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

Thune renews call for COOL law

PORKER

Well-known member
Thune renews call for COOL law
By Kevin Woster, Journal staff
The case of seven Canadian cattle that ended up at an eastern South Dakota livestock market shows the need for stronger programs to identify the origins of meat products, both on the hoof and in the box, U.S. Sen. John Thune said Wednesday.


During a conference call with reporters, the South Dakota Republican said livestock producers and consumers in the United States would benefit if the source of their meat was clarified. The incident with the Canadian cattle shows that weaknesses in the importation process on live cattle must be improved just as the long-delayed implementation of meat labeling must be accelerated, Thune said.

"If we know where a product is coming from when it comes into the United States and are labeling on the hoof and boxed beef when it comes across the border, we are going to be able to eliminate some of these incidents," Thune said.

Thune took action last week on meat labeling when he signed on to sponsor legislation to accelerate implementation of a country of origin labeling law approved by Congress five years ago. Through a couple of delays, President Bush and Congress blocked implementation of the law until September 2008.

The bill Thune supports would move that implementation to September 2007. Although the country of origin labeling issue is separate from the tracking of live beef that crosses the border with Canada, both are part of the overall effort to assure consumers safe food products from identifiable sources, Thune said.

And the accelerating country of origin labeling is a good place to start, he said.

"Anytime you hear about one of these incidents, I think it reaffirms the need to have a law like this on the books," Thune said.

Hermosa rancher Rick Fox, president of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, praised Thune's legislation and urged Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to finally put meat labeling into practice. If the United States labels its meat products and labels everything else as imported, other countries will respond by labeling their meat, Fox said.

After that, enforcement will be critical, he said.

"We just have to be the watch dog to police it," he said.

A slip in the watch-dog system on livestock allowed seven feeder cattle from Canada to end up at an eastern South Dakota livestock market a year ago. Wessington Springs farmer Jan Van Dyke purchased the feeders last February, fed them to slaughter weight and sent them with others to a packing plant in Nebraska, where they were identified as Canadian and condemned.

Van Dyke, who said he didn't know the calves were from Canada, was initially denied payment for the seven cattle, as well as for the offal (entrails and internal organs) for the entire load of cattle. The Stockgrowers and R-CALF USA helped Van Dyke get the $11,000 originally subtracted from his payment at the packing house.

Fox said the seven imported cattle should not have gone to the South Dakota market, which he declined to identify. The animals should have been shipped in sealed trucks to an identified feedlot, to remain there until slaughter, Fox said.

The incident shows weakness in the USDA's import-control process and raises more doubts about the wisdom of the agency's proposal to relax import restrictions on live cattle from Canada, Fox said. Canada's past problems with bovine spongiform encephalopathy should mean a more cautious approach to imports from that country, he said.

Thune, who also opposes the plan to relax the import standards on live cattle from Canada, said speeding meat-labeling provisions would be good for consumers and livestock producers. He begins this year's version of that old battle without the aid of Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson, a longtime leader in the push for meat labeling who is recovering from brain surgery.

Johnson communications director Julianne Fisher said the medical set-back wouldn't change the senator's fervor on the issue.

"Tim has been fighting this delay over and over again," Fisher said. "We know he remains committed to the issue and hope that, with the upcoming farm bill, the new leadership in Congress will push the administration to stop delaying implementation."

Fox said it's high time.

"We keep beating a dead horse, but everything else is labeled," he said. "And there's no reason what you put in your body shouldn't be labeled. It's about giving consumers a choice. I'm willing to compete with Canada."

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or [email protected]
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Here, in general, is how COOL would work: When implemented, only meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the United States would be eligible for USDA's "U.S. Meat" label.

Right now if beef from any foreign country is held in the United States for the prescribed number of hours before it is slaughtered, it can carry the USDA seal.

While imported beef slaughtered in the United States can still carry a USDA seal after the new rule goes into effect, it must also list the country of origin.

That only makes sense, and, according to a 2003 Colorado State University study, consumers are willing to pay for it.

That study, which involved 300 people in Chicago and Denver, showed that more than 70 percent would be willing to pay more for steak and hamburger and 75 percent wanted their meat labeled by country of origin.

Additionally, results of a poll released in January 2004 showed that 81 percent of Americans think that food should be labeled with country-of-origin information. The poll, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berlkand Associates Inc., an Internet survey group, was done for the National Farmers Union.

News reports over the years have also indicated that producers are very supportive of the mandatory food-labeling law because they see it as an incredible marketing tool, it would give consumers more information and give them first choice of U.S. beef.

However, many supermarkets and meatpackers don't like it. They say COOL would require too much paperwork and implementing it would be too expensive.

Sometimes - and this is one of those times - extra effort and extra investment are more than worth it.

In an era where threat of Mad Cow disease is very much alive and well, consumers deserve to know from where their meat comes. After all the precautions taken by the United States to protect its citizens and livestock from the impending BSE threat in Canada, it just makes sense to label meat with its country of origin.

As Sen. Thomas aptly pointed out, many products - such as clothing - already have country-of-origin labels. "If it is good enough for T-shirts, it is good enough for T-bones," he said.

He couldn't be more correct.

Bravo to the senators for being proactive in pushing for a more timely implementation date for COOL.
 
Top