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

Steve, Warming to "COOL"

Mike

Well-known member
Never thought I'd see this writer agree on COOL. :???:


Warming to COOL
4/16/2007

Steve Cornett

Your reporter, free market fool he is, continues to warm to country of origin labeling. Consider the situation with

Japan and Korea.

Those countries’ governments are both subject to a couple of kinds of pressure to limit U.S. beef imports. One bunch of pressure comes from the domestic beef producers. In both cases, cattle production is ridiculously expensive. The guys who grow cows don’t want competition from the likes of you and me. So there is the plain old protectionist climate.

But now that the U.S. has been cast as a BSE country, there is also the consumer group element—the folks who want government to keep people safe from any perceived threat.

We’ve now got OIE to agree on scientific guidelines. That’s good. If we can force our trading partners to accept them. But why don’t we spend more effort pushing the concept of labeling and consumer choice?

Our argument with Japan should be, “so, require the beef be labeled as U.S. product, and let consumers decide.” Then keep your nose out of our business. Let the market work. If consumers don’t trust U.S. beef they don’t have to buy it.

It’s my guess that few consumers would be afraid of the U.S. brand, although there might be a tendency to avoid the product over political matters. (Remember when we started calling French fries “freedom fries?”

Anyhow, I rather suppose we should lead the way on that. If people want to avoid Canadian or Mexican or Australian beef, let them. Just make it a fair and workable program. Let processors label the product as “may contain” beef from Canada or “may contain” beef from cattle born in Mexico rather than implementing measures meant to add cost to imported product.

Strikes me as more fair play and something that might take some of the protectionist pressure off here and abroad.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I think the guy is making sense except where he says, "Let processors label the product as “may contain” beef from Canada or “may contain” beef from cattle born in Mexico rather than implementing measures meant to add cost to imported product."

We already are "letting" them put that on the label - it isn't happening because they don't want to and won't do it until they have to. If it made them money, they would be doing it now. They don't want people to get in the habit of choosing product from a certain country - it limits their purchasing options. The want the option to buy product from any country in the world to sell to any country in the world.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I think the guy is making sense except where he says, "Let processors label the product as “may contain” beef from Canada or “may contain” beef from cattle born in Mexico rather than implementing measures meant to add cost to imported product."

We already are "letting" them put that on the label - it isn't happening because they don't want to and won't do it until they have to. If it made them money, they would be doing it now. They don't want people to get in the habit of choosing product from a certain country - it limits their purchasing options. The want the option to buy product from any country in the world to sell to any country in the world.

If consumers demanded it, there would be economic incentive.

Source verified is filling the need for the consumers wanting it, and it isn't costing the industry profits.

With no national ID all US beef would have to be in the may contain category, with added costs for labels and no benefits.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
Sandhusker said:
I think the guy is making sense except where he says, "Let processors label the product as “may contain” beef from Canada or “may contain” beef from cattle born in Mexico rather than implementing measures meant to add cost to imported product."

We already are "letting" them put that on the label - it isn't happening because they don't want to and won't do it until they have to. If it made them money, they would be doing it now. They don't want people to get in the habit of choosing product from a certain country - it limits their purchasing options. The want the option to buy product from any country in the world to sell to any country in the world.

If consumers demanded it, there would be economic incentive.

Source verified is filling the need for the consumers wanting it, and it isn't costing the industry profits.

With no national ID all US beef would have to be in the may contain category, with added costs for labels and no benefits.

Wrong again Jason- source verified already has a means of identifying where their beef comes from-- but it will then mean that the Packers can't take all the other beef from anywhere in the world and still fraudulently call it a US Beef ....I believe M-COOL will lead to much more source verified, once more consumers find out they are being deceived/defrauded by the Packer imports.....

And if all imported beef/cattle are marked/identified (like they currently are), there does not need to be a National ID to make M-COOL work....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason said:
Sandhusker said:
I think the guy is making sense except where he says, "Let processors label the product as “may contain” beef from Canada or “may contain” beef from cattle born in Mexico rather than implementing measures meant to add cost to imported product."

We already are "letting" them put that on the label - it isn't happening because they don't want to and won't do it until they have to. If it made them money, they would be doing it now. They don't want people to get in the habit of choosing product from a certain country - it limits their purchasing options. The want the option to buy product from any country in the world to sell to any country in the world.

If consumers demanded it, there would be economic incentive.

Source verified is filling the need for the consumers wanting it, and it isn't costing the industry profits.

With no national ID all US beef would have to be in the may contain category, with added costs for labels and no benefits.

Consumers aren't demanding COOL because they assume the beef they are getting with that USDA stamp is from the US. That USDA is a COOL label by default to them.

The economic incentive to not have COOL is for the packers - they know the money is made buying, not selling. They can't buy the cheapest product in the world if an informative label would be a detriment to getting that product sold.

We don't need a National ID for COOL. Label the product coming in and the rest is US by default. It's being done already! How dang hard does it have to be? If somebody gave me a bucket with 100 marbles in it - 95 white and 5 black and asked me to seperate them, I would pick out the 5 black and be done. How would you do it, Jason?
 
Top