product produced. The calf ceases to be Canadian as soon as it hits the feedbunk in that American feedlot, because it's now out of our control. It's your calf. Not ours anymore.

Give that explaination to the consumers who demanded COOL. I'm sure they would be amused at the accepted labeling system that brings them Canadian orange juice. :roll: :lol:
 

Kato

Well-known member
I bet if they were told the whole story they'd agree that I'm right.

Most consumers have no idea of how the cattle business operates. In fact, a lot of American consumers have no idea that we even grow anything up here. They just assume we hunt and fish and run around in the snow.

City people have gotten a long long way from knowing where food actually comes from, and I bet if you stopped people on the street in New York you'd find that a lot of people assume we all milk our cows. Pretty much every time we've been in the U.S. on holidays and told someone we raise cattle, nine out of ten people's first question is "Who's milking them while you're away?" Then they get a surprised look on their faces when we tell them the calves are doing it.

Try it next time you're on a vacation in a big city.

If they don't even know that the calves are milking the cows, why would they assume that the beef they are eating came from Canada as calves? They just don't have the whole story, and are assuming that every steak in the country came from animals born in the country. So if they don't know the cattle are imported live, why would they be demanding they be labeled Canadian? They are already assuming they were born in the U.S.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Kato said:
I bet if they were told the whole story they'd agree that I'm right.

Most consumers have no idea of how the cattle business operates. In fact, a lot of American consumers have no idea that we even grow anything up here. They just assume we hunt and fish and run around in the snow.

City people have gotten a long long way from knowing where food actually comes from, and I bet if you stopped people on the street in New York you'd find that a lot of people assume we all milk our cows. Pretty much every time we've been in the U.S. on holidays and told someone we raise cattle, nine out of ten people's first question is "Who's milking them while you're away?" Then they get a surprised look on their faces when we tell them the calves are doing it.

Try it next time you're on a vacation in a big city.

If they don't even know that the calves are milking the cows, why would they assume that the beef they are eating came from Canada as calves? They just don't have the whole story, and are assuming that every steak in the country came from animals born in the country. So if they don't know the cattle are imported live, why would they be demanding they be labeled Canadian? They are already assuming they were born in the U.S.

If there were no problems with Canada's reputation all of your points are moot. I suggest you keep that reputation good and focus on that.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Tex tell where that 16 oz T bone was produced when a 400lb calf went to Texas from Saskatchewan to graze Winter Wheat then up to Kansas to finish at 1400 lb and on to Colorado to slaughter?

BM, if it was ever imported then it would have to say so. We do have borders and until the countries are the same I want to know when something is imported or not. This isn't just for beef or for Canada but for any product and any country. If there was breading on a piece of meat and the ingredients for the breading are listed on the box and they come from some other country, I want them to put it on the package.

Tyson was selling their beef operation in Canada. Did that go through yet? They sure milked the Canadian cattlemen when they were up there. A better question to ask when buying a product might be who did the manufacturer milk while the government looked the other way instead of who milked the cow, Kato.
 

elwapo

Well-known member
Tex
Selling to the U.S. consumer is not a right but a privilege.
You should read a little document called NAFTA. You have the "right " to sell product in Canada (your largest trading partner) and Canada has the "right" to sell product in America.
 
Top