USDA Issues Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

[flounder]

USDA Issues Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Interim Final Rule

Contact: Keith Williams (202) 720-4623

The U.S. Department of Agriculture today issued an interim final rule for the mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) program that will become effective on Sept. 30. It will be formally published in the Federal Register on August 1 - but the pdf document can be viewed online at the Federal Register at the following page:

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0081] RIN 0581-AC26 Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill), the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (2002 Appropriations), and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Act) to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of covered commodities. Covered commodities include muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb, chicken, goat, and pork; ground beef, ground lamb, ground chicken, ground goat, and ground pork; wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities; macadamia nuts; pecans; ginseng; and peanuts. The implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for all covered commodities, except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, was delayed until September 30, 2008. 2 The 2008 Farm Bill contains a number of provisions that amended the COOL provisions in the Act. These changes include the addition of chicken, goat, macadamia nuts, pecans, and ginseng as covered commodities, the addition of provisions for labeling products of multiple origin, as well as a number of other changes that are discussed more fully in the Supplementary Information portion of this rule. However, the implementation date of September 30, 2008, was not changed by the 2008 Farm Bill. Therefore, in order to meet the September 30, 2008, implementation date and to provide the newly affected industries the opportunity to provide comments prior to issuing a final rule, the Department is issuing this interim final rule. This interim final rule contains definitions, the requirements for consumer notification and product marking, and the recordkeeping responsibilities of both retailers and suppliers for covered commodities. The provisions in this interim final rule do not affect the regulatory requirements for fish and shellfish that were published in the October 5, 2004, Federal Register . DATES: This interim final rule is effective September 30, 2008. Comments must be submitted on or before [Insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] to be assured of consideration. The requirements of this rule do not apply to covered commodities produced or packaged before September 30, 2008.

snip...full text 233 pages ;

http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-17562_PI.pdf USDA News [email protected]. 202 720-4623


TSS

 

[PORKER]

http://www.ams.usda.gov/COOL/records.htm
The above link to COOL questions and FAQ's

The COOL law requires packers to maintain country of origin records for one year, and they must be able to obtain records from their immediate suppliers within that period, to substantiate COOL claims. This statement says the livestock supplier will maintain those records for one year from date of delivery of the livestock, and will make them available, as required by the COOL law.

The producer will still need to maintain records that will verify declarations made in affidavits in the event that such records are requested.

Another important clarification, especially for stocker producers as well as some feedlots, is AMS' approval to use consolidated affidavits for commingled and resorted lots of animals. In this situation, a producer with multiple sources of animals of the same origin, may issue a single consolidated affidavit of origin for commingled sales groups, based on the set of individual affidavits of the purchase groups.

Again, the producer must maintain records that verify the balance of total purchases and sales to document the overall flow of animals through the operation

Source: Derrell S. Peel, OSU Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

It is just much easier to keep a Cow/calf tag ID system.

 

[burnt]

Harrington's view. It has great potential to end up hurting everyone in the livestock industry.

http://www.farmersoptions.com/index.cfm?show=801&id=0700B8F0&sort=11&cat=3


Why am I not surprised?

 

[Tex]

Harrington's view. It has great potential to end up hurting everyone in the livestock industry.

http://www.farmersoptions.com/index.cfm?show=801&id=0700B8F0&sort=11&cat=3


Why am I not surprised?

Burnt, if the consumers are having trouble at the store because of labeling, it might make more opportunities for suppliers (cattlemen) to go directly to the consumer with a higher price than go through the traditional market channels. It is a very fastest growing sector for many farmers---just look at what they want---beef they can trust. If they can get it directly from producers, there is likely to be more money to come into the industry for those who market to these needs.

RM is a perfect example.

Our food industry (Grocers) has wanted to hide some of the things they do to make money. Much of this comes at the expense of a quality product. There are a LOT of people who have caught on to it.

Capitalize on it. Even MRJ claims to have done just such. If MRJ can do it, anyone can.

 

[burnt]

I would agree with your assessment of the opportunity that is arising for direct sales. With the concerns around meat/food safety of any kind, there is a growing interest and awareness of off-the-farm sales for any goods that we can produce.

I have been thinking about marketing our beef, chicken, turkeys and hard red spring wheat by advertising a country-style steak or roast beef dinner package for 4 people for a fairly high price, like $45 -$55 per plate.

The package would include a tour of the farm, garden, hayride to the woodlot, etc. as well as the opportunity to purchase a box of black Angus freezer beef (25-50 lbs?) at a significant premium to retail store prices. We could also offer whole wheat, flour or breads made from our wheat.

The target customer would be a higher end city consumer who wants to know where their food comes from and is willing to pay for it.

If a guy wanted to get really creative, he would offer cropping practice "seminars" and discussion times for the purpose of enlightening the customer about the reasons and differences between conventional and organic goods, while presenting them with side-by-side comparisons and the opportunity to buy either product after they see how each is produced. A chance for them to ask questions and voice concerns and fears.

Our biggest hindrance to such a plan is the problem of distance. We are 2 hours from Toronto so I don't know if we could draw them that far. So maybe a dinner, bed and breakfast deal for a lil more money? . . . .

There I just went and made myself really tired by thinking about all that stuff and the work it would take. Gotta go take an afternoon nap.

 

[Tex]

I would agree with your assessment of the opportunity that is arising for direct sales. With the concerns around meat/food safety of any kind, there is a growing interest and awareness of off-the-farm sales for any goods that we can produce.

I have been thinking about marketing our beef, chicken, turkeys and hard red spring wheat by advertising a country-style steak or roast beef dinner package for 4 people for a fairly high price, like $45 -$55 per plate.

The package would include a tour of the farm, garden, hayride to the woodlot, etc. as well as the opportunity to purchase a box of black Angus freezer beef (25-50 lbs?) at a significant premium to retail store prices. We could also offer whole wheat, flour or breads made from our wheat.

The target customer would be a higher end city consumer who wants to know where their food comes from and is willing to pay for it.

If a guy wanted to get really creative, he would offer cropping practice "seminars" and discussion times for the purpose of enlightening the customer about the reasons and differences between conventional and organic goods, while presenting them with side-by-side comparisons and the opportunity to buy either product after they see how each is produced. A chance for them to ask questions and voice concerns and fears.

Our biggest hindrance to such a plan is the problem of distance. We are 2 hours from Toronto so I don't know if we could draw them that far. So maybe a dinner, bed and breakfast deal for a lil more money? . . . .

There I just went and made myself really tired by thinking about all that stuff and the work it would take. Gotta go take an afternoon nap.

Sounds great! I wish you all the luck in the world. We have got to start pushing the value of our products, not the cheapness.

 

[mrj]

'We' can push the value of our product as high as is meritted. Some producers are doing so individually, and in alliances. More will do so if it continues to be profitable.

However, why shouldn't we advertise "value for the money" and sell some beef at prices low enough for even the lowest income people to buy it?

IMO the studies (some with Checkoff funding) and marketing of cow beef that is tenderized and/or marinated shows great promise for this, in my opinion.

However, some people on this site love to put that down as "greedy packers" getting more than their fair share for "cheap" beef......or worse, as "disguising tainted beef for a profit", when neither is accurate or true.

mrj

 

[Ben Roberts]

'We' can push the value of our product as high as is meritted. Some producers are doing so individually, and in alliances. More will do so if it continues to be profitable.

However, why shouldn't we advertise "value for the money" and sell some beef at prices low enough for even the lowest income people to buy it?

IMO the studies (some with Checkoff funding) and marketing of cow beef that is tenderized and/or marinated shows great promise for this, in my opinion.

However, some people on this site love to put that down as "greedy packers" getting more than their fair share for "cheap" beef......or worse, as "disguising tainted beef for a profit", when neither is accurate or true.

mrj

Maxine, why should producers check-of-dollars, be paying to develop products for the packers? Is that not something the packers should be paying for the development of.

Also, you should research some of the ingredients that the marinated sauce is made of, before you make the claim that "disguising tainted beef for a profit" is neither accurate or true. Some of the ingredients are known to have caused cancer. This is not the first time the packers have done this, read back through history, the meat packers have killed thousands over the years.

Ben Roberts

 

[Tex]

'We' can push the value of our product as high as is meritted. Some producers are doing so individually, and in alliances. More will do so if it continues to be profitable.

However, why shouldn't we advertise "value for the money" and sell some beef at prices low enough for even the lowest income people to buy it?

IMO the studies (some with Checkoff funding) and marketing of cow beef that is tenderized and/or marinated shows great promise for this, in my opinion.

However, some people on this site love to put that down as "greedy packers" getting more than their fair share for "cheap" beef......or worse, as "disguising tainted beef for a profit", when neither is accurate or true.

mrj

Maxine, why should producers check-of-dollars, be paying to develop products for the packers? Is that not something the packers should be paying for the development of.

Also, you should research some of the ingredients that the marinated sauce is made of, before you make the claim that "disguising tainted beef for a profit" is neither accurate or true. Some of the ingredients are known to have caused cancer. This is not the first time the packers have done this, read back through history, the meat packers have killed thousands over the years.

Ben Roberts

Ben, stop threatening MRJ's religious beliefs!!!

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "However, why shouldn't we advertise "value for the money" and sell some beef at prices low enough for even the lowest income people to buy it? "

You answered your own question with your previous statement, "More will do so if it continues to be profitable.

 

[mrj]

Sandhusker, I will type as slow as possible, just for you!

You ALMOST got my point. Obviously the niche markets for specialty beef products for people who want have been growing rapidly in recent years.

People who are willing to pay the higher prices for "slow food" (meaning that which may be hand raised, processed in small batches, or sold with health claims, unverfied as they may be) and more cattle producers are taking advantage of those consumers.

However, there are many more people who cannot afford those prices and I believe there is nothing wrong with producing beef that is a good value for the money at lower cost, whether it is cow beef or less popular cuts such as round steak and chuck roast made into better eating beef. Tex implied that there is, and that we should simply be "pushing the value, not the cheapness". I say we need to push both, when appropriate. Aren't there ads for specialty beef on ranchers.net which sell top quality beef at over $100.00 per pound? That is fine, for the customers who can buy it. But we can't sell much of it at that price, if you don't produce enough of the very top quality beef. If low income people are able to buy some decent low cost beef, they are going to buy higher quality when they can afford it.

FACT: people still are moving up out of the low income levels and mid income people still are moving up to higher income levels in this country so many liberals love to tell us is going to hell in a handbasket!

Ben, be brave. Be specific. What are those 'nasty' ingredients in "marinated sauce"? Which companies are disguising tainted beef and how are they able to successfully achieve that deed? Doesn't reason and experience tell us off flavors from truly tainted beef would be very hard to disguise?

Sorry Ben, but I don't agree with your views that the Checkoff isn't working for producers. Are you telling us that a few packers are smarter than all the producers who run the Checkof and are manipulating them to do packer biddingf???? Better bring some verifiable specifics if you want anyone other than a few R-CALF clones to believe that!!!!!

mrj

 

[Sandhusker]

And you almost got my point, MRJ. IT doesn't do anybody in the beef chain any good to provide beef to somebody if, in doing so, they are taking a loss or taking a smaller profit than if they had marketed their product in another way.

If there is a niche for cheap beef, somebody will fill it - that is, of course, unless the big packers don't want anybody else to fill that niche and then they'll get the USDA to use some ruling that defies all logic to stop it.

 

[RobertMac]

FACT: people still are moving up out of the low income levels and mid income people still are moving up to higher income levels in this country so many liberals love to tell us is going to hell in a handbasket!

You are correct, there is not a lack of people with income high enough to afford to buy beef...what is lacking is people willing to spend their money for beef. Until you figure out why that is, it doesn't matter how cheap you produce beef.

 

[Sandhusker]

FACT: people still are moving up out of the low income levels and mid income people still are moving up to higher income levels in this country so many liberals love to tell us is going to hell in a handbasket!

You are correct, there is not a lack of people with income high enough to afford to buy beef...what is lacking is people willing to spend their money for beef. Until you figure out why that is, it doesn't matter how cheap you produce beef.

Do you have any idea how far that is over her head? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Ben Roberts]

FACT: people still are moving up out of the low income levels and mid income people still are moving up to higher income levels in this country so many liberals love to tell us is going to hell in a handbasket!

Maxine, FACT: today there are more people moving from mid and higher income levels, to lower income levels in this country, than since the 30s.



Ben, be brave. Be specific. What are those 'nasty' ingredients in "marinated sauce"? Which companies are disguising tainted beef and how are they able to successfully achieve that deed? Doesn't reason and experience tell us off flavors from truly tainted beef would be very hard to disguise?




I ask you to do the research Maxine, I have, you would believe your own research, or maybe not!



Sorry Ben, but I don't agree with your views that the Checkoff isn't working for producers. Are you telling us that a few packers are smarter than all the producers who run the Checkof and are manipulating them to do packer biddingf???? Better bring some verifiable specifics if you want anyone other than a few R-CALF clones to believe that!!!!!


Thats not what I said! I ask why should producers check-off-dollars, be paying to develop products for the packers.

Yes the packers are smarter than the producers, and the government, when it comes to the promotion of their products, and who pays for that promotion. Again look back through history starting with the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. J.O.Armour even said that the Meat Inspection Act was the greatest form of advertisement the packers ever had, and the tax payers are still paying that bill. That is only one "verifiable specific" that you and the NCBA clones won't believe.

" A truths initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic" Dresden James.

 

[Tex]

The truth hurts---that is how we know we don't have it.

 

[mrj]

Sorry boys, I'm just not into conspiracy theories.


mrj

 

[Tex]

Sorry boys, I'm just not into conspiracy theories.


mrj

mrj, we already know your religion. You tell us all the time!

 

[Ben Roberts]

Sorry boys, I'm just not into conspiracy theories.


mrj

Conspiracy theories, where do you find a conspiracy in what i've said, when it's all documented by the Justice Department for the Federal Trade Commission.

 

[RobertMac]

Sorry boys, I'm just not into conspiracy theories.


mrj

When Tyson takes an interest in a small plant in Mississippi and has input to how the state FSIS deals with that plant, it's obviously a conspiracy, but certainly not a theory. I hope you are happy in your Kool-aid filled bubble...unfortunately, too many other producers are in there with you.