USDA Issues Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

[PORKER]

USCA urges producers to file comments on COOL final policy rule by Sept. 30


Friday, September 12, 2008 12:26 PM MDT




The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its Interim Final Rule for Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) in the Aug. 1 Federal Register. The agency is accepting public comment until Sept. 30.

The U.S. Cattlemen's Association (USCA) COOL Committee Chair, Danni Beer, South Dakota is urging livestock producers and producer groups across the country to file comments.

"It is crucial for livestock producers to be engaged in shaping the Final Rule for COOL. We have an opportunity with the public comment period to close some loopholes in the agency's proposed rule," said Beer. "Producers can do so by filing comments including suggested changes in the rule as well as stating their appreciation for provisions they support.

During a meeting with USDA officials U.S. Cattlemen's Association leadership learned that it is just as important to tell the agency what we like about the rule as well as what we want to see changed."



USCA found the following provisions of the Interim Final Rule beneficial for cattle producers and beef consumers:

1. Ground beef and hamburger will have to be labeled by its country of origin (COO). All possible countries must be listed. Under the Interim Final Rule, USDA actually expanded the products requiring labeling.



2. The Chain of Custody requirement was removed. In the first COOL rule USDA required that retailers keep records regarding the "chain of custody" for all covered commodities.

3. Retailers can rely on manufac-turer/first handler's labels to establish the product's origin.

4. A producer affidavit shall be considered acceptable evidence on which the slaughter facility may rely to initiate the origin claim, provided it is made by someone having first-hand knowledge of the origin of the animal(s) and identifies the animals unique to the transaction.

5. The rule doesn't preempt state laws on foods not covered under this law; i.e., Alaskan salmon.

6. The rule does NOT require a mandatory animal identification system.

USCA also found areas that could be problematic for cattle producers and consumers:

1. Under the multiple countries of origin portion of the law it is specific that the multiple country label can only be used for meat that is NOT exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. The regulations do not contain this specific instruction.

This may allow packers to list meat exclusively born, raised and processed in the U.S. to be labeled "product of the U.S., county "X" and country "Y".

Writing the rule this way allows the beef production chain to continue processing beef without separation of beef by country of origin. For cost reasons plants that process beef from more than one country will benefit.
USCA leadership was told this decision was made on the basis that rules are written to be the least restrictive to business. On a positive note, consumers will have more information than they do now about the origin of their beef if this provision is not altered.

"Will retailers and consumers ask for more information about the products involved under this provision," asked Beer. "We certainly hope they will ask for USA-born and raised beef after they are given this additional information.

Part of our job as producers is to promote our product, and that's a responsibility we must assume through our beef checkoff or other means, if necessary."

2. The "processed food" provision is too broad. This part of the rule doesn't affect beef as much as some of the other covered commodities. For example, 95% of peanuts will not be labeled under the Interim Final Rule because USDA considers "roasted" peanuts as a processed food item. This provision in the rule is far too inclusive to be of much benefit to consumers who want to make informed purchasing decisions.

View the 233 page Final Interim Rule at www.uscattlemen.org. On the page, click on the COOL Library and then click on the Rules button in the upper left hand corner.

Comments on the rule should be sent to USDA COOL Program, Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0081, Room 2607-S, AMS USDA Stop 0254, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-0254 or comments can be faxed to 202/354-3693 referencing Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0081.

 

[mrj]

Ben, it is your interpretation of that documentation, and others may not agree with you. I believe if you would check with non-liberal sources, you would find you are not correct about people and changing income levels in the USA. Try Forbes.

Re. the marinades, I've previously mentioned the taste testing at NCBA meetings of marinated beef made after research by Dr. Duane Wulf at SDSU (not sure if the school is correct but the rest is). I have no idea what product you refer to, but believe you are incorrect about the one I mention.

Re. checkoff dollars "developing products for packers"......doesn't the sale of MORE beef benefit producers? I believe it does, you don't, apparently. The development of different uses for shoulder clod may benefit packers, but it definitely benefits anyone selling cattle/beef.

Tex, my religion is Christianity, and my church is ELCA, which you obviously did not KNOW! Apparently what you KNOW comes from a crystal ball just like some others who like to bash me on this site when they don't have a valid point.

RM, you didn't define your problem with your small packing plant. Is it as simple as Tyson insisting that inspections be equal? That is the law, you know. And your problem with your small packer obviously is a STATE problem, not a national one. Small packers in SD and probably other states probably aren't affected by Tyson. Small packers in SD HAVE been affected to a degree by some other small, federal inspected packers who do not want state inspected beef sold interstate, even though state inspection in SD is probably superior to (due to slow processing at smaller plants), or certainly equal to, the federal inspection.

mrj

 

[RobertMac]

RM, you didn't define your problem with your small packing plant. Is it as simple as Tyson insisting that inspections be equal? That is the law, you know. And your problem with your small packer obviously is a STATE problem, not a national one. Small packers in SD and probably other states probably aren't affected by Tyson. Small packers in SD HAVE been affected to a degree by some other small, federal inspected packers who do not want state inspected beef sold interstate, even though state inspection in SD is probably superior to (due to slow processing at smaller plants), or certainly equal to, the federal inspection.

As usual, you nothing about what you talk about.
How many times have I said that I have...HAD ...a USDA label?????

When a friend of mine help get our processor set up to do USDA inspected poultry, Tyson did everything they could possibly do to stop them. It took state legislators involvement to make our Ag Dept. FOLLOW THE LAW!!!!

 

[PORKER]

We certainly hope consumers will ask for USA-born and raised and processed beef or any other covered COOL meat.

 

[Tex]

RM, you didn't define your problem with your small packing plant. Is it as simple as Tyson insisting that inspections be equal? That is the law, you know. And your problem with your small packer obviously is a STATE problem, not a national one. Small packers in SD and probably other states probably aren't affected by Tyson. Small packers in SD HAVE been affected to a degree by some other small, federal inspected packers who do not want state inspected beef sold interstate, even though state inspection in SD is probably superior to (due to slow processing at smaller plants), or certainly equal to, the federal inspection.

As usual, you nothing about what you talk about.
How many times have I said that I have...HAD ...a USDA label?????

When a friend of mine help get our processor set up to do USDA inspected poultry, Tyson did everything they could possibly do to stop them. It took state legislators involvement to make our Ag Dept. FOLLOW THE LAW!!!!

RM, this is very concerning. Tyson is using the USDA as a barrier to entry to competitors.

Some people in the USDA need to be in the PENN.

 

[Sandhusker]

Nobody is even hiding this fact. Remember what they said about Creekstone? "You can't do it because then somebody else might have to do it". Unbelievable. The USDA/big packer relationship is at rediculous levels - and yet there are a whole lot of people who can't see it.

 

[Anonymous]

And none of its going to change for the better-- the nonenforcement of the PSA, nonenforcement of COOL, the buyout of our feeding and packing industry by multinational and foreign government backed Conglomerates, the biased support/advantages of the multinationals over the small domestic packers, the continued sell out of our sovereignty/industry thru inequitable Free Trade agreements, the total throwing out of the rule of Law in America, which will continue the sell out of the family farmer/rancher, --- and it will only get worse- as long as we keep electing in the same-o same-o politicians in the White House and Congress who's policy and principles are decided by their ties to Big Money- and whichever Big Money Lobbyist waves the most money in their face.....

 

[Sandhusker]

And none of its going to change for the better-- the nonenforcement of the PSA, nonenforcement of COOL, the buyout of our feeding and packing industry by multinational and foreign government backed Conglomerates, the biased support/advantages of the multinationals over the small domestic packers, the continued sell out of our sovereignty/industry thru inequitable Free Trade agreements, the total throwing out of the rule of Law in America, which will continue the sell out of the family farmer/rancher, --- and it will only get worse- as long as we keep electing in the same-o same-o politicians in the White House and Congress who's policy and principles are decided by their ties to Big Money- and whichever Big Money Lobbyist waves the most money in their face.....

Tell me who won't sell out for all the above.

 

[Tex]

Nobody is even hiding this fact. Remember what they said about Creekstone? "You can't do it because then somebody else might have to do it". Unbelievable. The USDA/big packer relationship is at rediculous levels - and yet there are a whole lot of people who can't see it.

It could be ferreted out but the politicians might lose their piggy bank. If they did it, they might regain their integrity.

 

[mrj]

RobertMac, keep your cool! You gave no details of the problem and the fact of your having a USDA label isn't really relevant to the problem of the poultry inspection you cite now, is it? I stated your problem before you did. It WAS an in-state problem!

It seems to be a problem of Tyson influencing people within your state Ag Department, rather than a USDA malfeasance, from what you wrote. Tyson was not successful. End of story, other than possibly using it to encourage people in other states to make their own bureaucrats follow the law if they have a similar problem.

Porker, some consumers HAVE been buying USA born and raised and processed beef and other products from producers who go to the extra expense of selling their own beef as is done by RobertMac, PPRM, Ranchers Renaissance beef at Super Valu stores, and many others. COOL will simply make more competition (funded by all of us!) for those who have already funded their own 'label'.

mrj

 

[PORKER]

Farm groups seek to end COOL loophole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Pore
The Grand Island Independent
Posted Sep 18, 2008 @ 10:12 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND ISLAND — With the new county-of-origin labeling rules going into effect Oct. 1, a number of farm groups are concerned about a loophole in the law that gives consumers false information about the source of meat products sold at retail.

According to the Nebraska Farm Bureau, a COOL proposal would allow packers to label meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered entirely in the United States as if it came from multiple countries, such as "Product of the United States, Canada and Mexico."

That defeats the purpose and eliminates premiums livestock producers might receive for their entirely domestic product, said Nebraska Farm Bureau President Keith Olsen.

He said provisions in the Interim Final Rule for mandatory COOL allow muscle cuts of meat (meats that are not ground) that are produced entirely in the U.S. to carry the multiple country label as a convenience and cost savings for meatpackers.

Olsen said the documentation and meat processing required for the multiple country label is significantly less than for meat products with the "all U.S." label.

Cargill, JBS Swift and Tyson told livestock producers this week they would use the multiple origin label on muscle cuts, according to Nebraska Farm Bureau.

"Nearly 90 percent of the muscle cuts that are processed in the U.S. originate from cattle that are born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.," Olsen said. "There's plenty of documentation to prove this. If packers use the 'multiple country' label unnecessarily, it will give consumers a false perception that there is little to no beef available to them that is entirely produced and processed in this country."

National Farmers Union also has expressed disappointment in the USDA's interpretation of the COOL provision in the 2008 Farm Bill. NFU is urging the department to immediately reinterpret the provision.

"The law clearly states that products born, raised and slaughtered in the United States are to be labeled as a product of the United States. Despite this clear language, USDA's rules will allow packers to label exclusively American products with those from other countries," NFU President Tom Buis said.

Buis said the farm bill language explicitly states meat from exclusively born, raised and processed U.S. animals cannot be used in the multiple country category.

"USDA has created a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, violating the spirit, letter and intent of the law and deceiving consumers who have consistently shown support for buying U.S. products," Buis said. "This is about truth in labeling."

R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry said that if the provision isn't changed before the law takes effect on Sept. 30, "... then USDA's actions will accomplish what the multinational meatpackers have been after all along: a North American meat label that would make it impossible to differentiate beef produced from U.S. cattle from beef that comes from foreign cattle."

"Unfortunately, the IFR would enable multinational packers to continue selling to unsuspecting consumers lower quality beef that may well have been imported from countries that are allowed to use antibiotics and pesticides that are banned from use in cattle here in the United States," Thornsberry said.

Olsen said Congress adopted the COOL program to provide an accurate label of the origin of meat products, giving consumers as much information as possible about the source of their food. He said the program was spurred by illness traced to imported meat products and demand by international customers for certification of the origin of meat products.

"Allowing the multiple country label makes the program less useful to both consumers and livestock farmers," Olsen said.

He's calling on Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer to modify the Interim Final Rule to encourage packers to maintain the born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. label for meats as they move to the retailer.

 

[Ben Roberts]

Ben, it is your interpretation of that documentation, and others may not agree with you.




Maxine, it was not my interpretation of the documentation, it was the Justice Departments recommendation, to the Federal Trade Commission.




Re. the marinades, I've previously mentioned the taste testing at NCBA meetings of marinated beef made after research by Dr. Duane Wulf at SDSU (not sure if the school is correct but the rest is). I have no idea what product you refer to, but believe you are incorrect about the one I mention.

How about nitrates.

 

[Ben Roberts]

I believe if you would check with non-liberal sources, you would find you are not correct about people and changing income levels in the USA. Try Forbes.

Maxine, I don't have to check with non-liberal sources. I just open my eyes and look-around. Look at Forbes today, and then tell me, that the people of this country are better off.

 

[mrj]

Ben, when have even the 'poor' among us had so many luxuries? There are very few houses without TV's, cell phones, current style clothes, you name it, it is in MOST homes. Even many of the single parent homes are included here. Granted, some luxuries may have been gifts from family members (read parents here).

Statistics are against you, too, from what I've read.

Yes, maybe people work more hours and the 'families' probably have two people working........but, wasn't that always so? It just used to be that the woman who 'worked' was simply 'helping out' on the farm at no pay. Oh, she may have 'helped' pretty much full time outside, but it wasn't always recognized, and didn't have her own income in most cases.

I know it isn't easy for many people, including myself, to cope with rising prices, but on a world scale, even the poorest in this country have much.

Our low and middle income people CAN and DO move up the scale. Maybe not so easily if they have the bad luck of ill health or divorce or bad habits, or dislike of working very long hours that hold them back.

mrj

 

[PORKER]

Senator McCaskill concerned over implementation of "COOL" rule in Farm Bill
Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 3:52 PM
By Steve Walsh
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is venting her frustration over what she sees as the wrong way in which Country of Origin Labeling rules for meat and other agricultural goods are being observed.

The Country of Origin Labeling - or COOL - requirements are part of the 2008 Farm Bill and are scheduled to take effect October 1st. McCaskill says the U.S. Agriculture Department is defying the will of Congress by allowing multi-country labeling to replace labeling which would make clear beef or poultry products are from the United States.
McCaskill has written Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer to express her concerns over the interpretation of COOL, saying the U.S. should not be lumped with Canada and Mexico.

Affidavits without some form of induvidual animal ID back to a package ID of beef will never be able to be sold as born, raised, or processed in the United States. These will be unmarketable beef under COOL.

 

[rancher]

Ben, when have even the 'poor' among us had so many luxuries? There are very few houses without TV's, cell phones, current style clothes, you name it, it is in MOST homes. Even many of the single parent homes are included here. Granted, some luxuries may have been gifts from family members (read parents here).

MRJ, they have all these luxeries because of credit. How many poor amoung us have credit cards to the limit? Why do you think we are having the crisis we have now? Too many people want it now before they have money to pay for it. So they put it on credit, then before they pay it off they want more, so they put it on credit. Take away all credit cards and see how well these poor among us would live.
Statistics are against you, too, from what I've read.

Yes, maybe people work more hours and the 'families' probably have two people working........but, wasn't that always so? It just used to be that the woman who 'worked' was simply 'helping out' on the farm at no pay. Oh, she may have 'helped' pretty much full time outside, but it wasn't always recognized, and didn't have her own income in most cases.

I know it isn't easy for many people, including myself, to cope with rising prices, but on a world scale, even the poorest in this country have much.

Our low and middle income people CAN and DO move up the scale. Maybe not so easily if they have the bad luck of ill health or divorce or bad habits, or dislike of working very long hours that hold them back.

mrj

 

[rancher]

:lol:

 

[mrj]

rancher, if people were spending 25 to 50% of their incomes on food rather than the CURRENT (even after recent rises) 10 to 12%, isn't it likely they would NOT be able to borrow to buy those luxuries?

BTW, granted, there are more luxuries in 'poor' peoples homes today than even 25 years ago, which may reflect credit card use/debt; but there were far more luxuries even BEFORE credit cards were widely used by 'the poor' than in any previous era. It isn't all debt gained luxury!

With national media interested in seeing ever more liberals elected, is it any wonder we rarely see statistics telling of anything good about our economy and the condition of our people???

mrj

 

[Ben Roberts]

rancher, if people were spending 25 to 50% of their incomes on food rather than the CURRENT (even after recent rises) 10 to 12%, isn't it likely they would NOT be able to borrow to buy those luxuries?

BTW, granted, there are more luxuries in 'poor' peoples homes today than even 25 years ago, which may reflect credit card use/debt; but there were far more luxuries even BEFORE credit cards were widely used by 'the poor' than in any previous era. It isn't all debt gained luxury!

With national media interested in seeing ever more liberals elected, is it any wonder we rarely see statistics telling of anything good about our economy and the condition of our people???

mrj

Maxine, can you remember when a radio was a luxury, or a pee-pot in the winter when all you had was an outdoor toilet, now that was a real luxury. Every generation has had more luxuries than the generation before them, and we were not poor.

Also, I believe your parting comment of your last post tells how much value statistics have.