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

R-CALF on COOL

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
November 23, 2005



Cattle Producers Praise House Efforts

to Restore Mandatory COOL



(Billings, Mont.) – This Thanksgiving, American cattle producers will have another item to be grateful for as several bipartisan representatives in Congress announced H.R.4365, legislation that would keep in place the Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (M-COOL) law originally passed in the 2002 Farm Bill. The bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to implement M-COOL requirements for meat on Sept. 30, 2006, and now goes to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Agriculture for review.



U.S. Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., and her colleague Rep. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., introduced the bill. Co-sponsors of H.R. 4365 are: Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo.; Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D.; Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo.; Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio; Rep. Denny Rehburg, R-Mont.; and, Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla.



“We want our friends in the House to know how much U.S. cattle producers appreciate their efforts to keep M-COOL alive not only for the cattle industry, but also for U.S. consumers who’ve consistently expressed their desire for such a program,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “Having this kind of support from such a broad, bipartisan group proves the worth of the program, and we’re extremely proud that these representatives will stand up in opposition to the recent back-door dealings of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee that secretly delayed Mandatory COOL until 2008.



“We are disappointed in the handful of congressional members who have used their official positions to block the implementation of this important legislation in order to satisfy their personal agendas,” Bullard continued. “However, the COOL law was passed because of the efforts of hundreds of diverse groups representing cattle, farm, rural and consumer organizations that together represent over 50 million Americans. These groups came together to bring the U.S. out of the dark ages with respect to food labeling.



“Of the 57 countries the United States trades with, the U.S. remains one of the few modern countries that refuse to provide its citizens with information about the origin of the food they purchase,” Bullard explained. “Without COOL, importers and retailers continue to sell imported food products that sometimes mislead U.S. consumers into believing they’re purchasing domestic products. In some instances, other countries have gone so far as to ban these very items because they know these items are not of USA origin.



“We are amazed that the same legislators and groups that object to informing consumers about where their food comes from – on the grounds that a labeling program is too difficult and costly to differentiate imported food from domestic food – are the very same individuals and groups that want to subject U.S. cattle producers to the costs of a mandatory animal identification program for every food animal in the United States, without even knowing what those costs are and how those expenses would impact producers,” Bullard emphasized.



“These positions are inconsistent and show that opponents of COOL are only trying to fulfill their economic self-interests at the expense of U.S. cattle producers and U.S. consumers,” said Bullard. “Compared to a national animal identification system, the cost and logistics of COOL are negligible, and the program can immediately be implemented at no cost to U.S. cattle producers.



“The government already is required to permanently mark all the Mexican cattle entering the United States in order to monitor the tuberculosis associated with these cattle, and no Canadian cattle have entered the U.S. since May of 2003 without a permanent foreign brand,” Bullard explained. “Therefore, under an effective M-COOL system, all the cattle in the U.S. under 30 months old that do not have a foreign marking could be nothing other than born-and-raised in the United States, and would be eligible for the USA label. The origins of all older animals could be verified with a simple producer affidavit.



“All foreign cattle can now be identified by their foreign markings, and the beef from these cattle could easily be labeled according to those marks,” he continued. “This no-cost method of verifying the origins of live cattle is called ‘presumption of domestic origin,’ and is precisely what Congress intended when it directed the United States Department of Agriculture to use the National School Lunch Act as a model for verifying origin.”



R-CALF USA Director of Government Relations Jess Peterson explained that this particular legislation from the house reflects exactly the recent bipartisan legislation proposed in the senate by Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont. and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., (S 2038).



“It’s important that opponents of COOL know and understand that this is an issue we’re still winning, and they shouldn’t think this fight is over by any means,” said R-CALF USA Director of Government Relations Jess Peterson. “R-CALF will see to it that Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling takes effect next September – for the benefit of our members and for the benefit of U.S. beef consumers who want to make informed decisions about the beef their families choose to eat.



“U.S. cow/calf producers and other independent segments of the cattle industry know that Mandatory COOL is a critical tool that will allow them to differentiate their beef products from imported products,” Peterson noted. “And, M-COOL will also provide complete transparency in the marketplace, with the result that we’ll finally know without a doubt the true value of USA Beef, which always has been the safest and most wholesome beef in the world.”



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA’s membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members – over 18,000 strong – are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
R CALF will never quit working for the cattle man,and slowly but surely they will bring fairness to the markets,for all producers and consumers,it is their only purpose..................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CALF will never quit working against the U.S. cattlemen by segregating 5% of our domestic U.S. beef consumption (imported beef) as a novelty item to the benefit of imported beef at the cost of labeling all beef when consumers aren't even asking for it because of their ignorance of the retail beef industry.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
R-CALF will never quit working against the U.S. cattlemen by segregating 5% of our domestic U.S. beef consumption (imported beef) as a novelty item to the benefit of imported beef at the cost of labeling all beef when consumers aren't even asking for it because of their ignorance of the retail beef industry.


~SH~

First of all, that 5% number was a result of compromise, not what R-CALF wanted. Secondly, a minority does not equal a desireable novelty. Lastly, educating consumers on beef should be seen as an opportunity.

Why do you think we need to wait until consumers are asking for something before it is marketed? That is poor business practice. The guys who make money are the ones who hit upon "the next big thing" before it happens, not those who are simply followers. This Angus beef deal is a prime example you should be able to understand. Did the Angus folks wait until consumers demanded Angus products or did they get off their arses and create demand?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
R-CALF will never quit working against the U.S. cattlemen by segregating 5% of our domestic U.S. beef consumption (imported beef) as a novelty item to the benefit of imported beef at the cost of labeling all beef when consumers aren't even asking for it because of their ignorance of the retail beef industry.


~SH~

First of all, that 5% number was a result of compromise, not what R-CALF wanted. Secondly, a minority does not equal a desireable novelty. Lastly, educating consumers on beef should be seen as an opportunity.

Why do you think we need to wait until consumers are asking for something before it is marketed? That is poor business practice. The guys who make money are the ones who hit upon "the next big thing" before it happens, not those who are simply followers. This Angus beef deal is a prime example you should be able to understand. Did the Angus folks wait until consumers demanded Angus products or did they get off their arses and create demand?


From what I hear what the US consumers both domestically and foreign are really asking for is traceability as in M"ID". You know the next big thing that most other beef producing nations already have.

So Sandhusker who was the group in the US with the POOR BUSINESS PRACTICES that got M"ID" taken out of from M"COOL"?

Can you tell us who put the US producers in the catagory of simply following in implimenting a M"ID" program?

Who was sitting on the arses when it came to implimenting the M"ID" program because they didn't want to burden the US producers with the extra cost?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam, "From what I hear what the US consumers both domestically and foreign are really asking for is traceability as in M"ID". You know the next big thing that most other beef producing nations already have. So Sandhusker who was the group in the US with the POOR BUSINESS PRACTICES that got M"ID" taken out of from M"COOL"? "

Have the sources that tell you consumers are asking for traceability mentioned how difficult it has been getting MCOOL installed here? You think we should pass a law requiring that consumers know where every animal spent every hour of their life when we can't even get a law passed
where they can simply know where they are born? How do you propose we do that, Tam?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker how did Canada get M'ID with 2 US companies holding Canada hostage?

Can't tell you, I wasn't watching the process. Maybe because you are more of a supplier than a destination for them?

I have been watching the process down here and I see the Senators who happen to recieve the largest "donations" from agribusiness underhandedly kill COOL in committee after it was voted into law and signed by the President. You want to comment on that?
 

N Ellis

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Who was against traceability for ALL beef, exempting US producers from that 'onerous' chore?

How can consumers trust a law that requires ONLY the small percentage of the beef supply that is IMPORTED be truly "traceable"?

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker how did Canada get M'ID with 2 US companies holding Canada hostage?

Can't tell you, I wasn't watching the process. Maybe because you are more of a supplier than a destination for them?

I have been watching the process down here and I see the Senators who happen to recieve the largest "donations" from agribusiness underhandedly kill COOL in committee after it was voted into law and signed by the President. You want to comment on that?

Do you care to differentiate between Senators voting based on facts and reasoning presented by businesses believing implementation of COOL would place onerous burdens on them (such as having to prove where they got the cattle.....and producers protected from having to provide that information to the packers) and "underhandedly killing COOL in committee" due to "donations"?

Surely you, as a businessman, can see that there are legitimate business reasons for reluctance on the part of packers, retailers, et. al to embrace COOL with the flaws that make it virtually worthless. In case you forget those flaws most glaring are, IMO, the fact that so little beef is actually imported and sold in the USA as compared with our domestic product, the fact that identifying imported beef does absolutely NOTHING to make the domestic beef safer for consumers, the fact that trade rules my be violated by labeling ONLY the imported beef, the fact that it isn't health reasons, nor is it consumer demand driving this law........I could go on if you still are not convinced by reason and facts of the matter!

MRJ

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
What I differentiate, MRJ, is senators who voted for it, a president who signed the bill and a small group, led by the individual who just happens to be the largest beneficiary of "agribusiness donations" who killed it behind closed doors with no vote.

You can't tell me consumers are not asking for COOL when every poll taken on the subject indicates overwhelming support, and state legislatures are getting tired of waiting on the Feds. and are passing their own COOL laws.

Yes, the COOL law as passed segregates a % of imported beef. We can fix that. Also, can you deny all the foreign beef suppliers licking their chops as our markets open up more and more and barriers drop? Why wait until it's too late? Do you wait unti the first snows of the blizzard to hit or do you get the cows in when you get the warning?

How are we violating trade rules, and now can one argue about the extreme burdens when we are in the minority of developed nations who do not have COOL? How can all those other countries make it work but we can't? I don't buy that.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker how did Canada get M'ID with 2 US companies holding Canada hostage?

Can't tell you, I wasn't watching the process. Maybe because you are more of a supplier than a destination for them?

I have been watching the process down here and I see the Senators who happen to recieve the largest "donations" from agribusiness underhandedly kill COOL in committee after it was voted into law and signed by the President. You want to comment on that?

Do you care to differentiate between Senators voting based on facts and reasoning presented by businesses believing implementation of COOL would place onerous burdens on them (such as having to prove where they got the cattle.....and producers protected from having to provide that information to the packers) and "underhandedly killing COOL in committee" due to "donations"?

Surely you, as a businessman, can see that there are legitimate business reasons for reluctance on the part of packers, retailers, et. al to embrace COOL with the flaws that make it virtually worthless. In case you forget those flaws most glaring are, IMO, the fact that so little beef is actually imported and sold in the USA as compared with our domestic product, the fact that identifying imported beef does absolutely NOTHING to make the domestic beef safer for consumers, the fact that trade rules my be violated by labeling ONLY the imported beef, the fact that it isn't health reasons, nor is it consumer demand driving this law........I could go on if you still are not convinced by reason and facts of the matter!

MRJ

MRJ

MRJ,
It looks to me that the push on M-ID with NCBA control is just an attempt for some packers (Tyson) to get more market info. on the cattle in the U.S. for people like Agman to do his number crunching and figure out how to get cattle at a lower price. I have no "proof" of that but that is what it seems. We will see in time. If Cool is going to get pushed through, then this looks like this is their argument for M-ID and it is being pushed through the levels of control that are available.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "First of all, that 5% number was a result of compromise, not what R-CALF wanted."

Leo McDonnell stated that "M"COOL, as written, is a good law. Now when faced with the reality of their own stupidity, R-CALF wants to blame someone else for their flawed law.


Sandman: "Secondly, a minority does not equal a desireable novelty."

When that 5% minority is mostly Canadian source verified beef, I'd love to hear your arguments for how that product is not desirable. LOL!

You're in over your head again.


Sandman: "Lastly, educating consumers on beef should be seen as an opportunity."

What kind of education is segregating 5% at the expense of labeling all beef? Some education!


Sandman: "Why do you think we need to wait until consumers are asking for something before it is marketed?"

When 95% of the beef offered at the retail level is U.S. beef, what are you marketing?


Sandman: "The guys who make money are the ones who hit upon "the next big thing" before it happens, not those who are simply followers."

That's right and advertising "U.S. beef" when 95% of the labeled beef is U.S. beef is hardly considered "the next big thing". LOL!

Talk about irrelevant!


Sandman: "This Angus beef deal is a prime example you should be able to understand. Did the Angus folks wait until consumers demanded Angus products or did they get off their arses and create demand?"

Angus has other breeds for competition. They are competing against something. When 95% of the beef at the retail counter is U.S. beef, what are you competing against?

If you are to segregate your product you have to be smart enough to realize whether or not there is anthing to segregate your product from first.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Quote:
Sandman: "This Angus beef deal is a prime example you should be able to understand. Did the Angus folks wait until consumers demanded Angus products or did they get off their arses and create demand?"


SH, "Angus has other breeds for competition. They are competing against something. When 95% of the beef at the retail counter is U.S. beef, what are you competing against?"

As usual, you missed the point completely.

What does Brazil and free trade mean to you concerning the future of the US cattle industry, SH?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "What does Brazil and free trade mean to you concerning the future of the US cattle industry, SH?"

Brazilian cattle are banned due to hoof and mouth.

Brazilian beef makes up an irrelevant portion of our current imports.

Brazalian beef CURRENTLY cannot compete with the quality of our corn fed beef.

That's what it means to me.

What does free trade mean to me?

An additional $1.3 BILLION DOLLARS to this industry on average annually prior to BSE.


NEXT!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "What does Brazil and free trade mean to you concerning the future of the US cattle industry, SH?"

SH, "Brazilian cattle are banned due to hoof and mouth. Brazilian beef makes up an irrelevant portion of our current imports. Brazalian beef CURRENTLY cannot compete with the quality of our corn fed beef. That's what it means to me."

I'll give you credit for using the word "currently". Your whole answer has to do with currrent situations. However, I don't know why anybody would apply current situations that we know are changing to plans for the future. You're ignoring Brazil's progress and long-range plans. Why?

SH, "What does free trade mean to me? An additional $1.3 BILLION DOLLARS to this industry on average annually prior to BSE. NEXT!"

I've noticed that you generally end your posts where you feel you have sucessfully skirted addressing a question with "NEXT!". You did it again. You skirted the question. My question was all on Brazil. We made $1.3 B on Brazil prior to BSE?

We'll try it again; SH, combine free trade, Brazil, and cattle. Do you see anything that would cause concern to US producers?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
What I differentiate, MRJ, is senators who voted for it, a president who signed the bill and a small group, led by the individual who just happens to be the largest beneficiary of "agribusiness donations" who killed it behind closed doors with no vote.

You can't tell me consumers are not asking for COOL when every poll taken on the subject indicates overwhelming support, and state legislatures are getting tired of waiting on the Feds. and are passing their own COOL laws.

Yes, the COOL law as passed segregates a % of imported beef. We can fix that. Also, can you deny all the foreign beef suppliers licking their chops as our markets open up more and more and barriers drop? Why wait until it's too late? Do you wait unti the first snows of the blizzard to hit or do you get the cows in when you get the warning?

How are we violating trade rules, and now can one argue about the extreme burdens when we are in the minority of developed nations who do not have COOL? How can all those other countries make it work but we can't? I don't buy that.

Sandhusker, I will grant that I do not absolutely KNOW who did what "behind closed doors".....but have to wonder how you KNOW that information. And, no, I don't know who you are saying is that individual who gets all the agribusiness "donations", nor how one individual could kill something without a vote. Please enlighten me.

As for the Senators and the President signing the bill, I am glad we finally have Senators and a President who will support business, big and small, as these guys do. I thought you were involved in a business. And those of us who make our living raising cattle darn well better realize we are businessmen or we will soon be out of business.

Poll responses are not reliable unless the questions are designed so as to elicit an honest response, and many people give the answers they believe are desired and popular rather than what they really believe. Unless the consumer KNOWS that COOL exempts the majority of imported beef from the labeling, and that there is no provision for tracing US beef, which after all, is the majority of beef consumed, they are not able to give an informed answer to those polls.

Yes, the exemption of most imported beef probably could be "fixed" somehow. What do you suppose it will cost the industry, beyond the packer?

I wouldn't deny that SOME importers and SOME in exporting countries will be eying our market, but do have to wonder, since most do not produce the grain fed, higher end beef we want, just how successful they will be in selling their beef to us.

The market that REALLY grabs my attention is the 94% of the world population living outside the USA that is rapidly gaining in purchasing power and wanting our US beef, one we get the BSE questions and biases solved. THAT is the growth opportunity for the future, an opinion I share with many others.

The problem with COOL and trade laws, as I understand it, is that if imported beef must be labeled as to origin, so must the domestic beef. I do not believe we can simply assume all "other" beef than that known to be imported is USA "bred, born, and raised" unless there is verification. Traceability back to the rancher was prevented in the COOL law, wasn't it?

Are you sure that other those "developed nations" have COOL? I believe what they have is M-ID, which I support. Don't they require permanent ID at birth with a system that remains with the animal/carcass/cut of beef from producer to consumer? Anything less than that is fooling the consumer, IMO.

What will be the benefit of COOL when we have M-ID of ALL animals and meats? IMO, it will be redundant, at best.

Re. blizzards and cows, we are pretty blessed with good natural shelter in our winter pastures. The opposite side of that coin is that the land is too rugged for good natural hay ground or farming (which we aren't interested in doing anyway, believing the plow ruined more good native grass than it should have). We don't often have enough snow to justify "getting our cows in", and with a little luck, don't have to feed a lot of hay. We do pay pretty dearly for having it so "easy" with the fact that we cannot find decent water without drilling our wells more than a thousand feet deep, actually closer to, or even more than 2000 feet.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
Can't tell you, I wasn't watching the process. Maybe because you are more of a supplier than a destination for them?

I have been watching the process down here and I see the Senators who happen to recieve the largest "donations" from agribusiness underhandedly kill COOL in committee after it was voted into law and signed by the President. You want to comment on that?

Do you care to differentiate between Senators voting based on facts and reasoning presented by businesses believing implementation of COOL would place onerous burdens on them (such as having to prove where they got the cattle.....and producers protected from having to provide that information to the packers) and "underhandedly killing COOL in committee" due to "donations"?

Surely you, as a businessman, can see that there are legitimate business reasons for reluctance on the part of packers, retailers, et. al to embrace COOL with the flaws that make it virtually worthless. In case you forget those flaws most glaring are, IMO, the fact that so little beef is actually imported and sold in the USA as compared with our domestic product, the fact that identifying imported beef does absolutely NOTHING to make the domestic beef safer for consumers, the fact that trade rules my be violated by labeling ONLY the imported beef, the fact that it isn't health reasons, nor is it consumer demand driving this law........I could go on if you still are not convinced by reason and facts of the matter!

MRJ

MRJ

MRJ,
It looks to me that the push on M-ID with NCBA control is just an attempt for some packers (Tyson) to get more market info. on the cattle in the U.S. for people like Agman to do his number crunching and figure out how to get cattle at a lower price. I have no "proof" of that but that is what it seems. We will see in time. If Cool is going to get pushed through, then this looks like this is their argument for M-ID and it is being pushed through the levels of control that are available.

Econ, what do you not understand about the words "run by a non-profit consortium of representing ALL the SPECIES affected by M-ID"? That is what NCBA is asking for regarding the operation of M-ID?

Repeatedly leaders of NCBA have made that statement in words very close to mine. The work that the current NCBA led group, including representatives from other associations and organizations, and even other species, is doing now is to see if it is feasible and if they can get it going really soon. I do believe you are dreaming up conspiracies where none exist! The plans I've heard discussed are for the information to be very secure, with ONLY the info necessary for animal and human health available to government. Some ranchers will choose to give ONLY that information. Some ranchers will choose to provide other info for which they will be rewarded and that will go ONLY where the owners say it may. How is that going to benefit anyone, let alone Tyson.

Why do you persist in saying and/or implying that Tyson has ANY control over NCBA? How about surprising us with some facts to back your claims, for a change?

MRJ
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
MLA [29 Nov 2005]
Country of origin labelling for Korean restaurants


Country of origin labelling requirements for beef in the Korean foodservice sector will commence on 1 January 2007.
Domestic categories for labelling will include Hanwoo, beef cattle and dairy cattle, with imported beef required to show the country of origin. The law will come into effect from the beginning of 2007, starting with specialist beef restaurants over 300m square in size, which is expected to include around 500 establishments. The regulation will then be phased in to other segments of the foodservice sector.

Korea already has mandatory country of origin labelling for the retail sector.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
MRJ, "Sandhusker, I will grant that I do not absolutely KNOW who did what "behind closed doors".....but have to wonder how you KNOW that information. And, no, I don't know who you are saying is that individual who gets all the agribusiness "donations", nor how one individual could kill something without a vote. Please enlighten me."

I know what happened because I read the papers and watch the news. Anybody who does the same knows what I know. It's all out there and easily available, MRJ. Henry Bonilla is the chairman of the Ag. Committee. He is the single largest recipient of "donations" from agribusiness. The entire congressional body does not vote on every segment of the farm bill. The Ag. committee puts it together and then Congress votes on the entire package as presented. Bonilla removed funding for COOL before he sent the bill to be voted on. Congress did not get to vote on whether COOL would be funded or not. Several lawmakers were furious with Bonilla and voted against the entire farm bill because of what happened.

MRJ, "As for the Senators and the President signing the bill, I am glad we finally have Senators and a President who will support business, big and small, as these guys do. I thought you were involved in a business. And those of us who make our living raising cattle darn well better realize we are businessmen or we will soon be out of business."

Well, that's nice, MRJ, but their efforts to support business was undercut in committee.

MRJ, "Poll responses are not reliable unless the questions are designed so as to elicit an honest response, and many people give the answers they believe are desired and popular rather than what they really believe. Unless the consumer KNOWS that COOL exempts the majority of imported beef from the labeling, and that there is no provision for tracing US beef, which after all, is the majority of beef consumed, they are not able to give an informed answer to those polls."

If polls did not have some degree of reliablity, they would not exist and politicians would not spend millions on taking them.

MRJ, "Yes, the exemption of most imported beef probably could be "fixed" somehow. What do you suppose it will cost the industry, beyond the packer?"

I think it will cost a heck of a lot less that M-ID.

MRJ, "I wouldn't deny that SOME importers and SOME in exporting countries will be eying our market, but do have to wonder, since most do not produce the grain fed, higher end beef we want, just how successful they will be in selling their beef to us."

We're the money market, MRJ. EVERYBODY is eying our market. Australia does not product a great deal of grain fed beef, and I'd have to say they have had success here. You also have to ask yourself what will stop countries from producing grain fed beef when our door is wide open.

MRJ, "The market that REALLY grabs my attention is the 94% of the world population living outside the USA that is rapidly gaining in purchasing power and wanting our US beef, one we get the BSE questions and biases solved. THAT is the growth opportunity for the future, an opinion I share with many others."

The market that really grabs MY attention is the US market. The US market is the most lucrative market in the world and we're here. I don't think it makes any sense to risk losing any ground in the best market to be in to chase pastures that clearly are less green. Why in the world would you go across town to make a buck when you can make two bucks out your back door?

MRJ, "The problem with COOL and trade laws, as I understand it, is that if imported beef must be labeled as to origin, so must the domestic beef. I do not believe we can simply assume all "other" beef than that known to be imported is USA "bred, born, and raised" unless there is verification. Traceability back to the rancher was prevented in the COOL law, wasn't it?"

Tracability was NOT prevented in the COOL law.

MRJ, "Are you sure that other those "developed nations" have COOL? I believe what they have is M-ID, which I support. Don't they require permanent ID at birth with a system that remains with the animal/carcass/cut of beef from producer to consumer? Anything less than that is fooling the consumer, IMO. "

Do some homework on the EU, MRJ.

MRJ, "What will be the benefit of COOL when we have M-ID of ALL animals and meats? IMO, it will be redundant, at best."

How can you question the cost of COOL but not M-ID? COOL only requires knowing where the animal was born, M-ID requires knowing where the animal spend every hour of it's life. Which do you think would be cheaper.

My question about getting the cows in was COOL related. I'm saying that just like one would get the cows in the winter pasture or close to shelter if you knew a big storm was on the way, we should get prepared today for the storm of foreign beef that is headed our way. It's coming.

We have one of the best deals on water in the world. In many places you can dig to water with a shovel - and it's good water.
 

Latest posts

Top