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

Soapweed - COOL "Teeth"

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Soap, I was going to pm you this but then thought maybe I'd just throw it out there for rational discussion from the board. You irrational types, and you know who you are, need not be a part of this.

I know the main reason you are against M-COOL is because you've been told there can be no enforcement without traceback, which isn't part of the law. You want "teeth". Here's my thinking - and I'm on my second cup of coffee so I'm thinking really fast right now....

All beef that hits our shores is already COOL. From what I garner, all Mexican cattle that come in are branded "M" and now all Canadian cattle need to be branded "CAN". As long as the folks at the border do the job already assigned to them, we have working traceback today that will identify country of origin. If the box doesn't have a foreign label, it's US. If the animal isn't branded "M", or "CAN", it's US. The hard part is already done.

Everything now goes to the packer or whoever is using the foreign beef. Contrary to what some biased reality ignoring fools might claim, the packers can segregate cattle and account for all the individual packages. They're already doing it. The only enforcement that would need to be done would be at the packer level to make sure they're not calling something what it is not - and there already are inspectors to monitor the process.

What do you think?

See you tonight?
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Sandhusker...Contrary to what some biased reality ignoring fools might claim, the packers can segregate cattle and account for all the individual packages. They're already doing it.


Are you talking about the segregating of the beef that was going to Japan, the 21 month and younger, and the beef we get from Canada, the 30 month and younger? It would seem to me that this would be harder to segregate than Country of Origin.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tommy said:
Sandhusker...Contrary to what some biased reality ignoring fools might claim, the packers can segregate cattle and account for all the individual packages. They're already doing it.


Are you talking about the segregating of the beef that was going to Japan, the 21 month and younger, and the beef we get from Canada, the 30 month and younger? It would seem to me that this would be harder to segregate than Country of Origin.

That and CAB, hormone free, "natural", etc....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

Thank God that my lenders have more common sense than you.


Unrefuted facts on "M"COOL:

1. "M"COOL, as written, would result in 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption being labeled as imported.

2. "M"COOL, as written, is not enforceable because it demands proof of where beef was "BORN", raised and slaughtered which requires a traceback on all cattle, not just foreign cattle. Considering beef fabrication as it is currently run, an individual carcass can become 300 individual packages of beef shipped to various destinations that all need to be tracked just to segregate 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption as imported.

3. You packer blamers claim that the large packers are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp. Now suddenly you want to trust them to segregate foreign beef without an enforceable traceback system? Talk about hypocrisy!

4. The costs of "M"COOL will not be offset by the minimal benefits.

5. If you are going to segregate your product to the benefit of that product YOU HAVE TO SEGREGATE YOUR PRODUCT FROM SOMETHING, not a measly 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption.

6. Consumers are not asking for it. If they were, they could purchase source verified branded beef products without another stupid flawed government mandate.

7. During "M"COOL listening sessions, many retailers and packers of all shapes and sizes testified against "M"COOL due to the cost/benefit concerns. Ironically, it would be the large packers that would be able to comply more easily.

8. Consumers place far more emphasis on price than country of origin.

9. R-CULT's statement that "M"COOL could be administrated like the school lunch program is a bold faced lie. Qualifications for the school lunch program are totally different. An animal that was born in Canada and fed and processed in the U.S. qualifies for the school lunch program but not "M"COOL. Another R-CULT lie.

10. New Zealand lamb, when sold side by side with U.S. lamb, outsold U.S. lamb due to "novelty" status.

11. Canadian beef and Mexican beef, which would dominate that measly 5% of our total beef consumption, would not be a consumer deterrant due to the quality of Canadian beef and the fact that a high percentage of our population is hispanic.


I challenge anyone to present any facts to contradict any of these positions.


"M"COOL is the classic "symbolism over substance" issue. All hat and no cattle.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

Thank God that my lenders have more common sense than you.


Unrefuted facts on "M"COOL:

1. "M"COOL, as written, would result in 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption being labeled as imported.

2. "M"COOL, as written, is not enforceable because it demands proof of where beef was "BORN", raised and slaughtered which requires a traceback on all cattle, not just foreign cattle. Considering beef fabrication as it is currently run, an individual carcass can become 300 individual packages of beef shipped to various destinations that all need to be tracked just to segregate 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption as imported.

3. You packer blamers claim that the large packers are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp. Now suddenly you want to trust them to segregate foreign beef without an enforceable traceback system? Talk about hypocrisy!

4. The costs of "M"COOL will not be offset by the minimal benefits.

5. If you are going to segregate your product to the benefit of that product YOU HAVE TO SEGREGATE YOUR PRODUCT FROM SOMETHING, not a measly 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption.

6. Consumers are not asking for it. If they were, they could purchase source verified branded beef products without another stupid flawed government mandate.

7. During "M"COOL listening sessions, many retailers and packers of all shapes and sizes testified against "M"COOL due to the cost/benefit concerns. Ironically, it would be the large packers that would be able to comply more easily.

8. Consumers place far more emphasis on price than country of origin.

9. R-CULT's statement that "M"COOL could be administrated like the school lunch program is a bold faced lie. Qualifications for the school lunch program are totally different. An animal that was born in Canada and fed and processed in the U.S. qualifies for the school lunch program but not "M"COOL. Another R-CULT lie.

10. New Zealand lamb, when sold side by side with U.S. lamb, outsold U.S. lamb due to "novelty" status.

11. Canadian beef and Mexican beef, which would dominate that measly 5% of our total beef consumption, would not be a consumer deterrant due to the quality of Canadian beef and the fact that a high percentage of our population is hispanic.


I challenge anyone to present any facts to contradict any of these positions.


"M"COOL is the classic "symbolism over substance" issue. All hat and no cattle.


~SH~

I thought I requested no irrational people.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

Thank God that my lenders have more common sense than you.


Unrefuted facts on "M"COOL:

1. "M"COOL, as written, would result in 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption being labeled as imported.

2. "M"COOL, as written, is not enforceable because it demands proof of where beef was "BORN", raised and slaughtered which requires a traceback on all cattle, not just foreign cattle. Considering beef fabrication as it is currently run, an individual carcass can become 300 individual packages of beef shipped to various destinations that all need to be tracked just to segregate 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption as imported.

3. You packer blamers claim that the large packers are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp. Now suddenly you want to trust them to segregate foreign beef without an enforceable traceback system? Talk about hypocrisy!

4. The costs of "M"COOL will not be offset by the minimal benefits.

5. If you are going to segregate your product to the benefit of that product YOU HAVE TO SEGREGATE YOUR PRODUCT FROM SOMETHING, not a measly 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption.

6. Consumers are not asking for it. If they were, they could purchase source verified branded beef products without another stupid flawed government mandate.

7. During "M"COOL listening sessions, many retailers and packers of all shapes and sizes testified against "M"COOL due to the cost/benefit concerns. Ironically, it would be the large packers that would be able to comply more easily.

8. Consumers place far more emphasis on price than country of origin.

9. R-CULT's statement that "M"COOL could be administrated like the school lunch program is a bold faced lie. Qualifications for the school lunch program are totally different. An animal that was born in Canada and fed and processed in the U.S. qualifies for the school lunch program but not "M"COOL. Another R-CULT lie.

10. New Zealand lamb, when sold side by side with U.S. lamb, outsold U.S. lamb due to "novelty" status.

11. Canadian beef and Mexican beef, which would dominate that measly 5% of our total beef consumption, would not be a consumer deterrant due to the quality of Canadian beef and the fact that a high percentage of our population is hispanic.


I challenge anyone to present any facts to contradict any of these positions.


"M"COOL is the classic "symbolism over substance" issue. All hat and no cattle.


~SH~

I thought I requested no irrational people.

Guess that jusy proves he ain't. :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Lord knows I've got better things to do than argue with a rock, but I just drank some coffee at bible study and won't be able to sleep for a while anyway, so I'll address your "unrefuted facts", SH.


SH, "1. "M"COOL, as written, would result in 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption being labeled as imported."

There once was a day when Japanese autos only accounted for 5% of US sales as well. You put your head in the sand and your arse is a huge target. That number will only go up as more imports hit our shores due to this wonderful religion called free trade that our leaders have sold our souls for. Our dear own multi-national packers aren't taking up position in beef exporting areas and lobbying for laxer import laws for no reason.

SH, "2. "M"COOL, as written, is not enforceable because it demands proof of where beef was "BORN", raised and slaughtered which requires a traceback on all cattle, not just foreign cattle. Considering beef fabrication as it is currently run, an individual carcass can become 300 individual packages of beef shipped to various destinations that all need to be tracked just to segregate 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption as imported."

No problem. That has already been explained in my opening statement. Guess SH didn't like what he read so he passed over it.

SH, "3. You packer blamers claim that the large packers are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp. Now suddenly you want to trust them to segregate foreign beef without an enforceable traceback system? Talk about hypocrisy!"

I guess you passed over where I mentioned inspectors are already at the plants.

SH, "4. The costs of "M"COOL will not be offset by the minimal benefits."

What costs? All the leg work is already done at the border. The only cost is a few more inspectors to cover the added work load of keeping the packers honest.

SH, "5. If you are going to segregate your product to the benefit of that product YOU HAVE TO SEGREGATE YOUR PRODUCT FROM SOMETHING, not a measly 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption."

Once again, 5% today, what about next year, 5 years from now, 10, 20? Do you wait until the blizzard hits before you get the cows to shelter, or do you do it when you see the clouds coming?

SH, "6. Consumers are not asking for it. If they were, they could purchase source verified branded beef products without another stupid flawed government mandate. "

I have to laugh at this excuse. Why does the checkoff try to come up with new products? Why don't they just wait for the consumers to ask for something? That sure would be easier. Did the consumers ask for CAB? That program seems to be working well and profiting producers. What kind of a businessman waits until consumers ask for something? Did consumers ask Henry Ford to put a motor on a buggy?

SH, "7. During "M"COOL listening sessions, many retailers and packers of all shapes and sizes testified against "M"COOL due to the cost/benefit concerns. Ironically, it would be the large packers that would be able to comply more easily. "

The packers want the only brand loyalty to be the house label, nothing else. The want to dictate what will be provided. They've invested a lot of time and money in setting up foreign supplies to handle US consumers and US consumers wanting and being able to choose US beef over product from their cheaper foreign suppliers is not to their benefit. Retailers are against it a they are going to sell the beef anyway, and things run smoother with less product lines, choices, etc.... It's easier planning inventory and shelf space.

SH, "8. Consumers place far more emphasis on price than country of origin. "

Of course price is a valid concern. However, billions of dollars are spent on advertising campaigns on multitudes of products because business people know that price is not the only factor. Image, trends, health, patriotism, sex etc.... also sell. Pick about any top selling brand name in most any product at the supermarket and I'll about guarantee you there is a cheaper brand available that does not sell as well.

SH, "9. R-CULT's statement that "M"COOL could be administrated like the school lunch program is a bold faced lie. Qualifications for the school lunch program are totally different. An animal that was born in Canada and fed and processed in the U.S. qualifies for the school lunch program but not "M"COOL. Another R-CULT lie."

R-CALF is not lying. They said the school lunch program could be a model. They did not say the two programs were identical as SH leads one to believe. For someone who's self-proclaimed only bias is the truth, you think he would actually seek it from time to time.

SH, "10. New Zealand lamb, when sold side by side with U.S. lamb, outsold U.S. lamb due to "novelty" status."

You just provided another example that proves your point #8 is just a smoke screen. Thanks for the help, SH. Guess you trapped yourself again.

SH, "11. Canadian beef and Mexican beef, which would dominate that measly 5% of our total beef consumption, would not be a consumer deterrant due to the quality of Canadian beef and the fact that a high percentage of our population is hispanic."

What, helping me debunk #8 again? You just don't know when to stop, do you? Thanks, but it's easy enough for me to shoot holes in your anti-producer packer backing without your help. Maybe a little of that advertising from the checkoff would be good way to combat this? That is unless you don't think advertising works which would make you anti-checkoff.

Man, this was easy. I think I'm going to see if there is any cake left in the kitchen. I need a challenge - maybe the frosting is sticking to the pan.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,248
Reaction score
23
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
I have to commend you, Sandhusker. You did a pretty good job defending your case. My own stance is to take a wait and see attitude, and leave it in the hands of those who know more about it than I do.

There are a couple trite phrases though that come to mind. "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," and "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Undoubtedly, there are some significant reasons while this is not already up and running with such an easy format.

About twenty-seven years ago, I bought a 3/4" drive socket set. Recently, the ratchet went kapooie, and I even pinched a finger badly because it no longer works. I decided to replace it at the local ranch supply store. I went in and told them what I needed, and the manager said, "You have two choices." The choices were buying the ratchet separate for $56, or buying a whole complete set (including a ratchet, breaker bar, a couple extenders, and all the sockets) for $60. I don't know if either of the choices were "American-made" but I do know that the "most bang for the buck" sydrome took over. I didn't even argue with myself before buying the complete set for $60.

Consumers tend to be bargain hunters.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Soapweed...I don't know if either of the choices were "American-made" but I do know that the "most bang for the buck" sydrome took over.

All you would have had to do is look on the wrench Soapweed, the country that it was made in was on the wrench. At least it is on all the ones I have. Also if your ratchet was an "American Made" one it more than likely was guaranteed for life, and all you would have had to do was to turn it in where they sell the same brand and they either would have fixed it for you or gave you a new one. There is definatly a difference between "American-Made" wrenches and those cheaper ones from China, India, Taiwan, ect.
You bust your knuckles enough you will know if you got "your bang for your buck".
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,609
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
Lord knows I've got better things to do than argue with a rock, but I just drank some coffee at bible study and won't be able to sleep for a while anyway, so I'll address your "unrefuted facts", SH.


SH, "1. "M"COOL, as written, would result in 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption being labeled as imported."

There once was a day when Japanese autos only accounted for 5% of US sales as well. You put your head in the sand and your arse is a huge target. That number will only go up as more imports hit our shores due to this wonderful religion called free trade that our leaders have sold our souls for. Our dear own multi-national packers aren't taking up position in beef exporting areas and lobbying for laxer import laws for no reason.

SH, "2. "M"COOL, as written, is not enforceable because it demands proof of where beef was "BORN", raised and slaughtered which requires a traceback on all cattle, not just foreign cattle. Considering beef fabrication as it is currently run, an individual carcass can become 300 individual packages of beef shipped to various destinations that all need to be tracked just to segregate 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption as imported."

No problem. That has already been explained in my opening statement. Guess SH didn't like what he read so he passed over it.

SH, "3. You packer blamers claim that the large packers are hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp. Now suddenly you want to trust them to segregate foreign beef without an enforceable traceback system? Talk about hypocrisy!"

I guess you passed over where I mentioned inspectors are already at the plants.

SH, "4. The costs of "M"COOL will not be offset by the minimal benefits."

What costs? All the leg work is already done at the border. The only cost is a few more inspectors to cover the added work load of keeping the packers honest.

SH, "5. If you are going to segregate your product to the benefit of that product YOU HAVE TO SEGREGATE YOUR PRODUCT FROM SOMETHING, not a measly 5% of our total U.S. beef consumption."

Once again, 5% today, what about next year, 5 years from now, 10, 20? Do you wait until the blizzard hits before you get the cows to shelter, or do you do it when you see the clouds coming?

SH, "6. Consumers are not asking for it. If they were, they could purchase source verified branded beef products without another stupid flawed government mandate. "

I have to laugh at this excuse. Why does the checkoff try to come up with new products? Why don't they just wait for the consumers to ask for something? That sure would be easier. Did the consumers ask for CAB? That program seems to be working well and profiting producers. What kind of a businessman waits until consumers ask for something? Did consumers ask Henry Ford to put a motor on a buggy?
********************

Sandhusker, you will have to ask the CAB people and the Ford people if they brought their "new products" without doing consumer research to determine if there was a demand for them. Does it make sense as a banker that they would be that foolish?

The Beef Checkoff leaders do such research before deciding to bring out a new product, and STILL not all of them are instant hits with the consumer! Why don't you spend some time learning more about what is being done with the Beef Checkoff? There isn't enough money in the program to adequately inform producers who do not want to know so they can self-justify their complaints, and a few volunteers like myself cannot cover all the bases either.

MRJ
**********************************

SH, "7. During "M"COOL listening sessions, many retailers and packers of all shapes and sizes testified against "M"COOL due to the cost/benefit concerns. Ironically, it would be the large packers that would be able to comply more easily. "

The packers want the only brand loyalty to be the house label, nothing else. The want to dictate what will be provided. They've invested a lot of time and money in setting up foreign supplies to handle US consumers and US consumers wanting and being able to choose US beef over product from their cheaper foreign suppliers is not to their benefit. Retailers are against it a they are going to sell the beef anyway, and things run smoother with less product lines, choices, etc.... It's easier planning inventory and shelf space.

SH, "8. Consumers place far more emphasis on price than country of origin. "

Of course price is a valid concern. However, billions of dollars are spent on advertising campaigns on multitudes of products because business people know that price is not the only factor. Image, trends, health, patriotism, sex etc.... also sell. Pick about any top selling brand name in most any product at the supermarket and I'll about guarantee you there is a cheaper brand available that does not sell as well.

SH, "9. R-CULT's statement that "M"COOL could be administrated like the school lunch program is a bold faced lie. Qualifications for the school lunch program are totally different. An animal that was born in Canada and fed and processed in the U.S. qualifies for the school lunch program but not "M"COOL. Another R-CULT lie."

R-CALF is not lying. They said the school lunch program could be a model. They did not say the two programs were identical as SH leads one to believe. For someone who's self-proclaimed only bias is the truth, you think he would actually seek it from time to time.

SH, "10. New Zealand lamb, when sold side by side with U.S. lamb, outsold U.S. lamb due to "novelty" status."

You just provided another example that proves your point #8 is just a smoke screen. Thanks for the help, SH. Guess you trapped yourself again.

SH, "11. Canadian beef and Mexican beef, which would dominate that measly 5% of our total beef consumption, would not be a consumer deterrant due to the quality of Canadian beef and the fact that a high percentage of our population is hispanic."

What, helping me debunk #8 again? You just don't know when to stop, do you? Thanks, but it's easy enough for me to shoot holes in your anti-producer packer backing without your help. Maybe a little of that advertising from the checkoff would be good way to combat this? That is unless you don't think advertising works which would make you anti-checkoff.

Man, this was easy. I think I'm going to see if there is any cake left in the kitchen. I need a challenge - maybe the frosting is sticking to the pan.
 

Latest posts

Top