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

TAKE YOUR PICK R CALF OR NCBA

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
“Voluntary” Origin Label Bill
Another Chapter In Long Fight

WASHINGTON — The country of origin labeling controversy has taken another turn.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., this month introduced voluntary country of origin labeling legislation.

Goodlatte’s “Meat Promotion Act of 2005,” H.R. 2068, would amend the country of origin labeling requirements in the 2002 farm bill that require mandatory country of origin labeling of retail meat at point of sale. Restaurants and the food service industry aren't covered by either bill.

While the country of origin sections of the 2002 Farm Bill include meat, poultry, seafood, fruits and vegetables, the proposed voluntary legislation applies only to beef, pork and lamb.

Meat labeled under the program would have to be born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. The Secretary of Agriculture would create a label retailers could use to designate the country of origin.

"It has been three years since enactment of the 2002 farm bill, and yet there is still a lack of consensus about how the COOL provisions can best be implemented," Goodlatte said in a written statement concerning the proposed legislation.

"I have always favored a voluntary approach, and the legislation we are introducing will replace the current mandatory system, with its potential for creating another layer of regulatory and business cost, with a voluntary program. This approach benefits consumers and producers and is preferable to a mandatory program that is more likely to hurt the people it was intended to help."

The bill comes in response to calls for a voluntary program that is market-driven, says Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, Texas, and one of the cosponsors of the bill.

"We appreciate Chairman Goodlatte," says Richard McDonald, president and CEO of the Texas Cattle Feeders Association.

McDonald says TCFA and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association support Goodlatte's bill.

Jim McAdams, president of the NCBA, says nearly 60 food and agricultural groups support the bipartisan bill.

Goodlatte contends that a voluntary program that is market-driven recognizes existing labeling programs, minimizes recordkeeping, allows flexibility and is cost-effective.

McDonald says proposed legislation puts the marketplace in charge. He says the bill does not discriminate against any groups in the marketing chain, and he says it is based on existing state and regional labeling programs.

Goodlatte says that under his proposed legislation, compliance with the country of origin labeling provision in the 2002 farm bill would no longer be mandatory.

Participants in the program would be required to maintain source verification records. The bill states that the Secretary of Agriculture may require participants in the program to maintain a recordkeeping audit trail that will permit the USDA to verify compliance with the program.

The bill also leaves drawing specific regulations for the program up to the USDA.

Violators of the program, such as anyone who labels meat that has not been born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. as having U.S. country-of-origin status, are subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000.

"The stated intent of those who advocate a mandatory COOL scheme has been to benefit producers, which is a worthy goal," Goodlatte says. "Unfortunately, no one has made a clear case to me that mandatory COOL does anything to help producers. The voluntary approach in this bill ensures that those who are paying the cost of the regulations will be doing so because they have determined that there is an added benefit provided by the program."

For their part, officials at R-CALF USA, a Montana-based cattlemen's group that has fought hard for the mandatory version of country of origin labeling, say they are disappointed in Goodlatte's voluntary bill. They say the proposed voluntary act has no substance.

Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president and co-founder, says Goodlatte's bill undermines the democratic process on which America was founded.

"One of the largest coalitions in history brought together consumers and producers to develop and help pass the legislation that created mandatory COOL," McDonnell says in a prepared statement.

"Rep. Goodlatte's proposal will gut the current law and deny consumers their right to make informed purchases by being given truthful labeling about where the beef they feed their families comes from."

The 2002 farm bill included a provision that would have implemented mandatory COOL on Sept. 30, 2004. Opponents, including meatpacking and retail lobby groups, as well as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, McDonnell says, were successful in delaying implementation of the law until Sept. 30, 2006.

"The meatpackers, retailers and their allied industry groups will stop at nothing to repeal mandatory COOL," McDonnell says. "Their claim that a voluntary program will work is ludicrous."

McDonnell says USDA admits that no retailers have participated in a voluntary labeling program that has existed for years.

"There is no excuse for denying American consumers the choice of U.S.A.-raised beef, pork, vegetables and fruits," McDonnell says. "NCBA's opposition to mandatory COOL undermines the demand transparencies and marketing changes needed by U.S. ranchers to successfully compete in a growing global market."

Attacking NCBA, McDonnell says the national cattlemen's group has been the primary force in delaying the implementation of a mandatory program, and now they are trying to kill it altogether.

Chuck Kiker, a regional R-CALF director, says Goodlatte's proposal for a voluntary labeling program does nothing but help U.S. packers pad their pockets by using imports to leverage down U.S. cattle prices.

"All Goodlatte's proposal will do is help U.S. packers who are expanding operations in Canada continue to dump Canadian beef into the U.S. market — beef that no other countries will take — and this Canadian beef will continue to be disguised as U.S. beef," Kiker says.

"However, if mandatory COOL stands, Canadian beef products will be labeled as 'Product of Canada,' and no doubt, some of that product will sell, but at a much discounted price. Mandatory labeling would reduce the already exorbitant profits currently being realized by the packers on imported meat, and that's why they want to replace it with a voluntary program."

Bill Bullard, R-CALF chief executive officer, says the legislation proposed by Goodlatte represents the continued efforts of the opposition to kill mandatory COOL.

"These opponents continue to claim that a mandatory labeling program is impossible, but anyone can go to their grocer's seafood counter today and see firsthand the results of the labeling requirements that took effect in April of this year," says Bullard. "This underscores the fact that mandatory COOL isn't rocket science."

Danni Beer, a South Dakota rancher who serves as chair of R-CALF’s COOL committee, says Goodlatte is misleading everyone by portraying his proposed legislation as a positive move. Beer says it's something negative both for U.S. consumers and U.S. cattle producers.

"Those opposed to mandatory COOL keep saying it would just be too expensive and burdensome to producers, but R-CALF has repeatedly explained how to implement the program in a very cost-effective manner to the tune of less than one-tenth of one cent per pound, according to a May 2003 study by the International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center," Beer says.

The 33 cosponsors of Goodlatte's bill are Representives Marion Berry, D-Ark.; Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; John Boehner, R-Ohio; Henry Bonilla, R-Texas; G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C.; Eric Cantor, R-Va.; Michael Conaway, R-Texas; John T. Doolittle, R-Calif.; Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo.; Bob Etheridge, D-N.C.; Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.; Sam Graves, R-Mo.; Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn.; Robin Hayes, R-N.C.; William Jefferson, D-La.; Mark Kennedy, R-Minn.; Jack Kingston, R-Ga.; John Kline, R-Minn.; Tom Latham, R-Iowa; David Manzullo, R-Ill.; Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas; Michael Oxley, R-Ohio; Mike Pence, R-Ind.; Mike Ross, D-Ark.; David Scott, D-Ga.; Pete Sessions, R-Texas; John Shimkus, R-Ill; Vic Snyder, D-Ark.; Mac Thornberry, R-Texas; Jerry Weller, R-Ill.; and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Quote from Haymensa's cut and paste- "However, if mandatory COOL stands, Canadian beef products will be labeled as 'Product of Canada,' and no doubt, some of that product will sell, but at a much discounted price. Mandatory labeling would reduce the already exorbitant profits currently being realized by the packers on imported meat, and that's why they want to replace it with a voluntary program."


Are consumers choices made on price first....or something else??? Never mind that " food service" beef is exempt from M'COOL as currently written!!!!

Be carefull what you wish for HAYMENSA!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
I dont believe every thing I read,and I dont believe M cool will cause Canadian beef to be discounted,some folks do I dont.I support M COOL because of our southern border,thats where our problem is ,yours and mine .And I do believe "that" beef will be discounted,hopefully to the point its not profitable.................good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
All the money being paid by the packers and the packer bought organizations to continue trying to kill labeling beef only makes me wonder how much there is being made and to be made by selling imported beef as a US product :???: ......Government backed fraud :cry:
 

Border rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Ab.- Mt. border
Hello All,
I don't believe Canadian producers have to worry about being discounted. If the price is the same as the US product and not a lot higher, informed consumers will soon recognize the quality of the Canadian product. I hope that our product never ends up with a US stamp, it should always be clearly marked as "Product of Canada".
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Border rancher said:
Hello All,
I don't believe Canadian producers have to worry about being discounted. If the price is the same as the US product and not a lot higher, informed consumers will soon recognize the quality of the Canadian product. I hope that our product never ends up with a US stamp, it should always be clearly marked as "Product of Canada".


Finally a canadian that is proud enough of their product to see what some of these canuckle heads cant.I can see why some of them are so brain washed I just got thru .........well almost got thru reading an article by stan eby who ever that dumb canuckle head is I didnt finish the article it made me to mad so I quit. He gives the pros and cons of packer owner ship and end result in his opinion was the same thing we hear from derelicts like sh,.......packers need to own cattle to be effient, the more cattle they own the more effient they become so the more they will pay for your cattle.That might be something a canuckle head would believe,but down here he would have a better chance of being struck by lightning than getting any one to believe that %[email protected]%^&**^#@$^*)(*^%)_&%$%..................good luck
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Big Muddy rancher said:
Haymaker isn't it past your bedtime. :???:

Yup it is but I had to keep a few of these canuckle heads pointed in the right direction.................good luck PS I guess I better head upstairs ............good luck & Bonsoir
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,977
Reaction score
76
Location
Big Muddy valley
HAY MAKER said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Haymaker isn't it past your bedtime. :???:

Yup it is but I had to keep a few of these canuckle heads pointed in the right direction.................good luck PS I guess I better head upstairs ............good luck & Bonsoir


What the hell is " BONSOIR"
 

Border rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Ab.- Mt. border
Haymaker, I am indeed very proud of our product! I am not worried that we have a large amount of BSE infected animals. As I have said before, our vet is so busy testing for BSE in old, diseased, downer type animals, that he has no time to treat healthy ones. I"m sure this is the case all over Canada.
I really believe that it was our incredibly bad luck and your very good luck that the cases found were of Canadian origin. If you imported one infected cow in the millions of cattle you have imported over the years, what would make you think that you could not have imported more than 1, or 2, or 1000or 2000 etc.? (That is assuming that you had absolutely no suspect feed in your own country)
I, like most cattle producers I know, believe that before much longer the demand for beef world wide will open export markets. That is, if a few protectionist loud mouths don't scare all consumers everywhere alway from beef of any kind!
 

Les

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
784
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta
A large amount of infected bse animals?????? 3 is not a large amount.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Quote: "For their part, officials at R-CALF USA, a Montana-based cattlemen's group that has fought hard for the mandatory version of country of origin labeling, say they are disappointed in Goodlatte's voluntary bill. They say the proposed voluntary act has no substance."

HAS NO SUBSTANCE?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Compared to the flawed law that Leo helped write the prohibited the means to enforce it and exempted 75% of the imported beef from labeling leaving a measely 5% of all U.S. beef consumption labeled as imported beef at the costs of labeling all beef when consumers aren't even asking for it?

YEH, NOW THAT'S SOME REAL SUBSTANCE HUH?

Too funny!



~SH~
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Com'on SH some on here and most in the US don't know that Goodlatte is a lobbyist for the BIG PACKERS with his bill's to support anti COOL.
 

Border rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Ab.- Mt. border
Sorry Les, What I was trying to say is that I don't believe a "large amount" meaning MORE THAN 3 OR 4 WILL EVER BE FOUND because if there were infected animals they would have been found with the extensive testing being done in Canada.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
All the money being paid by the packers and the packer bought organizations to continue trying to kill labeling beef only makes me wonder how much there is being made and to be made by selling imported beef as a US product :???: ......Government backed fraud :cry:

OT, since you are so sure they make all this money from imports why don't you just get into the business and quit complaining or should I say accusing. If MC would ever tell you the truth he is fining out what packer and retail margins are really like.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
21,977
Reaction score
76
Location
Big Muddy valley
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 613
Location: Big Muddy valley

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2005 11:11 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
HAY MAKER wrote:
Big Muddy rancher wrote:
Haymaker isn't it past your bedtime. Say what?


Yup it is but I had to keep a few of these canuckle heads pointed in the right direction.................good luck PS I guess I better head upstairs ............good luck & Bonsoir



What the hell is " BONSOIR"



_________________
Avatars by HAYMAKER
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Finally a canadian that is proud enough of their product to see what some of these canuckle heads cant.I can see why some of them are so brain washed I just got thru .........well almost got thru reading an article by stan eby who ever that dumb canuckle head is I didnt finish the article it made me to mad so I quit. He gives the pros and cons of packer owner ship and end result in his opinion was the same thing we hear from derelicts like sh,.......packers need to own cattle to be effient, the more cattle they own the more effient they become so the more they will pay for your cattle.That might be something a canuckle head would believe,but down here he would have a better chance of being struck by lightning than getting any one to believe that %[email protected]%^&**^#@$^*)(*^%)_&%$%..................good luck

I think all Canadians are proud of our "earless" product. It's the US that forces the product to be labelled as "product of USA", but when you get done with your infighting and concentrate on the goal, increasing demand for beef, we'll be right there with you. We've already started providing what the end consumer wants and will continue to provide a safe and consistent product. Dishonesty about our product will only force us to be more entrpeurnurial (sp?) That's what ends up be competitive and the big winner! :)
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Murgen said:
Finally a canadian that is proud enough of their product to see what some of these canuckle heads cant.I can see why some of them are so brain washed I just got thru .........well almost got thru reading an article by stan eby who ever that dumb canuckle head is I didnt finish the article it made me to mad so I quit. He gives the pros and cons of packer owner ship and end result in his opinion was the same thing we hear from derelicts like sh,.......packers need to own cattle to be effient, the more cattle they own the more effient they become so the more they will pay for your cattle.That might be something a canuckle head would believe,but down here he would have a better chance of being struck by lightning than getting any one to believe that %[email protected]%^&**^#@$^*)(*^%)_&%$%..................good luck

I think all Canadians are proud of our "earless" product. It's the US that forces the product to be labelled as "product of USA", but when you get done with your infighting and concentrate on the goal, increasing demand for beef, we'll be right there with you. We've already started providing what the end consumer wants and will continue to provide a safe and consistent product. Dishonesty about our product will only force us to be more entrpeurnurial (sp?) That's what ends up be competitive and the big winner! :)


I think they are too MURGEN, and I think M COOL will be good for the Canadian cattle man...........good luck
 

Latest posts

Top