6/8/2005
author....unknown
-
When cleaning out the storeroom sorting through old reference materials, I
came across an article in a January 1999 Feedstuffs Magazine. The article
read, "A majority of American consumers support country-of-origin labeling for
meat, according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA), reporting
results of a consumer survey...NCBA has championed country-of-origin labeling
since the concept was approved by its membership last year to distinguish
American-produced beef products from imported beef products...NCBA said
surveyors at Wirthlin Worldwide found 78% of consumers polled endorsed such
labels, saying that the labels would permit them to choose between American
and foreign meat products...Accordingly, NCBA will be discussing country-of-
origin with packers, processors, retailers and other parties 'in the coming
months to find the best solution for meeting consumer expectations.'"
Things have changed since 1999, haven't they? Today the NCBA is part of a
coalition that has done everything it could do to kill country-of-origin
labeling (COOL). I'd even go so far as to call it a conspiracy. COOL didn't
have to be difficult. A group of livestock economists proposed models that
would not have been difficult to implement. "The cost of mandatory COOL is
small. The only independent legal and economic study conducted found mandatory
COOL would cost consumers less than one-tenth of one cent per pound for beef,
pork, fish, fruits, and vegetables covered by the law. (VanSickle, McEowen,
Taylor, Harl & Connor, 'Country of Origin Labeling, A Legal and Economic
Analysis', May 2003).
Packers, NCBA, and USDA wanted COOL made as ugly as they could make it.
Congress passes laws but the USDA implements them, writing the rules which
constitute the laws. The USDA purposely has done everything they could to see
to it COOL rules would produce revulsion in order to generate a backlash
opponents could subsequently use to derail it. Their plan is working. Key
Congressmen, captive to packers, successfully denied funding for
implementation and have introduced legislation eliminating mandatory COOL,
replacing it with something that doesn't exist they call voluntary COOL.
"Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, a proponent of mandatory COOL, said making
labeling voluntary makes little sense...'Why have COOL if it is voluntary? It
is a part of the law now and I do not think it will be repealed.'" "In a
statement opposing the measure to change the current law, the Consumers
Federation of America noted, 'Voluntary labeling has been an option for years,
yet few processors and packers have been willing to participate. The only time
these large processors and packers support a voluntary system is when they are
trying to kill the mandatory one.'" U.S. consumers are deceived every day that
the beef they eat is U.S. origin.
Supply chains procure cheap beef overseas, import it, and sell it for U.S.
prices predicated on this deception. It is worth literally billions of dollars
to them and these supply chains fully intend to significantly expand their
procurement reach further into the extremely profitable business of laundering
foreign meat through U.S. markets to consumers. Why would a supply chain that
intends to make billions of dollars from deceiving U.S. consumers reveal the
source of the meat, voluntarily identifying a product that would be less
desirable in the marketplace? They won't. They'd have to discount foreign beef
in order to sell it, which would make it less competitive and reduce their
profit margins from imports.
The NCBA says that the success of the industry hinges on giving consumers
what they want, yet when consumers want COOL, as published in the NCBA's own
survey, the NCBA says 'no' ask for something else. Beef from BSE-tested
animals? The NCBA again told Japanese consumers 'no' ask for something else.
In other words, the NCBA really doesn't mean what it says. While integrated
beef supply chains fight to protect their profitable imported beef deception,
COOL was implemented for fish and is working just fine. I can pick up a bag of
shrimp and it will tell me where the shrimp were produced but buy a bag a beef
jerky and despite labels touting "USDA inspected" and "packaged in the USA",
subsequent inquiry uncovered the beef's origin was either Brazil or New
Zealand.
ISU legal expert Roger McEowen noted that "legal analysis performed in 2003
showed only that Canadian cattle and hogs come into the U.S. unbranded.
Therefore, identifying those few hundred thousand cattle and the few million
hogs that come into the country by tagging them or branding them would be the
only major cost for a mandatory labeling system." Imported product is already
sorted out, easily labeled. R-CALF President Leo McDonald concluded "It is
common knowledge that NCBA has been the primary force in delaying the
implementation of Mandatory COOL, and now, the organization has become a part
of the group that wants to kill it completely. Why would an organization that
claims to represent cattlemen want to deceive the very consumers U.S. ranchers
need to have trust in their product in order to continue building demand for
that product?" The better question is what happened since 1999 to the
organization that once supported mandatory COOL? That NCBA doesn't exist
anymore.
****************************************
author....unknown
-
When cleaning out the storeroom sorting through old reference materials, I
came across an article in a January 1999 Feedstuffs Magazine. The article
read, "A majority of American consumers support country-of-origin labeling for
meat, according to the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA), reporting
results of a consumer survey...NCBA has championed country-of-origin labeling
since the concept was approved by its membership last year to distinguish
American-produced beef products from imported beef products...NCBA said
surveyors at Wirthlin Worldwide found 78% of consumers polled endorsed such
labels, saying that the labels would permit them to choose between American
and foreign meat products...Accordingly, NCBA will be discussing country-of-
origin with packers, processors, retailers and other parties 'in the coming
months to find the best solution for meeting consumer expectations.'"
Things have changed since 1999, haven't they? Today the NCBA is part of a
coalition that has done everything it could do to kill country-of-origin
labeling (COOL). I'd even go so far as to call it a conspiracy. COOL didn't
have to be difficult. A group of livestock economists proposed models that
would not have been difficult to implement. "The cost of mandatory COOL is
small. The only independent legal and economic study conducted found mandatory
COOL would cost consumers less than one-tenth of one cent per pound for beef,
pork, fish, fruits, and vegetables covered by the law. (VanSickle, McEowen,
Taylor, Harl & Connor, 'Country of Origin Labeling, A Legal and Economic
Analysis', May 2003).
Packers, NCBA, and USDA wanted COOL made as ugly as they could make it.
Congress passes laws but the USDA implements them, writing the rules which
constitute the laws. The USDA purposely has done everything they could to see
to it COOL rules would produce revulsion in order to generate a backlash
opponents could subsequently use to derail it. Their plan is working. Key
Congressmen, captive to packers, successfully denied funding for
implementation and have introduced legislation eliminating mandatory COOL,
replacing it with something that doesn't exist they call voluntary COOL.
"Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, a proponent of mandatory COOL, said making
labeling voluntary makes little sense...'Why have COOL if it is voluntary? It
is a part of the law now and I do not think it will be repealed.'" "In a
statement opposing the measure to change the current law, the Consumers
Federation of America noted, 'Voluntary labeling has been an option for years,
yet few processors and packers have been willing to participate. The only time
these large processors and packers support a voluntary system is when they are
trying to kill the mandatory one.'" U.S. consumers are deceived every day that
the beef they eat is U.S. origin.
Supply chains procure cheap beef overseas, import it, and sell it for U.S.
prices predicated on this deception. It is worth literally billions of dollars
to them and these supply chains fully intend to significantly expand their
procurement reach further into the extremely profitable business of laundering
foreign meat through U.S. markets to consumers. Why would a supply chain that
intends to make billions of dollars from deceiving U.S. consumers reveal the
source of the meat, voluntarily identifying a product that would be less
desirable in the marketplace? They won't. They'd have to discount foreign beef
in order to sell it, which would make it less competitive and reduce their
profit margins from imports.
The NCBA says that the success of the industry hinges on giving consumers
what they want, yet when consumers want COOL, as published in the NCBA's own
survey, the NCBA says 'no' ask for something else. Beef from BSE-tested
animals? The NCBA again told Japanese consumers 'no' ask for something else.
In other words, the NCBA really doesn't mean what it says. While integrated
beef supply chains fight to protect their profitable imported beef deception,
COOL was implemented for fish and is working just fine. I can pick up a bag of
shrimp and it will tell me where the shrimp were produced but buy a bag a beef
jerky and despite labels touting "USDA inspected" and "packaged in the USA",
subsequent inquiry uncovered the beef's origin was either Brazil or New
Zealand.
ISU legal expert Roger McEowen noted that "legal analysis performed in 2003
showed only that Canadian cattle and hogs come into the U.S. unbranded.
Therefore, identifying those few hundred thousand cattle and the few million
hogs that come into the country by tagging them or branding them would be the
only major cost for a mandatory labeling system." Imported product is already
sorted out, easily labeled. R-CALF President Leo McDonald concluded "It is
common knowledge that NCBA has been the primary force in delaying the
implementation of Mandatory COOL, and now, the organization has become a part
of the group that wants to kill it completely. Why would an organization that
claims to represent cattlemen want to deceive the very consumers U.S. ranchers
need to have trust in their product in order to continue building demand for
that product?" The better question is what happened since 1999 to the
organization that once supported mandatory COOL? That NCBA doesn't exist
anymore.
****************************************
