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

Senators Support M-COOL

A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America


“Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer”



For Immediate Release Contact: Shae Dodson, Communications Coordinator
February 5, 2009 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: [email protected]



Group Supports Senators’ Requests that Vilsack

Restore Congress’ Intent in COOL Rule



Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA applauds a group of bipartisan senators who have contacted Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to request that he abide by the congressional intent of the mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law that currently is under review as a “Rural Agenda” item by the Obama Administration.



“We write to highlight our concern with loopholes granted in this rule, which allow meatpackers to put a multiple country of origin label on products that are exclusively U.S. products as well as those that are foreign. The USDA regulations defeat the primary purpose of COOL – provide clear, accurate and truthful information to American consumers…If we are just creating a system to label all products as multiple country origin, there is no value in COOL and no benefit to the consumer,” states a Feb. 3, 2009, letter sent to Vilsack by the following Senators: Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Kent Conrad, D-N.D., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Diane Feinstein, D-Calif.



“We appreciate the decision to reexamine the final rule for mandatory COOL…Ensuring that consumers throughout America have the opportunity to identify ‘U.S. origin’ exclusive product is a priority…,” wrote Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., in a letter to Vilsack dated Jan. 22, 2009.



“R-CALF truly appreciates the efforts of these senators to ensure that COOL is properly implemented and to keep it in the forefront of discussions with the Administration, and we are aware that Secretary Vilsack strongly supports COOL,” said R-CALF USA COOL Committee Chair Mike Schultz. “As such, we hope correcting these loopholes won’t take long and that improvements to the COOL rule will be implemented as quickly as possible to benefit both U.S. cattle producers and U.S. beef consumers.”



Additionally, R-CALF USA also has contacted Vilsack to request the following, with regard to the COOL rule:



* Meat packers must be prohibited from labeling meat derived from animals exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S. with a mixed-origin label.



* To eliminate the need for unnecessary paperwork from producers, meat packers must be authorized to visually inspect each animal that is being slaughtered for the presence or absence of foreign import markings, and declare animals lacking any foreign import marking as exclusively originating in the United States.



* Meat from animals imported for immediate slaughter must be labeled with the name of the foreign country appearing first on the label followed by the name of the United States, e.g., “Product of Canada and the U.S.”



* Commodities with different origins sold in bulk containers, such as a full-service meat counter, must be segregated or individually labeled as to their respective country-of-origin so consumers can choose to purchase commodities from the country of their choice.



* Commodities covered by COOL must be subject to labeling requirements even if they undergo minor processing such as cooking, smoking, curing, breading or adding tomato sauce.



* Meat processors must be prohibited from including the name of a country on a ground meat label if the processor discontinued sourcing that product from the foreign country for more than one week.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
COOL works when packers segregate Canadian and Mexican cattle from American cattle during processing. But non segregation at the packing house is leading the American processors not to buy Canadian cattle or to pay lower prices that result in a $400 million loss to the Canadian industry.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Actually according to some, (we all know who) COOL works whenever it drops prices to Canadian cattlemen, no matter how that happens. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

That's the real intent of the law. To stop Canadian trucks from driving through Montana, and North and South Dakota. It's just been disguised as something else to make it look like an honourable intention. It's a trade barrier wrapped up in a pretty package. A golden opportunity to get a border closed that's been a dream of certain people (we all know who). That golden opportunity came in the form of shoddy Chinese goods giving political correctness to the idea.

Notice most of these senators live in border states? That's not a coincidence. :roll:
 

Longcut

Well-known member
PORKER said:
COOL works when packers segregate Canadian and Mexican cattle from American cattle during processing. But non segregation at the packing house is leading the American processors not to buy Canadian cattle or to pay lower prices that result in a $400 million loss to the Canadian industry.

Wrong. It is the required segregation that is causing them to lower prices or to not buy Canadian cattle.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Longcut said:
PORKER said:
COOL works when packers segregate Canadian and Mexican cattle from American cattle during processing. But non segregation at the packing house is leading the American processors not to buy Canadian cattle or to pay lower prices that result in a $400 million loss to the Canadian industry.

Wrong. It is the required segregation that is causing them to lower prices or to not buy Canadian cattle.

What required segregation? The labels that I see say "Product of US, Canada, Mexico".
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
Actually according to some, (we all know who) COOL works whenever it drops prices to Canadian cattlemen, no matter how that happens. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

That's the real intent of the law. To stop Canadian trucks from driving through Montana, and North and South Dakota. It's just been disguised as something else to make it look like an honourable intention. It's a trade barrier wrapped up in a pretty package. A golden opportunity to get a border closed that's been a dream of certain people (we all know who). That golden opportunity came in the form of shoddy Chinese goods giving political correctness to the idea.

Notice most of these senators live in border states? That's not a coincidence. :roll:

US consumers are the ones who provided the push to get this law passed. You're telling us that they really want to hurt Canadian cattlemen?
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Longcut said:
PORKER said:
COOL works when packers segregate Canadian and Mexican cattle from American cattle during processing. But non segregation at the packing house is leading the American processors not to buy Canadian cattle or to pay lower prices that result in a $400 million loss to the Canadian industry.

Wrong. It is the required segregation that is causing them to lower prices or to not buy Canadian cattle.

What required segregation? The labels that I see say "Product of US, Canada, Mexico".

Check out the plant requirements for yourself.
 

Kato

Well-known member
It's not the intention of American consumers to hurt Canadian cattlemen. Quite frankly a lot of them don't know much about Canada, and probably don't know we even have cattle here. It's just ice snow and hockey. We've been in the states on holiday, and were asked where we came from. We have told more than a few people we were from Manitoba, and they just got a blank look. Then we told them that it's just north of North Dakota, and about four out of five times we still got a blank look. How can we expect them to know anything about us when they don't even know where North Dakota is? :roll: :roll:

They were thinking of China if they were thinking of any foreign country at all. We're just collateral damage, and it's been capitalized on by certain protectionist northern politicians and the lobbyists who make a good living by lobbying them to use this as the opportunity to shut down trade. I would bet that if the average American consumer knew what was happening to us up here they would not be happy about it. We've never had people we've met in your country be anything but nice to us, and one thing they do seem to know about Canada is that we are your friends.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
Longcut said:
Wrong. It is the required segregation that is causing them to lower prices or to not buy Canadian cattle.

What required segregation? The labels that I see say "Product of US, Canada, Mexico".

Check out the plant requirements for yourself.

The packers can put whatever requirement they want, there's no competition to check them. I'm asking you how they justify a "segregation expense" when they're selling under the label, "Product of US, Canada, Mexico"? The meat at the counter is not being segregated, so what is the need to segregate them at the packer? You're not blaming the proper entity for your problems. The packers are bending you over so that you'll do their work for them in fighting COOL, and you're doing exactly as they want.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
It's not the intention of American consumers to hurt Canadian cattlemen. Quite frankly a lot of them don't know much about Canada, and probably don't know we even have cattle here. It's just ice snow and hockey. We've been in the states on holiday, and were asked where we came from. We have told more than a few people we were from Manitoba, and they just got a blank look. Then we told them that it's just north of North Dakota, and about four out of five times we still got a blank look. How can we expect them to know anything about us when they don't even know where North Dakota is? :roll: :roll:

They were thinking of China if they were thinking of any foreign country at all. We're just collateral damage, and it's been capitalized on by certain protectionist northern politicians and the lobbyists who make a good living by lobbying them to use this as the opportunity to shut down trade. I would bet that if the average American consumer knew what was happening to us up here they would not be happy about it. We've never had people we've met in your country be anything but nice to us, and one thing they do seem to know about Canada is that we are your friends.

"They were thinking of China if they were thinking of any foreign country at all."

Exactly. They why the comment about the real intent of the law being to hurt Canadian cattlemen?
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
What required segregation? The labels that I see say "Product of US, Canada, Mexico".

Check out the plant requirements for yourself.

The packers can put whatever requirement they want, there's no competition to check them. I'm asking you how they justify a "segregation expense" when they're selling under the label, "Product of US, Canada, Mexico"? The meat at the counter is not being segregated, so what is the need to segregate them at the packer? You're not blaming the proper entity for your problems. The packers are bending you over so that you'll do their work for them in fighting COOL, and you're doing exactly as they want.

Blaming the proper entity for my problems? What problems are those?

I pop in here every once in a while and pretty well each and every time you seem to be an expert on everything in the industry. You must be a very smart man.

Given your complete understanding of COOL and how it impacts the packers, why is it that some US plants quit handling Canadian cattle or would only process Canadian cattle on the same days that they were handling US cattle that were source verified?
 

Kato

Well-known member
Not the real intent of the Law, the real intent of the lobbyists who insisted on NAFTA violations regarding Canadian cattle processed into American beef. The grasping at an opportunity to complete a vision they have had for many years to close the border in whatever way possible to Canadian cattle.
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
Explain to me how they need to do anything different under that label.
Have you figured it out yet Sandhusker?

Nope. That isn't much of a label - about one step above "meat".

The discussion was around the segregation that packers were doing because of mCOOL. It is not about packaging but rather the segregation of cattle ready to harvest.

I am surprised you didn't figure that out!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
Longcut said:
Have you figured it out yet Sandhusker?

Nope. That isn't much of a label - about one step above "meat".

The discussion was around the segregation that packers were doing because of mCOOL. It is not about packaging but rather the segregation of cattle ready to harvest.

I am surprised you didn't figure that out!

Why do they need to segregate the cattle when all the beef is lumped together?
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
Nope. That isn't much of a label - about one step above "meat".

The discussion was around the segregation that packers were doing because of mCOOL. It is not about packaging but rather the segregation of cattle ready to harvest.

I am surprised you didn't figure that out!

Why do they need to segregate the cattle when all the beef is lumped together?

The following summary provides an overview of procurement practices at U.S. plants. This
information is subject to change as plants continue to adjust to country of origin labeling
(COOL) requirements. Historically U.S. plants would have bought Canadian cattle when local
supplies were tight and the price was right. Therefore some plants rely on Canadian cattle due
to geographical closeness, while ‘C’ cattle are not typically bought by other plants due to
distance.


Cattle Classification under COOL
‘A’ – born and raised in the U.S.
‘B’ – Canadian born feeders, fed in the U.S.
‘C’ – Canadian fed cattle imported for immediate slaughter
‘D’ – foreign meat imported into the U.S. labeled ‘Product of Canada’
‘E’ – ground beef must be labeled with all countries that may be reasonably contained;
may be in any order.
Note: foodservice and processed foods are exempt.

Cargill ‐ starting in January they will be taking 'B' cattle at Fort Morgan, CO and Plainview, TX.
Contracts on ‘B’ cattle starting February 1st will have a $4 under basis for Canadian cattle and $5
under basis on Mexican cattle. These animals will probably be slaughtered in batches on a
separate day. These cattle will not be sorted as much – as they will not be used in branded or
premium programs. Cargill is not taking 'C' cattle; this is consistent with what has happened
historically as they are too far away to compete on price for these cattle. Cargill has announced
they will comply with the intent of the MCOOL law and expect to have a minimum of 70% of
product meeting the “Product of the USA” labeling standard by January 2009.

Tyson is no longer taking Canadian ‘C’ cattle at any of their mid‐west facilities, only ‘A’. At
Pasco they are taking Canadian ‘C’ cattle on Tuesdays and Fridays. While age verification is not
required it is preferred for shipping to Japan. Tyson will be taking ‘B’ cattle at Lexington and
Pasco. The ‘B’ label cattle will have a ‐$5 basis. The intention is that Pasco will slaughter ‘B’ and
‘C’ cattle daily, if these two categories are combined. Tyson intends to use the U.S. or Category
‘A’ label on all premium beef programs in early 2009 and label all beef and pork cuts from
livestock born, raised and processed in the US with the Category A label by mid‐2009. It is
estimated that 90% of fresh, retail beef and pork cuts in the US will qualify for the US label.
Cattle and Hogs will be labeled as Category ‘B’ or ‘C’ in the least cumbersome manner allowed
by USDA.

JBS is taking 'B' cattle at Hyrum and Greeley, slaughter will be daily. Age verification is not
required. Only ‘B’ cattle imported before July 15th 2008 are being taken at Grand Island. 'C'
cattle are being taken at Hyrum daily. ‘C’ cattle which were being taken at Greeley on Fridays
will be shipped to Hyrum as of Oct 31st 2008. Smithfield is taking 'C' cattle at Moyer (both cash
and contract cattle) with killings increased to five days per week. Cash cattle are being taken at
Packerland (Green Bay). However, after six months Smithfield has indicated they will be
moving to ‘A’ only cattle. National Beef are not currently and will not be taking Canadian cattle
after January 1st at any of their plants. (Note: Smithfield Beef Group and National Beef are in
the process of being sold to JBS. The Sale of Smithfield Beef Group and Five Rivers Cattle feeding
operations was approved by the DOJ and the sale completed on October 23rd but the sale of
National Beef has been blocked. JBS has indicated they will challenge the decision).
Washington Beef has not made any changes to their procurement policy for Canadian cattle yet
(still accepting Canadian fed and feeder cattle). They are waiting for the Final Rule to be
published before they make any changes. They have indicated that they will not be able to use
all three labels due to costs. A worst case scenario would be that they no longer accept
Canadian slaughter cattle (Category ‘C’), but slaughter Canadian feeders fed in the U.S. daily for
use of the mixed 'B' label.

American Foods Group is taking Holsteins and second cut cattle at Greenbay for grinding and
foodservice where no label is required as well as some very good quality fed cattle for trim.
In general, we are seeing segregation of plants and shifts with U.S. packing plants:
1) Not slaughtering Canadian cattle, taking only ‘A’ cattle for ease of reporting;
2) Slaughtering on certain days in order to separate labels;
3) Using a ‘mixed country’ label and slaughtering Canadian cattle daily; or
4) Purchasing Canadian cattle, mostly cows, for grinding or foodservice where the country
of origin label is not required.

We are not hearing of any U.S. feedlots that are planning to discontinue placing Canadian cattle
in 2008. However, since the six month education and outreach period will be over at the end of
March, US feedlots may start to take this into account shortly in the New Year. Intuitively,
some U.S. feedlots could decide that they only want to handle U.S. born cattle for delivers from
April onward. We are also anticipating that as the enforcement period approaches, U.S.
packers will become increasingly stricter about their segregation practices and that this will
further negatively impact opportunities to market Canadian cattle and place more downward
pressure on prices.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
Longcut said:
The discussion was around the segregation that packers were doing because of mCOOL. It is not about packaging but rather the segregation of cattle ready to harvest.

I am surprised you didn't figure that out!

Why do they need to segregate the cattle when all the beef is lumped together?

The following summary provides an overview of procurement practices at U.S. plants. This
information is subject to change as plants continue to adjust to country of origin labeling
(COOL) requirements. Historically U.S. plants would have bought Canadian cattle when local
supplies were tight and the price was right. Therefore some plants rely on Canadian cattle due
to geographical closeness, while ‘C’ cattle are not typically bought by other plants due to
distance.


Cattle Classification under COOL
‘A’ – born and raised in the U.S.
‘B’ – Canadian born feeders, fed in the U.S.
‘C’ – Canadian fed cattle imported for immediate slaughter
‘D’ – foreign meat imported into the U.S. labeled ‘Product of Canada’
‘E’ – ground beef must be labeled with all countries that may be reasonably contained;
may be in any order.
Note: foodservice and processed foods are exempt.

Cargill ‐ starting in January they will be taking 'B' cattle at Fort Morgan, CO and Plainview, TX.
Contracts on ‘B’ cattle starting February 1st will have a $4 under basis for Canadian cattle and $5
under basis on Mexican cattle. These animals will probably be slaughtered in batches on a
separate day. These cattle will not be sorted as much – as they will not be used in branded or
premium programs. Cargill is not taking 'C' cattle; this is consistent with what has happened
historically as they are too far away to compete on price for these cattle. Cargill has announced
they will comply with the intent of the MCOOL law and expect to have a minimum of 70% of
product meeting the “Product of the USA” labeling standard by January 2009.

Tyson is no longer taking Canadian ‘C’ cattle at any of their mid‐west facilities, only ‘A’. At
Pasco they are taking Canadian ‘C’ cattle on Tuesdays and Fridays. While age verification is not
required it is preferred for shipping to Japan. Tyson will be taking ‘B’ cattle at Lexington and
Pasco. The ‘B’ label cattle will have a ‐$5 basis. The intention is that Pasco will slaughter ‘B’ and
‘C’ cattle daily, if these two categories are combined. Tyson intends to use the U.S. or Category
‘A’ label on all premium beef programs in early 2009 and label all beef and pork cuts from
livestock born, raised and processed in the US with the Category A label by mid‐2009. It is
estimated that 90% of fresh, retail beef and pork cuts in the US will qualify for the US label.
Cattle and Hogs will be labeled as Category ‘B’ or ‘C’ in the least cumbersome manner allowed
by USDA.

JBS is taking 'B' cattle at Hyrum and Greeley, slaughter will be daily. Age verification is not
required. Only ‘B’ cattle imported before July 15th 2008 are being taken at Grand Island. 'C'
cattle are being taken at Hyrum daily. ‘C’ cattle which were being taken at Greeley on Fridays
will be shipped to Hyrum as of Oct 31st 2008. Smithfield is taking 'C' cattle at Moyer (both cash
and contract cattle) with killings increased to five days per week. Cash cattle are being taken at
Packerland (Green Bay). However, after six months Smithfield has indicated they will be
moving to ‘A’ only cattle. National Beef are not currently and will not be taking Canadian cattle
after January 1st at any of their plants. (Note: Smithfield Beef Group and National Beef are in
the process of being sold to JBS. The Sale of Smithfield Beef Group and Five Rivers Cattle feeding
operations was approved by the DOJ and the sale completed on October 23rd but the sale of
National Beef has been blocked. JBS has indicated they will challenge the decision).
Washington Beef has not made any changes to their procurement policy for Canadian cattle yet
(still accepting Canadian fed and feeder cattle). They are waiting for the Final Rule to be
published before they make any changes. They have indicated that they will not be able to use
all three labels due to costs. A worst case scenario would be that they no longer accept
Canadian slaughter cattle (Category ‘C’), but slaughter Canadian feeders fed in the U.S. daily for
use of the mixed 'B' label.

American Foods Group is taking Holsteins and second cut cattle at Greenbay for grinding and
foodservice where no label is required as well as some very good quality fed cattle for trim.
In general, we are seeing segregation of plants and shifts with U.S. packing plants:
1) Not slaughtering Canadian cattle, taking only ‘A’ cattle for ease of reporting;
2) Slaughtering on certain days in order to separate labels;
3) Using a ‘mixed country’ label and slaughtering Canadian cattle daily; or
4) Purchasing Canadian cattle, mostly cows, for grinding or foodservice where the country
of origin label is not required.

We are not hearing of any U.S. feedlots that are planning to discontinue placing Canadian cattle
in 2008. However, since the six month education and outreach period will be over at the end of
March, US feedlots may start to take this into account shortly in the New Year. Intuitively,
some U.S. feedlots could decide that they only want to handle U.S. born cattle for delivers from
April onward. We are also anticipating that as the enforcement period approaches, U.S.
packers will become increasingly stricter about their segregation practices and that this will
further negatively impact opportunities to market Canadian cattle and place more downward
pressure on prices.

Longcut- that has to be a voluntary program of the Packers- because the M-COOL rule, as it was set by USDA, doesn't require it....

Did you ever think that maybe the Packers are getting the message the US consumers have been telling them :???: ....
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Longcut said:
Sandhusker said:
Why do they need to segregate the cattle when all the beef is lumped together?

The following summary provides an overview of procurement practices at U.S. plants. This
information is subject to change as plants continue to adjust to country of origin labeling
(COOL) requirements. Historically U.S. plants would have bought Canadian cattle when local
supplies were tight and the price was right. Therefore some plants rely on Canadian cattle due
to geographical closeness, while ‘C’ cattle are not typically bought by other plants due to
distance.


Cattle Classification under COOL
‘A’ – born and raised in the U.S.
‘B’ – Canadian born feeders, fed in the U.S.
‘C’ – Canadian fed cattle imported for immediate slaughter
‘D’ – foreign meat imported into the U.S. labeled ‘Product of Canada’
‘E’ – ground beef must be labeled with all countries that may be reasonably contained;
may be in any order.
Note: foodservice and processed foods are exempt.

Cargill ‐ starting in January they will be taking 'B' cattle at Fort Morgan, CO and Plainview, TX.
Contracts on ‘B’ cattle starting February 1st will have a $4 under basis for Canadian cattle and $5
under basis on Mexican cattle. These animals will probably be slaughtered in batches on a
separate day. These cattle will not be sorted as much – as they will not be used in branded or
premium programs. Cargill is not taking 'C' cattle; this is consistent with what has happened
historically as they are too far away to compete on price for these cattle. Cargill has announced
they will comply with the intent of the MCOOL law and expect to have a minimum of 70% of
product meeting the “Product of the USA” labeling standard by January 2009.

Tyson is no longer taking Canadian ‘C’ cattle at any of their mid‐west facilities, only ‘A’. At
Pasco they are taking Canadian ‘C’ cattle on Tuesdays and Fridays. While age verification is not
required it is preferred for shipping to Japan. Tyson will be taking ‘B’ cattle at Lexington and
Pasco. The ‘B’ label cattle will have a ‐$5 basis. The intention is that Pasco will slaughter ‘B’ and
‘C’ cattle daily, if these two categories are combined. Tyson intends to use the U.S. or Category
‘A’ label on all premium beef programs in early 2009 and label all beef and pork cuts from
livestock born, raised and processed in the US with the Category A label by mid‐2009. It is
estimated that 90% of fresh, retail beef and pork cuts in the US will qualify for the US label.
Cattle and Hogs will be labeled as Category ‘B’ or ‘C’ in the least cumbersome manner allowed
by USDA.

JBS is taking 'B' cattle at Hyrum and Greeley, slaughter will be daily. Age verification is not
required. Only ‘B’ cattle imported before July 15th 2008 are being taken at Grand Island. 'C'
cattle are being taken at Hyrum daily. ‘C’ cattle which were being taken at Greeley on Fridays
will be shipped to Hyrum as of Oct 31st 2008. Smithfield is taking 'C' cattle at Moyer (both cash
and contract cattle) with killings increased to five days per week. Cash cattle are being taken at
Packerland (Green Bay). However, after six months Smithfield has indicated they will be
moving to ‘A’ only cattle. National Beef are not currently and will not be taking Canadian cattle
after January 1st at any of their plants. (Note: Smithfield Beef Group and National Beef are in
the process of being sold to JBS. The Sale of Smithfield Beef Group and Five Rivers Cattle feeding
operations was approved by the DOJ and the sale completed on October 23rd but the sale of
National Beef has been blocked. JBS has indicated they will challenge the decision).
Washington Beef has not made any changes to their procurement policy for Canadian cattle yet
(still accepting Canadian fed and feeder cattle). They are waiting for the Final Rule to be
published before they make any changes. They have indicated that they will not be able to use
all three labels due to costs. A worst case scenario would be that they no longer accept
Canadian slaughter cattle (Category ‘C’), but slaughter Canadian feeders fed in the U.S. daily for
use of the mixed 'B' label.

American Foods Group is taking Holsteins and second cut cattle at Greenbay for grinding and
foodservice where no label is required as well as some very good quality fed cattle for trim.
In general, we are seeing segregation of plants and shifts with U.S. packing plants:
1) Not slaughtering Canadian cattle, taking only ‘A’ cattle for ease of reporting;
2) Slaughtering on certain days in order to separate labels;
3) Using a ‘mixed country’ label and slaughtering Canadian cattle daily; or
4) Purchasing Canadian cattle, mostly cows, for grinding or foodservice where the country
of origin label is not required.

We are not hearing of any U.S. feedlots that are planning to discontinue placing Canadian cattle
in 2008. However, since the six month education and outreach period will be over at the end of
March, US feedlots may start to take this into account shortly in the New Year. Intuitively,
some U.S. feedlots could decide that they only want to handle U.S. born cattle for delivers from
April onward. We are also anticipating that as the enforcement period approaches, U.S.
packers will become increasingly stricter about their segregation practices and that this will
further negatively impact opportunities to market Canadian cattle and place more downward
pressure on prices.

Longcut- that has to be a voluntary program of the Packers- because the M-COOL rule, as it was set by USDA, doesn't require it....

Did you ever think that maybe the Packers are getting the message the US consumers have been telling them :???: ....
mCOOL doesn't require that? You better look into it a bit closer Sandhusker.
 
Top