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

Time to Implement COOL

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
To: R-CALF USA Members and Affiliates


From: Bill Bullard, CEO



Date: February 21, 2007



Subject: Time to Implement COOL: Letters to Congress Needed.



R-CALF USA members were in Washington, D.C., last week urging Congress to implement country-of-origin labeling for beef by September 2007. You will recall that COOL opponents successfully delayed implementation of COOL for beef until September 2008, so we need Congress to pass a new law to move the date to 2007.



COOL opponents are lobbying hard to convince Congress that the COOL law is unworkable and should be changed. However, the COOL law has been successfully implemented for fish and shellfish since April 2005, and it’s been working ever since! It’s now time to implement COOL for beef.



Please consider writing a personal letter to your Senators and Representatives explaining to them why you want COOL implemented by September 2007. In your letter, you can explain that USDA found solutions to all the perceived problems when they wrote the rules for fish and shellfish, and these same solutions can now be used as a model to implement COOL for beef.



A new rule for implementing COOL for beef should:



— Allow packers to indicate beef has come from imported animals without having to specify each further production step that may have occurred in the U.S.;

— Allow packers to label blended products with a list of the countries of origin that may be contained in the product, rather than a definitive list of each country;

— Allow retailers to rely on pre-labeled products for origin claims;

— Allow meat packers to rely on country markings that already are applied to cattle imports in order to determine origin;

— Eliminate unnecessary and duplicative record-keeping requirements regarding chain of custody and separate tracking during the production process to allow packers and retailers to rely on documents they already keep in the ordinary course of business;

— Reduce the record retention requirement from two years to one year; and

— Specify that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims.



COOL for fish and shellfish is already working under a common-sense approach. The same can be done for beef, and it can be done under current law without further delay. The changes outlined above would help address any legitimate concerns about the costs of the labeling program, while preserving the full benefits of mandatory COOL for U.S. cattle producers and for their consumers.



Your letters will help build the momentum to implement COOL that was started during R-CALF USA’s Washington, D.C. fly-in last week. If we start early, we’ll win early!



You can write your Senators using the following address:



The Honorable (Full Name)

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510



You can write your Representative using the following address:



The Honorable (Full Name)

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515



It would also be helpful to send a copy of your letter to the USDA. Here is the USDA address that you should send your COOL letter to:



Country of Origin Labeling Program, Room 2607-S

Agricultural Marketing Service

1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0254

Washington, DC 20250-0254



Thanks for your help and good luck with your letters!
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
A system like Emerge had would eliminate the need for COOL. With age and source verification, we would already have the Country Of Origin Labeling, would we not?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
In most cases we wouldn't need a M-COOL law if Packer/retailers just told the truth in the first place....
 

Jason

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
In most cases we wouldn't need a M-COOL law if Packer/retailers just told the truth in the first place....

Yet you trust they will follow this part of cool?

— Specify that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims.

So if they have higher quality beef from Canada that will sell for more with a US label, what stops them from switching an equivilant amount of poor US beef for the higher quality Canadian?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
Oldtimer said:
In most cases we wouldn't need a M-COOL law if Packer/retailers just told the truth in the first place....

Yet you trust they will follow this part of cool?

— Specify that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims.

So if they have higher quality beef from Canada that will sell for more with a US label, what stops them from switching an equivilant amount of poor US beef for the higher quality Canadian?

The same thing that stops the department stores from removing the made in china labels and replacing with made in the USA labels...
 

PORKER

Well-known member
CBW Exclusive: MCOOL loose ends loom large
(MEATPOULTRY.com, February 22, 2007)
by MEAT&POULTRY Staff
By Steve Kay (Cattle Buyers Weekly)

Mandatory country of origin labeling (commonly known as MCOOL) appears almost certain to be implemented in 2008. But the MCOOL law has significant flaws and is virtually unworkable in its present form, say observers. Opponents of the law need to accept there’s no hope of turning back the law. But they and MCOOL supporters need to work together to rectify the law’s defects and delay implementation of some parts of it, say observers. This includes removing ground beef from labeling requirements and relaxing what U.S. beef means. That would mitigate some of the worst effects of the law on both producers and meat processors. Even though the law isn’t due to take effect until Oct. 1, 2008, all those affected by the law need to come together soon to get the law changed and U.S.D.A.’s final rule on MCOOL altered, say observers.

For more information, visit Cattle Buyers Weekly (www.cattlebuyersweekly.com).
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Country of Origin Labeling Brokering Unlikely Western Relationships


By Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel, 2-27-07



Labeling the West: Many western states already have state of origin labels, but they are not mandatory.

Each week in the NewWest.Net "Spade & Spoon" section, writer Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel discusses the localization of the food system in the Rocky Mountain West by profiling organizations and individuals who are attending to the issues and possibilities of eating closer to home.

Let’s face it. Americans love labels. We are comforted by them. They make us feel special. They make us feel cool, particularly when they come on our clothes and shoes, cars and food. For some reason, the recognizable moniker, from Apple Computer’s Mac to an Organic Macintosh apple, gives us a sense of security, community or acceptance. We love labels so much that we even spend more just to have them.

But in recent years there is one label making more than a few people (and industries) shudder: Country Of Origin Labels, lovingly referred to as COOL.

COOL legislation was actually passed as a part of the 2002 Farm Bill in order to clearly identify the origin of beef, pork, lamb, fish, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts. Other than fish and shellfish, it has yet to go into effect as lobbyists for Cargill, the National Cattlemen’s Association and other industries have argued that the labeling program would prove too expensive for their industry to handle. Legislators reacted by delaying the implementation of the law in 2004 and again in 2005, meaning that COOL will not be implemented until September 30, 2008.

In response to the delay, Rocky Mountain Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Craig Thomas (R-WY) recently introduced bill S.404 to move up the implementation date by one year (Sept 30, 2007). Senators Jon Tester (D-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), also signed, along with those from the Dakotas and Iowa. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) is pushing a similar bill through the house. With more than 23 million acres of strategic Rocky Mountain Ranchland at risk of being lost, according to American Farmland Trust, and as the US loses two acres of agricultural land every minute, the Senators want mandatory COOL legislation implemented sooner than later so it can support the farmers and ranchers in their state. While Montana and New Mexico have state labels of origin, proponents argue that a national system would provide an edge for U.S. farmers and ranchers who are competing with global, cheap food imports. COOL would provide eaters with a basic understanding of where their food comes from and give them a more informed choice. More importantly, Craig Thomas, (R-WY) argues that, “If it is good enough for t-shirts, it is good enough for t-bones.”

Opponents of the legislation have long argued that COOL is far too expensive and unnecessary, particularly when, as Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed two years ago, our food system is the “safest in the world.” (Of course he didn’t know that California would be the origin of food borne illnesses like e-coli last year.) According to a 2006 Utne article, John Tyson, CEO of Tyson Foods, couldn’t agree more since the U.S. Department of Agriculture initially calculated that the first year of the mandatory COOL program would cost the food industry about $2 billion for paperwork alone. The General Accounting Office later found this figure unsupported, but industries and national associations continue to support a revision of mandatory COOL legislation. They would prefer COOL to be voluntary even though country of origin labeling already is an option.

Some farmers and ranchers also oppose the rule. But they just don’t think it includes enough food products. The law excludes processed beef, lamb, pork and frozen entrees containing those meats or food that is prepared and served at a food service establishment.

Organizations like the National Farmers’ Union and Montana Cattlemen’s Association think mandatory COOL legislation is a good start. In 2005 the National Farmers’ Union and more than one hundred other interested organizations sent a letter to Agriculture Appropriations Leaders supporting immediate implementation of mandatory COOL legislation, sighting the effectiveness of the program for seafood. In response, legislators voted to delay implementation until 2008.

It will take more than a letter of support in the coming legislative session for S.404 to pass. In the meantime, COOL legislation continues to foster unexpected relationships. It has bridged that great divide between many Republicans and Democrats in the Rocky Mountain West who want to support their state’s struggling farmers and ranchers. It has also garnered the support of many conventional farmers and ranchers as well as organic/sustainable/local eaters.

Now that our food comes from what the food systems guru Jack Kloppenberg calls “the global everywhere and yet no where in particular,” supporters are hoping to use our love of labels to encourage us to support U.S. farms and ranches. Just as we search for the comfort of brand names on our clothes and shoes, we search for comfort in the food label. Mandatory nutrition labels already calculate the amount of sugar and salt per small serving, while other labels note the ounces, pounds and grams in the bottle, the “use by” date, the twenty digit tracking number, the comment line, distribution hub, website and brand name until there are more syllables per serving than calories.

But all of these labels do more than define the content of our food. They point to our confusion. They reveal just how little we know about our food, and how much we really want to know.

Should S.404 pass, the COOL label would provide a clue about the origin of our food. Whether it will provide the economic support that farmers and ranchers need or actually encourage eaters to buy food “Grown in the USA,” is yet to be seen. In the mean time, we would all do well to remember what Martin Luther King Jr. once said. “Before you’ve finished your breakfast, you will have relied on half the world.”

This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. It is currently under deliberation and possible revision. It will move on to a general debate next. For updated information on this bill visit GovTrack.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Advocates say time ripe for country-of-origin food labeling



By Susan Salisbury

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

February 28, 2007



Is that ground beef in the supermarket from the United States, Mexico, Argentina or someplace else entirely?



Consumers who want the answer to that still can't find it on the label, despite a law that was set to go into effect Sept. 30, 2004.



Congress has repeatedly pushed back the implementation deadline for a national law that would require food to carry a label declaring its country of origin.



"It's high time for it to happen," said Emily Eisenberg, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based National Farmers Union. "We think now we have a chance to get this moving."



Only seafood is now required to carry a country-of-origin label.



In late January, legislation to move the deadline to September 2007 from September 2008 was introduced in Congress. The National Farmers Union has organized a coalition of close to 200 organizations that support the legislation and date change.



Today, the farmers' union and the Consumer Federation of America, along with congressmen and senators from Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota, will discuss the legislation at a news conference in Washington.



J. Luis Rodriguez, trade adviser for Lake Worth-based Florida Farmers Inc., the only Florida group in the coalition, said Tuesday that recent food contamination outbreaks such as the E. coli spinach contamination scare in California have helped draw more attention to the labeling law. The law also helps make the sources of the food supply easier to trace.



Florida has had a produce-only labeling law since 1979, and the state's growers have pushed for national legislation since then.



Food manufacturing and retail groups such as the Food Marketing Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers Association-Food Products Association and the American Frozen Food Institute have spoken out against the law, calling it costly, burdensome and unnecessary.



Rodriguez said the law's chances have improved since the November elections, which changed control of Congress.



"Every consumer poll shows that over 80 percent of people want to know where their food came from," Rodriguez said. "It is ironic that the origin of everything else, such as clothing, is identified."



The Maitland-based Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association has changed its stance in the past 18 months from supporting a mandatory law for produce to one that is less stringent and starts out as voluntary. Retailers who don't comply initially would be forced to later, said Mike Stuart, association president.



"We have worked with a dozen organizations representing a good chunk of the produce industry, along with the Food Marketing Institute, to develop an alternate strategy for COOL," Stuart said, using the acronym by which the law is known.



Seafood labeling in supermarkets, in effect nationally since April 2005, has benefited Florida fishermen and importers, too, said Bob Jones, executive director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association in Tallahassee.



"There is greater interest in local seafood, no question about it," Jones said.



Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services spokesman Terry McElroy said Commissioner Charles Bronson is in favor of moving up the law's implementation date.



So is the Consumer Federation of America. "The sooner we can get it done, the better," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Washington-based federation's Food Policy Institute.



"The benefit to consumers is that it gives them more information about the food they are buying when they are in the supermarket. If they want to purchase food from a particular country, they can. If they want to avoid food from a particular country they can," Waldrop said. "Right now, there is no way to do that."


palmbeachpost.com
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Is that ground beef in the supermarket from the United States, Mexico, Argentina or someplace else entirely? Palm Beach Post

Check out this lot number in the ScoringAg search engine, go to www.scoringag.com then search, then SSI-EID Search and add this number 006121368_3_3_4 you will be surprised.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CattleNetwork_Today 3/1/2007 9:27:00 AM


R-CALF: USDA Can Implement COOL with 7 Simple Steps

Billings, Mont. – Today, a joint letter that reactivates the Americans for Country of Origin Labeling (ACOL) coalition was sent to the leadership of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives to request that Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) be implemented by September 2007 and to encourage Congress to affirm its support of implementing COOL since this law has been on the books since the passage of the 2002 Farm Bill.



The letter – signed by 213 organizations, including R-CALF USA and 25 of its Affiliates – represents millions of U.S. producers and U.S. consumers.



ACOL is asking Congress to pass Senate Bill 404, bipartisan legislation introduced by Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., which would change the implementation date for COOL to Sept. 30, 2007. This bill is co-sponsored by: Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.; Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa; Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.; Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.; Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo.; and, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.



ACOL also asks Congress to pass H.R. 357, introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., that also would change the COOL implementation date to Sept. 30, 2007. Co-sponsors of this bill include Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., and Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo.



“…opponents of mandatory COOL are trying to convince Congress that a change in statute is needed in order to reduce the expense and burden of the program,” the letter states in part. “We do not support changing a statute that has not been given a chance to prove itself. USDA implemented mandatory COOL on farm-raised and wild-caught seafood effective April 4, 2005 with the existing statute; the experience gained from seafood implementation should be utilized by USDA to write a final rule on the remaining covered commodities that is not burdensome or expensive and meets the goal and intent of Congress.”



R-CALF USA has filed comments with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) this week that provide steps the agency can take to immediately implement Mandatory COOL immediately.



“R-CALF is recommending seven specific improvements USDA can use to simplify the implementation of COOL rules for beef, based on some of the agency’s own actions when, in 2005, it implemented COOL rules for fish and seafood,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.



USDA can immediately implement COOL for beef by:



— Allowing packers to indicate beef has come from imported animals without having to specify each further production step that may have occurred in the United States.;

— Allowing packers to label blended products with a list of the countries of origin that may be contained in the product, rather than a definitive list of each country;

— Allowing retailers to rely on pre-labeled products for origin claims;

— Allowing meat packers to rely on country markings that already are applied to cattle imports in order to determine origin;

— Eliminating unnecessary and duplicative record-keeping requirements regarding chain of custody and separate tracking during the production process to allow packers and retailers to rely on documents they already keep in the ordinary course of business;

— Reducing the record retention requirement from two years to one year; and

— Specifying that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims.



During an afternoon conference call, Thomas told participants he was very proud to have been a sponsor of this “very reasonable” bill and that he was optimistic it would pass.



“There’s just no reason why, when a consumer purchases their meat just like they purchase a T-shirt, you have a right to know where it comes from,” Thomas said. “As we have more and more foreign trade – and there’s going to be more foreign trade as time goes on – I think it makes it even more important and more of an opportunity for people to choose.”



Baucus told participants that consumers want to know where their food is coming from.


“COOL is not so expensive that it can’t be included – even under budget resolutions that we’ll be passing in Congress later this year, bottom line, it’s just not that expensive,” Baucus said during a conference call this afternoon. “The big thing is to get this legislation passed so it’s implemented, that’s the goal here. USDA has been dragging its feet. The goal is to get it implemented sooner rather than later.”



Note: To contact appropriate Senators or Representatives, call 202-224-3121 and ask for them by name. To view the ACOL letter, as well as R-CALF USA’s comments, please visit the “Country-of-Origin Labeling” link at www.r-calfusa.com
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I would like Baucus and others to hold hearings on how much money the USDA has spent on national id. It seems that the USDA is playing with taxpayer's dollars the way they and the packers want---not the way it was legislated.

We need to get to the bottom of this.

The USDA should be reined in.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ACOL is asking Congress to pass Senate Bill 404, bipartisan legislation introduced by Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., which would change the implementation date for COOL to Sept. 30, 2007. This bill is co-sponsored by: Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.; Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa; Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.; Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.; Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo.; and, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.



ACOL also asks Congress to pass H.R. 357, introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., that also would change the COOL implementation date to Sept. 30, 2007. Co-sponsors of this bill include Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., and Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo.

Sure cuts down on the letter writing I've had to do- since ALL of my Congressional Delegation in D.C. are co-sponsors... :clap: :D :D
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
My understanding is that the way the current law is written it is up to USDA to come up with the rules and regulations for MCOOL. IS this understanding right or wrong. IF it is right what is to stop USDA, who already does not like this from writing the rules in such a way that it not only ends up making mountains out of mole hills but also ends up dumping any Ecoli or recall as the producers fault? Also if we're going to have this why should food service get left out as well as poultry. Why are all of you who are vocal supporters of MCOOL so quite about the food service? Its alot bigger than most grocery stores. I still see more problems than help from this and I dont think anything will change until after the next election if then.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
nenmrancher said:
My understanding is that the way the current law is written it is up to USDA to come up with the rules and regulations for MCOOL. IS this understanding right or wrong. IF it is right what is to stop USDA, who already does not like this from writing the rules in such a way that it not only ends up making mountains out of mole hills but also ends up dumping any Ecoli or recall as the producers fault? Also if we're going to have this why should food service get left out as well as poultry. Why are all of you who are vocal supporters of MCOOL so quite about the food service? Its alot bigger than most grocery stores. I still see more problems than help from this and I dont think anything will change until after the next election if then.

Your ecoli hypothetical they could do now---M-COOL will not add any more ID to the US cattle than is now there-- all the law does really is requires that that country of origin information (that is already known today) be passed on to the consumer......

And making sure the rules come out right is where we need some groups and Legislators to provide oversight...Problem came about when country folks trusted bureaucrats/Bush administration too much- and allowed USDA to use common sense to make it easiest for the producer/retailer...It might take Congress to write the rules now as bullheaded as Johanns and the Administration has got in backing the Packers....Altho they did develop the rules for the shrimp and seafood- which is working quite well....
I think the biggest factor for oversight will be that some of the Legislative folks that now have control over USDA's purse strings are big supporters of M-COOL....

NCBA/Packers got the food service exemption put in thinking it would kill the entire bill-- but it didn't-- and now we need to get the current law up and running-- then closing that hole will be much easier (altho some legislators want to do it all at once)...

I know in our area- once all beef/meat is identified and labeled- so that the retailer/restaurant knows the source--the restaurant customers will do a lot toward promoting the M-COOL as the places that don't source US beef won't be getting the trade.......
 

PORKER

Well-known member
If low income consumers can't afford it, they will buy chicken instead. MRJ quote.
MRJ ,they won't buy so much chicken as 2.8 million pounds are now recalled by KRAFT today. Also J. Luis Rodriguez, trade adviser for Lake Worth-based Florida Farmers Inc., the only Florida group in the START UP COOL coalition, said Tuesday that recent food contamination outbreaks such as the E. coli spinach contamination scare in California have helped draw more attention to the labeling law. The law also helps make the sources of the food supply easier to trace.
Oldtimer;NCBA/Packers got the food service exemption put in thinking it would kill the entire bill-- but it didn't-- and now we need to get the current law up and running-- then closing that hole will be much easier (by adding CHICKEN , ALL OTHER MEATS and FOOD SERVICES.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
My understanding is that the way the current law is written it is up to USDA to come up with the rules and regulations for MCOOL. IS this understanding right or wrong. IF it is right what is to stop USDA, who already does not like this from writing the rules in such a way that it not only ends up making mountains out of mole hills but also ends up dumping any Ecoli or recall as the producers fault? Also if we're going to have this why should food service get left out as well as poultry. Why are all of you who are vocal supporters of MCOOL so quite about the food service? Its alot bigger than most grocery stores. I still see more problems than help from this and I dont think anything will change until after the next election if then.

You are right about that!!! Trusting the USDA to be fair to producers when packers provide the revolving door and other benefits is like trusting a steer to impregnate your herd.
 
Top