• 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
Longcut said:
Oldtimer said:
Longcut said:
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?

Nope- not the way Schafer set the final rule for it...
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Longcut said:
Oldtimer said:
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?

Nope- not the way Schafer set the final rule for it...

You aren't making that up are you Oldtimer?

http://www.countryoforiginlabel.org/ht/d/sp/i/34493/pid/34493

Given the costs associated with recordkeeping and the necessary segregation of livestock and meat in plants based on their origin that will be critical in ensuring label accuracy, that number could be too low. How these costs will be spread across meat products and how much prices will rise is yet to be determined.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
There is no segregation going on at the store. The label says; "Product of the US, Canada, Mexico". I've seen it. Other than putting up that label that isn't, nothing has changed. You tell me what segregation at the packers is needed to comply with that label?
 

gcreekrch

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
There is no segregation going on at the store. The label says; "Product of the US, Canada, Mexico". I've seen it. Other than putting up that label that isn't, nothing has changed. You tell me what segregation at the packers is needed to comply with that label?

The segregation is needed to discount Canadian cattle and hogs so they can have an excuse to discount yours.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
gcreekrch said:
Sandhusker said:
There is no segregation going on at the store. The label says; "Product of the US, Canada, Mexico". I've seen it. Other than putting up that label that isn't, nothing has changed. You tell me what segregation at the packers is needed to comply with that label?

The segregation is needed to discount Canadian cattle and hogs so they can have an excuse to discount yours.

You probably got it figured out better than most gcreekrch..
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Survey shows consumers using COOL for meat purchases
www.SupermarketGuru.com conducted a consumer survey in March with the goal of understanding shopper’s attitudes toward imported meat and country of origin labeling (COOL). The results showed consumers place “great importance” (77 percent) and “preference” for U.S. raised, bred and slaughtered meat. A wide majority (73 percent) also assume imported meat to be less safe than its American counterpart.
Other findings: 81 percent say they feel confused when more than one country is listed on the label, and consequently, 40 percent don’t buy the meat, and 34 percent say they look for meat labeled “product of the USA” to purchase And significantly, 64 percent of consumers say they would switch stores in order to buy meat labeled “product of the USA” if it wasn’t available at their current grocery store.

What is needed is real DATA !
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Wouldn't it be great if Canada would just enact a similar M-COOL law (like the majority of the countries of the world have) and we'd be back on even keel- and the purchasing decision would be left to the consumers of both countries- rather than a bunch of government and world trade bureaucrats spending millions $ that could be better utilyzed by folks in the industry... :???:

October 7, 2009 Phone: 406-672-8969; [email protected]



Yet Again, Canada Tries to File WTO Complaint Against U.S. COOL Law



Billings, Mont. – The Canadian government is seeking a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement process over the U.S. mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law. A WTO panel is scheduled to hear the request at the Oct. 23, 2009, meeting of WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body.

A joint statement issued today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) indicates that both departments agree that the U.S. COOL law provides information to consumers in a manner that is consistent with WTO commitments, and also that countries have recognized COOL as a legitimate policy long before the WTO ever existed.

“We are pleased that both USDA and USTR are taking a strong stand to defend our constitutional right to pass and implement the U.S. COOL law that provides U.S. consumers with important information regarding where their food is grown and produced,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “We urge both departments to take deliberate and decisive steps to quash Canada’s attempt to interfere with the United States’ sovereign right to inform U.S. consumers about the origins of the food they purchase for themselves and their families.

“We believe the complaints by Canada against the U.S. COOL law are baseless,” he continued. “Unfortunately, this WTO dispute procedure grants Canada an overly simplified forum to retaliate against U.S. citizens’ exercise of their constitutional rights.

“This action by Canada should give considerable pause to those elected officials who have unwittingly transferred our sovereign right of self-government to an international tribunal,” Bullard pointed out. “We are now in the unenviable position of awaiting a decision from the WTO to determine if our right to self government is absolute, or if we must kowtow to a higher, international power that no U.S. citizen has ever voted for. This attack by Canada strikes at the heart of American sovereignty.”

It is important to note that:

1) The U.S. COOL law imposes no duty or restrictions on any foreign government, nor imposes any limits on the volume or type of commodities that a foreign country may export to the United States.

2) Foreign countries are not obligated, in any way, to export to the U.S. any of the commodities subject to the U.S. COOL law – hence, a foreign country’s decision to market its products in the U.S. market and under the rules of the U.S. market is purely voluntary.



And, 3) COOL jurisdiction is exclusively limited to U.S. retailers, as defined exclusively by U.S. law, and subjects all covered commodities marketed by U.S. retailers to identical information requirements, regardless of where the commodities originate.



“Thus, our domestic COOL law does not affect international trade agreements, and it is fundamentally inappropriate for the WTO to even entertain a foreign country’s complaint against our domestic COOL law,” Bullard emphasized.



“COOL enables consumers to freely choose between food products of various origins,” he concluded. “Consumers’ choices will influence the market demand for products from any given country. This is how a competitive market is supposed to work, and neither Canada nor the WTO has any right to take that competitive market away from U.S. consumers.”



To view/download R-CALF USA’s June 1, 2009, presentation to USTR on these matters, please visit this link: http://www.r-calfusa.com/Trade/090601-PresentationToUSTR.pdf.



Also, to view/download a complete version of R-CALF USA’s formal comments to USTR filed on July 1, 2009, please go to:

http://www.r-calfusa.com/COOL/090701%20R-CALF%20USA%20Comments%20on%20USTR%20COOL%20Challenge,%20Final.pdf.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dairy Country of Origin Labeling Bill Introduced



By Jim Dickrell, editor Dairy Today

AgWeb

10/16/2009



Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) introduced legislation that would extend mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) to dairy products.



To date, dairy products have been exempt from the controversial legislation which has already sparked World Trade Organization challenges from Canada.



And, in another bit of irony, dairy imports have actually declined this year. Nevertheless, Brown, Feingold and Franken say their bill protects both U.S. dairy farmers and consumers.



COOL “provides critical information as households decide how to feed their families,” says Brown.



“With the discovery last year of widespread use of melamine in Chinese dairy products, consumers deserve to know whether the milk used to produce the dairy products they buy meets the high safety standards used in the United States,” says Feingold.



“This legislation will help American dairy farmers stand out in a crowded marketplace,” adds Franken. “They need every tool at their disposal to weather the current dairy crisis.”

http://www.ellinghuysen.com/news/articles/92418.shtml
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
U.S. Blocks Canada & Mexico’s Request For WTO To Review COOL
10/23/2009

Reuters reports the United States has blocked a request Mexico and Canada submitted to the World Trade Organization to review new Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rules for all meat imported to the U.S.

WTO allows the plantiff to reject the first request submitted in a dispute, but a second request may be filed at the next WTO meeting held on November 19. The COOL rules create more steps for meat processors which can be skipped by purchasing U.S. beef. Canada claims that both cattle and pig exports have taken a hit.

Both Canada and Mexico say the COOL rules have drastically reduced the amount of beef sent to the U.S. Canada and the U.S. are each other’s primary agricultural trading partner, trade between the two totaled $37 billion in 2008. COOL requires meat sold in stores to be labeled with where it was produced.

"COOL is discouraging U.S. retailers, processors, feedlots and producers from buying Canadian livestock and meat. The negative impact on Canadian beef, pork and cattle exporters has been significant," Canada said in a statement to the dispute body.

Source: Reuters.com
 

Kato

Well-known member
Yada Yada Yada ............

Manitoba Cooperator. Here's the link so you can see nothing was cut out.

http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/issues/ISArticle.asp?aid=1000345447&PC=FBC&issue=10252009


U.S. postpones Canada's day at WTO on COOL


The U.S., as previously predicted, has rejected Canada’s request for a dispute settlement panel at the World Trade Organization to hear Ottawa’s complaint on country-of-origin labelling (COOL), according to the Reuters news service.

WTO rules allow members one opportunity to postpone such a request. Canada had filed its request with the intent of bringing it to last Friday’s (Oct. 23) scheduled meeting of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body.

Both Canada and Mexico first brought complaints about COOL to the WTO last year, but had put those requests on hold when it appeared that COOL legislation, as brought forward near the end of the Bush administration, would not be as burdensome as feared on U.S. processors.

Canada re-filed its request earlier this month after the Obama administration announced it would hold U.S. processors to a less flexible interpretation of COOL on their products.

Reuters noted Friday that the recent requests from Canada and Mexico are now expected to be bumped ahead to the Dispute Settlement Body’s next meeting on Nov. 19 -- and the U.S. will not be able to block them again.

Canada’s Wayne Easter, the opposition ag critic for the federal Liberals, had earlier this month urged the Conservative government to move fast on filing with the Dispute Settlement Body. Easter had warned that Washington would likely exercise its right to bump Ottawa’s request to November.

And the beat goes on........................... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
And the beat goes on........................... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Yep- and another month- how many more Canadian producers sell out while chasing windmills :???:

Or US producers go deeper in the hole with sad prices....

Too bad both countries couldn't come out of all the bitchin and moanin and finagling with these global lawmakers-- and all come up with a Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (give the consumers a true, transparent choice) - plus some rules against Packer Ownership, and enforcement of the Anti Trust Laws (Canada is even worse than the US)......

But won't happen- because each country is blaming the other.... And the winners will be the Multinational Packers/Global Walmarters- and the producers of South America and the rest of the world..... :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Group Thanks USDA, USTR for COOL Support



Source: R-CALF USA

November 3, 2009



Billings, Mont. – In a letter sent today to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk [pdf], R-CALF USA expressed its gratitude for their action on Oct. 23 that blocked both Canada’s and Mexico’s complaints filed with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the United States’ country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law and pledged to work with the pair in any way possible to ensure that both U.S. livestock producers and consumers alike are accorded the benefits of accurate food labeling as Congress directed.



“Though it is unfortunate that Canada and Mexico have chosen to interfere with our nation’s sovereign right to provide U.S. consumers with accurate information that identifies the origins of their food, it should not be forgotten that the COOL regulations still contain unacceptable loopholes, including the loophole that allows whole muscle cuts of meat from animals exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the United States to be effectively mislabeled with a mixed-country label,” wrote R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry.



“We hope the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will quickly initiate rulemaking to close this and other inappropriate loopholes,” he continues in the letter. “A rulemaking to address the specific concerns outlined in the joint letter sent by 32 U.S. Senators to former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer on Sept. 25, 2008, may negate the WTO’s insistence that it has jurisdiction over this matter. Such rulemaking would effectively provide both Canada and Mexico a more appropriate forum – one on par with the citizens of the United States – to express their concerns and recommendations regarding the COOL law within our domestic rulemaking process.”



Should Canada and Mexico persist at the WTO despite the United States’ initial rejection of their complaints, their complaints likely would proceed later in November when the WTO dispute settlement body is scheduled to reconvene.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Should Canada and Mexico persist at the WTO despite the United States’ initial rejection of their complaints, their complaints likely would proceed later in November when the WTO dispute settlement body is scheduled to reconvene.

They are persisting, and they expected the initial rejection. They would have been surprised if the U.S. did not reject it. And yes, they will proceed later, as there is only one opportunity to block, and that has been used.
 

Latest posts

Top