Why we need COOL and why R-Calf is helping you

[mrj]

COOL would have started a new trend in the beef business, i.e. "A FLOW OF INFORMATION" from the producer to the processor, then on to the customer. This information would ultimately be used to discriminate against those who raise less than desireable beef. (Okie's) These cattle would either improve or they couldn't compete, therefore raising the bar for a better piece of beef, in turn making those "bad beef eating experiences" less likely for the consumer.

Mike, please tell us how COOL is going to do all you believe it will when there is NO requirement for producers of USA beef to be identified.

Apparently, that lower quality beef does fill a need. What we really need is a vastly improved system to indicate quality of beef. Nothing like that in COOL. We need identification and trace-back to be able to more quickly find sources of illness, rare as that really is. We even need it to find people who cheat and use cattle medications in improper ways, or who do not tell the truth about what vaccinations have been given. We need information to flow both directions to give producers cues on what needs improving in ALL cattle herds, even in the USA. Your COOL law cannot do any of that.

MRJ

 

[rancher]

COOL would have started a new trend in the beef business, i.e. "A FLOW OF INFORMATION" from the producer to the processor, then on to the customer. This information would ultimately be used to discriminate against those who raise less than desireable beef. (Okie's) These cattle would either improve or they couldn't compete, therefore raising the bar for a better piece of beef, in turn making those "bad beef eating experiences" less likely for the consumer.

Mike, please tell us how COOL is going to do all you believe it will when there is NO requirement for producers of USA beef to be identified.

Apparently, that lower quality beef does fill a need. What we really need is a vastly improved system to indicate quality of beef. Nothing like that in COOL. We need identification and trace-back to be able to more quickly find sources of illness, rare as that really is. We even need it to find people who cheat and use cattle medications in improper ways, or who do not tell the truth about what vaccinations have been given. We need information to flow both directions to give producers cues on what needs improving in ALL cattle herds, even in the USA. Your COOL law cannot do any of that.

MRJ

The NCBA M'ID will not do that either except for the trace back for cattle disease like foot-mouth and BSE. The producers with the low quality cattle will want to be kept confidental and the same as the ones that lie about the vaccinations and cattle medications.

 

[Mike]

COOL would have started a new trend in the beef business, i.e. "A FLOW OF INFORMATION" from the producer to the processor, then on to the customer. This information would ultimately be used to discriminate against those who raise less than desireable beef. (Okie's) These cattle would either improve or they couldn't compete, therefore raising the bar for a better piece of beef, in turn making those "bad beef eating experiences" less likely for the consumer.

Mike, please tell us how COOL is going to do all you believe it will when there is NO requirement for producers of USA beef to be identified.

Apparently, that lower quality beef does fill a need. What we really need is a vastly improved system to indicate quality of beef. Nothing like that in COOL. We need identification and trace-back to be able to more quickly find sources of illness, rare as that really is. We even need it to find people who cheat and use cattle medications in improper ways, or who do not tell the truth about what vaccinations have been given. We need information to flow both directions to give producers cues on what needs improving in ALL cattle herds, even in the USA. Your COOL law cannot do any of that.

MRJ

I never said COOL would do all of this. I said it would have started a trend of information flow.
Can you show me in COOL where producers are exempt from cattle identification?

 

[mrj]

COOL would have started a new trend in the beef business, i.e. "A FLOW OF INFORMATION" from the producer to the processor, then on to the customer. This information would ultimately be used to discriminate against those who raise less than desireable beef. (Okie's) These cattle would either improve or they couldn't compete, therefore raising the bar for a better piece of beef, in turn making those "bad beef eating experiences" less likely for the consumer.

Mike, please tell us how COOL is going to do all you believe it will when there is NO requirement for producers of USA beef to be identified.

Apparently, that lower quality beef does fill a need. What we really need is a vastly improved system to indicate quality of beef. Nothing like that in COOL. We need identification and trace-back to be able to more quickly find sources of illness, rare as that really is. We even need it to find people who cheat and use cattle medications in improper ways, or who do not tell the truth about what vaccinations have been given. We need information to flow both directions to give producers cues on what needs improving in ALL cattle herds, even in the USA. Your COOL law cannot do any of that.

MRJ

The NCBA M'ID will not do that either except for the trace back for cattle disease like foot-mouth and BSE. The producers with the low quality cattle will want to be kept confidental and the same as the ones that lie about the vaccinations and cattle medications.

How will it be possible for them to keep confidential the information the government will need re. the illegal vaccine and cattle meds if they show up someplace. Govt will most likely have the same trace-back requirements for illegal substances as for disease.

Re. the low quality cattle, those will be weeded out, IMO, by the fact that people with high quality will use that info to add value, thereby get paid for their good work, while those who do not put the effort into raising the quality will get paid less.

However, those who do not like whatever system NCBA comes up with for their ID project can stay out of it........so where is the reason for complaint?

Re. COOL, because it will be mandatory, does so little of any value, and is not consumer driven, it is at best, a waste of time. Possibly the worst think about COOL is that it will make consumers think they are getting a better product than they can currently buy in the supermarket and eating establishments when in fact, they will be getting the same thing they get now.......while any imported product that now goes through the supermarket can easily escape labeling by being routed through food service or other exempted categories. WHat happens when the consumer catches onto that major piece of deceit?

MRJ

MRJ

 

[rancher]

[
It can only be used to trace animal diseases is what I read. They will only trace it back to the producer, how can they prove it was the producer that gave the illegal medications? Might be the guy that had them on lease ground, the feeder, the many people that the cattle traded hands with down the line. They need an ID that follows the cow where ever she goes, then they would have to make it M'ID like a brand inspection when it leaves the producers hands. Does NCBA'S ID do that?

However, those who do not like whatever system NCBA comes up with for their ID project can stay out of it........so where is the reason for complaint?

Because NCBA wants the government to let them run the M'ID, so looks like if they get their way we all have to go with it.

Re. the low quality cattle, those will be weeded out, IMO, by the fact that people with high quality will use that info to add value, thereby get paid for their good work, while those who do not put the effort into raising the quality will get paid less.

Producers can do that now with out M'ID.

 

[Murgen]

Producers can do that now with out M'ID

We can do it now without COOL too. Once again you have proven that COOL has a lot of short comings for what the RCALF camp is promoting it as!

 

[mrj]

[
It can only be used to trace animal diseases is what I read. They will only trace it back to the producer, how can they prove it was the producer that gave the illegal medications? Might be the guy that had them on lease ground, the feeder, the many people that the cattle traded hands with down the line. They need an ID that follows the cow where ever she goes, then they would have to make it M'ID like a brand inspection when it leaves the producers hands. Does NCBA'S ID do that?

However, those who do not like whatever system NCBA comes up with for their ID project can stay out of it........so where is the reason for complaint?

Because NCBA wants the government to let them run the M'ID, so looks like if they get their way we all have to go with it.

{I don't think so!. I believe NCBA wants to have one system, of possibly many independent systems, all compatible, rather than the government setting up another whole bureauracracy to bungle the M-ID. If private industry manages it, there can be side benefits to make it have value for producers and others involved, where that would be highly unlikely if govt does it. Have you read any statement saying NCBA wants to run the whole M-ID system? I believe they are currently working on one demonstration project and nothing is set in stone at this point. MRJ}

Re. the low quality cattle, those will be weeded out, IMO, by the fact that people with high quality will use that info to add value, thereby get paid for their good work, while those who do not put the effort into raising the quality will get paid less.

Producers can do that now with out M'ID.

{Sure they can, but why not kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. If you can run the cattle through the chute once and accomplish several chores, it just makes sense, IMO. MRJ}

 

[Anonymous]

You are rigtht Soapweed.

Mike: "I never said COOL would do all of this. I said it would have started a trend of information flow."

A trend of "REAL" information flow has started long before flawed COOL came around with source verified branded beef programs.

The NON GOVERNMENTAL MANDATE option.

Mike: "Can you show me in COOL where producers are exempt from cattle identification?"

No, nor can I show you were a traceback system will be required.

That is what is so backwards about the law. It requires that retailers provide proof of where cattle were born, raised, and slaughtered. Well anyone with a lick of sense knows that the only way that retailers can do that is if they know where the cattle originated. GIPSA stated that processors are within their rights to request this information. BUT THEN THE LAW PROHIBITS A MANDATORY ID SYSTEM.

Makes absolutely no sense but then one must consider that R-CALF helped write the law.


Where was the enforceability going to come from if "M"ID is prohibited?

Who knows! BWAME USDA!

This law contradicts itself which is one more reason why it is such a joke.


Why hasn't anyone addressed my question regarding what this government mandate can provide that is not already provided by the free enterprise system with source verified branded beef products?

Everyone keeps diverting that question.......and for good reason because there is no reason to chose a flawed government mandate over the free enterprise system that is already years ahead and consumer driven.



~SH~

 

[Tommy]

SH...Why hasn't anyone addressed my question regarding what this government mandate can provide that is not already provided by the free enterprise system with source verified branded beef products?

This law is not just about beef Scott. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling includes Beef, Lamb, Pork, Fish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, and Peanuts.
If it is such a bad law Scott, why was fish allowed to become law last year when the rest were put on the back burner untill 2006?

 

[Mike]

No, nor can I show you were a traceback system will be required.

Well DUH! If the retailer has to have records verifiable by an "AUDIT", then some sort of ID would be mandatory wouldn't it. :???: :???:

The law did not prohibit ID. It just prohibited the USDA from choosing the "SYSTEM" of ID. Private enterprise would have worked out the system.

I'm surprised at you. You claim to want less guvment intervention, but on the other hand you want the USDA to dictate what we should do to ID our animals.

There are lots of old heads out there fighting ID. But if it got to the point that their cattle would not sell because of none, the change would have taken place immediately, if not sooner.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "Well DUH! If the retailer has to have records verifiable by an "AUDIT", then some sort of ID would be mandatory wouldn't it."

EXACTLY!

SO WHY PROHIBIT "M"ID which would provide a uniform means to enforce this unnecessary law????

Does "M"COOL with an inconsistant traceback system make sense to you?

"Well ah gawsh we got this law but we really don't want the government to enforce it because it might burden producers".

That's one more stupidity aspect of this law.

If you are going to have a law, you have to have an enforceable law. In order for this law to be enforceable, you have to have a "M"ID system that is consistant.

Mike: "The law did not prohibit ID. It just prohibited the USDA from choosing the "SYSTEM" of ID. Private enterprise would have worked out the system."

SAY IT WITH ME MIKE, A LAW MUST BE ENFORCEABLE. IF A LAW REQUIRES PROOF OF WHERE AN ANIMAL WAS BORN, RAISED, AND SLAUGHTERED, THAT LAW ALSO MUST PROVIDE THE DIRECTION FOR THAT LAW TO BE ENFORCEABLE WITH A CONSISTANT TRACEBACK SYSTEM.

That's the trouble with you "M"COOL proponents, you throw this flawed, unenforceable piece of legislation at USDA then blame them for their inability to enforce it.

Here this is all about forcing packers to label their beef to it's country of origin YET YOU ARE GOING TO WATER DOWN THE ENFORCEMENT???

Mike: "I'm surprised at you. You claim to want less guvment intervention, but on the other hand you want the USDA to dictate what we should do to ID our animals."

You are wrong Mike.

I don't want "M"ID, nor do I want flawed COOL.

I want the free enterprise system and the consumer to drive both processes, not the government.

We already have "VOLUNTARY" source verified branded beef programs in existance that accomplish more than "M"COOL would ever hope to accomplish.

You are the one who thinks we need the government to do what the free enterprise system is already doing.

The hypocrisy here is accusing the large packers of hiding foreign beef behind the USDA label then trusting them to label beef correctly without a consistant ID system because "M"COOL proponents didn't want to be burdened with what they themselves demanded.

Mike: " There are lots of old heads out there fighting ID. But if it got to the point that their cattle would not sell because of none, the change would have taken place immediately, if not sooner."

If that's the case, then why the heck would you insist on proof of where animals were born, raised, and slaughtered, then prohibit a consistant uniform traceback system to accomplish that.

Here the USDA is heading for a traceback system and "M"COOL, which prohibited a mandatory traceback system, sit's on the shelf.

More of the brilliance of R-CALF!


Tommy,

Comparing fish production to beef production has to be one of the most ludicrous comparisons I could think of.

FISH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO BEEF.

Another "red herring" argument.

Tell me why we need a government mandate to do something that the free enterprise system has already taken further than "M"COOL will?

I dare anyone to answer that simple question.


~SH~

 

[rancher]

Why didn't the packer just label the beef country of orgin unknown if they didn't want to be burden? Did they think that maybe they would lose sales over it? Just trying to understand why they don't want it.

 

[Mike]

Why didn't the packer just label the beef country of orgin unknown if they didn't want to be burden? Did they think that maybe they would lose sales over it? Just trying to understand why they don't want it.

Rancher, that would be way too simple.

 

[Sandhusker]

If you want the agreement enforced, you have to take it to the "NAFTA Judges." Canada didn't do that, so why would you expect any NAFTA agreements enforced?

My point exactly Sandhusker, the US can sign these agreements all they want, but they still beat to the same drum. To argue with them is to waste huge amounts of money, and then have a court in Montana, rule against the USDA anyway.

And you say you don't have the power to control the standards of imported beef. What a crock!

Murgen, the NAFTA court is above the US courts regarding trade - and just about anything can count as trade related. I'm not joshing you, but don't believe me if you don't want to, doesn't matter to me.

 

[Luke]

As I can see it, the Canadians are angry because an american organization is looking out for their producers. While I and others don't agree on their misrepresentation of Canadian quality, they trying to help the American producer. Simply, the leadership of R-CALF believes that they are doing good for the producer and in the long run will help the american producer. As I can see it, SH beleives that we are working in a capitalistic society that has no barriers to entry. Barriers to entry limits the number of packers and retailers that are present in the market place. Barriers to entry enable large producers to create monopolies or ogolopolies in order to drive down prices. Barriers to entry within the meat retailing and packing industry include capital, access to customers and regulation.

The reason why I started this discussion is to bring to light how there are several things working against the American producer. Of course, these things are not the same problems that Canadian producers have. Of course, our organizations are not working for the Canadian producers. Canadians have every right to believe their product is great, but I believe that the American producer must be forced into differentiation, therefore making them a direct, rather then in-direct, competitior with canadians/other countries. Pulling producers into the modern age of competition will help the industry as a whole. This is not about the individual, rather the industry and common good.

The government is entering into free-trade agreements with developing countries to sell them our services. Our economy is over 75% service related, therefore agriculture (producers) are not first on the agenda when discussion on free trade goes on. Therefore, as we enter into these free trade agreements our government looks to benefit our service industry, while developing countries look to help their production industries (agriculture). Global economies result, in a global economy the production of any said product is completed in countries who have comparative advantages over other countries. Clusters, a term coined by Micheal Porter, result. A cluster is a group of related industries that support production. Clusters are now present in the mid-west, clusters are the reason why most Canadian cattle come down to the mid-west, there are relating industries that make feeding cattle more cost efficeint (corn production and transportation). My point is that as we shift our economy to a more service oriented society, these clusters will shift their location to the most cost advantage areas. Take for example, South America, as their farming comes up to speed, they will produce corn more efficieintly, their regulations (barriers to entry) are less in developing countries. Making it easier to package meat there.

As our economy stands, SH makes a good point that M-COOL is not neccessary, as our economy stands. Our economy is changing quicker then anyone realizes. Customer satisfaction must stay high, customer satisfaction relies a lot on price, which equates to value. That being said, we can break even producing a quality product now. As the margins become more narrow, production will shift to countries that have comparative advantages over us. Unless our national organizations/government get involved. Unless our national organziations make a concerted effort to differentiate our product now.

M"COOL enables differentiation. This discussion makes a point that much of the meat currently consumed in the market place would be labled US beef. The discussion says that a mandatory labeling is against the principles of capitalism. That we should let capitalism run its course. That being said, most food wouldn't have a label. Warning labels would not be on every piece of equipment. Those labels were put there by a manadory regulation that either a consumer group or the government made that company place there, for the common good. Our economy is not true capitalism, if it was true capitalism, the barrier to entry that most producers shy away from when looking at vertical integration is the regulation requirements when producing meat would not be in place. Mandatory regulation is not the first choice on any producer's wish list. This adds costs of course, but it also enables them to have the ability to differienciate through promotion.

The Checkoff dollar was a great idea when it started because it marketed beef, the generic product that was mostly american. As it is now, it is still mostly american beef that it markets, but as our market changes we should no longer market a generic product. Generic products are commodities that have a very small profit margin. Generic products can be produced in any country, generic products are more efficiently produced within clusters of related industry, where barriers to entry are slight. We must realize that our product can't be a generic product anymore, that as american producers we must differitiate now. Granted, with a good promotional campaign other countries can compete with us on quality. Therefore we must use the checkoff dollar to promote American cattle.

Unfortunately, some of you believe that I am speaking for R-CALF, in a result you have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about. Contrary to your beliefs, I am not speaking for R-CALF. I am speaking for myself, an american producer. My thoughts on this issue come from a loose collection (not primary research) of the arguments. My thoughts come from seeing big business move their production plants south, making it more efficient for them to produce a product. The only thing that will eventually help the cattle industry is that the product is heavy and non-durable, making it hard to ship, therefore production must be within a reasonable distance of the destination.

As producers, you must ask yourself: When production of your commodity is more efficient in another country, why won't the packers move? As Canadians, you must ask yourself, what if the US abolishes price supports for corn and other inputs on fed cattle, therefore eliminating any cluster of related industry within the bible belt?

My belief, subject to disagreement is that the American producer can no longer be without a "branded" product. That "brand" of quality and distinction should be "born, raised and slaughtered" in the USA. This brand will enable the US producer to differentiate, in the long run, from the direct competition of competing countries, of developing nations not necessarly Canada, which comes to mind.

 

[Luke]

Identification is something that helps the consumer make an eventual choice or enables a better logistics system. Usually the packager of the product puts an identification on the final product. Within the beef industry the packers or retailers are the only ones that have the benefit of processing a final product. It would be stupid to assume that there are no tracking number on processed meat right now. Every single large retailer has a vast amount of logistics software that tracks every piece of consumer related service or product. In the case of wal-mart, businesses have screamed because wal-mart now requires RFID tags on every single piece of product they buy. They did this to help their logistics systems and placement of the product. Identification helps the packager or retailer. It does not help the producer, unless the producer is vertically integrated throughout the production chain.
Lets assume that every single retailer has an inventory control system in place that tracks inputs and outputs so that they can measure profitability. Lets assume that every vendor that they buy from has an inventory control system in place to measure inputs and outputs. Therefore, we can assume that there is a system in place for meat products. This system benefits the retailers, giving them a good idea of where their product is going and what is making them money.
So, in the meat industry, why the big stink about labeling based on origination? As I stated, identification makes it possible for the consumer to decide. In my earlier post, I said that comparative advantages enbable cost efficiencies in other countries. So when the retailer gets a good price on imported meat, they can advertise their "generic" product through promotional campaigns. A promotional campaign is not meant to add profit margin to that particular product, but rather enable "value" association with that retailer. This association gives the customer the perception that the retailer's prices are better then average, but the consumer doesn't know that they are getting an imported product, or more accurately, a product that wasn't produced with the same percieved processes as an american product.
My point is that in business you have to track your profitability through identification, but in the case of meat and our "generic" product, it is better for the retailer to have an un-identified piece of meat because they then have the ability to sell imported products cheaper, giving that retailer/packer the ability to push a percieved notion of value.

Now, why wouldn't the production chain in agriculture want identification of product? The entities with the capital and direct contact with the consumer would be forced to market lower priced meat/vegtables differently, therefore loosing some "value" association with the consumer.

 

[Luke]

SH wrote: Why hasn't anyone addressed my question regarding what this government mandate can provide that is not already provided by the free enterprise system with source verified branded beef products?

Hopefully, I addressed your concern about not letting the capitalist system run its course. In short, the US Economy is moving towards a service based industry format. Leaving production agriculture to developing nations. These developing nations have the comparative advantages that our consumers seek, cost efficiencies. Without some sort of direct involvement in the eventual change in production location, our agricultural industry is lost to the low-cost producer. Our government no longer cares about agriculture as a whole. They care about the service related jobs, because of the population concentrations. The question is whether we want to compete on a low-cost format or can we change the industry now to enable differientiation.

TAM & SH, You both make great points. Please give me the consideration that while you might not agree with me, obviously we are speaking from different platforms with different agendas. TAM, a canadian is concered about mis-information. SH, you are concerned that the capitalist system is being forced to change, making it more difficult on either the producer or the retailer. I am concerned about the producer and eventual wellfare of the US cattle producers.

 

[Anonymous]

Rancher,

You asked why the packers are against it?

Packers of all sizes testified at the "M"COOL listening sessions. Those testimonys are available at a USDA website. The reason that was stated repeatedly is that any benefits would be greatly overshadowed by the costs of segregation. That was their primary concern.

Luke: "As I can see it, the Canadians are angry because an american organization is looking out for their producers."

No, Canadians are angry because an American organization lied about the safety of their beef to stop Canadian imports after they had signed a free trade agreement with Canada.

Canadians are angry because R-CALF stated that Canadian beef is "unsafe" and a "high risk" because Canada had BSE in their native herd. Now that the U.S. has had BSE in their native herd, R-CALF says we have the safest beef in the world.

R-CALF lied and deceived to stop Canadian imports.

Luke: "Simply, the leadership of R-CALF believes that they are doing good for the producer and in the long run will help the american producer."

That's what they believe but they are wrong.

Luke: "As I can see it, SH beleives that we are working in a capitalistic society that has no barriers to entry. Barriers to entry limits the number of packers and retailers that are present in the market place. Barriers to entry enable large producers to create monopolies or ogolopolies in order to drive down prices. Barriers to entry within the meat retailing and packing industry include capital, access to customers and regulation."

Your "barriers to entry" argument is soundly defeated by the fact that USPB now owns all of National beef and remains competitive against the largest packing companies.

Packers cannot drive down prices. The prices packers pay for cattle is determined by the prices they each receive for beef and beef by-products and how much they have to pay in relation to their competition's margins.

Packers controlling markets is a myth that can easily be proven wrong with actual packer profit figures.

In a market that was truly controlled, prices would have no reason to move at all.

Another fact that disproves this conspiracy theory is the fact that live cattle prices track with boxed beef prices and always have.

To believe that the packing industry is controlled is to believe that there is no competition between the largest packing companies.

You take a position by offering statements but you provide no proof to back them.

Luke: "Pulling producers into the modern age of competition will help the industry as a whole."

I agree which is precisely why the source verified branded beef programs in existance today are way ahead of "M"COOL even if it was enforceable and differentiated more than 5% of the beef consumed in the U.S.


Bottom line on NAFTA and our existing trade agreements for beef - $1.3 "BILLION" dollar surplus. Those are the unrefuted facts of trade in our industry. All your talk about "clusters" and "undeveloped countries" will not circumvent this fact. Mexico has less income than the U.S. and our beef trade with them is a net surplus to the U.S.

Luke: "M"COOL enables differentiation."

Source verified branded beef programs offer MORE differentiation.

Luke: "That being said, most food wouldn't have a label. Warning labels would not be on every piece of equipment."

Nutrition labels and warning labels offer more pertinent information to consumers than a generic country of origin label on commodity beef.

Apples and oranges comparison.

Luke: "Mandatory regulation is not the first choice on any producer's wish list."

More government intervention is R-CALF's solution to every issue.

Luke: ".....as our market changes we should no longer market a generic product."

That is exactly what you are doing. Marketing generic commodity beef with a generic country of origin label.

Source verified branded beef programs that offer value to consumers has stepped away from a "generic" product.

A generic Country of origin label on commodity beef is still commodity beef.

Luke: "My thoughts on this issue come from a loose collection (not primary research) of the arguments."

Obviously!

Luke: "When production of your commodity is more efficient in another country, why won't the packers move?"

You just answered that question with..........

Luke: "The only thing that will eventually help the cattle industry is that the product is heavy and non-durable, making it hard to ship, therefore production must be within a reasonable distance of the destination."

Luke: "My belief, subject to disagreement is that the American producer can no longer be without a "branded" product. That "brand" of quality and distinction should be "born, raised and slaughtered" in the USA."

I agree that the American producer can no longer be without a "branded" product which is why the free enterprise system offers so many various branded products that go much further than country of origin, they offer guaranteed tenderness, flavor, pre-cooked, organic, etc. etc.

All of which have more value to consumers than a generic country of origin label on commodity beef.

Luke: "So, in the meat industry, why the big stink about labeling based on origination?"

First off, there is no comparison to tracking most products and a beef carcass that becomes 300 different packages of beef sent to different destinations. Another apples to oranges comparison.

The tracking requirements and the expenses are not even close to the same. A lot more is required to track the origination of a package of beef than most other items that are labeled to their country of origin.

The big stink about labeling based on origination is that the benefits of segregating 5% of our U.S. beef consumption as a novelty item that favors imported beef will not be offset by the costs of segregation and labeling of all beef.

It is extremely arrogant to assume that you know more about marketing beef than those who actually market beef.

Luke: " SH, you are concerned that the capitalist system is being forced to change, making it more difficult on either the producer or the retailer. I am concerned about the producer and eventual wellfare of the US cattle producers."

Nice try Luke but I have laid out a lot more reasons to oppose "M"COOL than that and you have failed to contradict a single argument I have presented with facts to the contrary.

1. Most consumers are not asking for Country of Origin Labeling

2. Those consumers that do want to know where their beef comes from can buy source verified branded beef.

3. When you segregate ONLY 5% of the beef as imported, you have created a novelty item that favors the rare product.

4. Sales of New Zealand lamb is a perfect example of how U.S. consumers are not loyal to U.S. products.

5. "M"COOL prohibited the means to enforce it by prohibiting "M"ID.

6. There is nothing in "M"COOL that cannot be provided better by the free enterprise system.

7. There will be costs associated with segregating foreign carcasses and foreign beef products that will be passed on to producers in the form of lower cattle prices.

8. Packers and retailers off all sizes opposed "M" COOL at "M"COOL listening sessions.

9. Those who sell beef generally know more about selling beef than those who just sell cattle.

10. Consumers base their shopping priorities on price and value, not country of origin.


Rather than supporting your position with facts or contradicting my position with facts to the contrary, you have simply made speculative statements to support your position.



~SH~

 

[Tam]

TAM & SH, You both make great points. Please give me the consideration that while you might not agree with me, obviously we are speaking from different platforms with different agendas. TAM, a canadian is concered about mis-information. SH, you are concerned that the capitalist system is being forced to change, making it more difficult on either the producer or the retailer. I am concerned about the producer and eventual wellfare of the US cattle producers.

If you are truly concerned about the welfare of the US cattle producers then you should also be concerned about the mis-information that is out there via R-CALF. As if consumers start to believe the crap they are spreading about Canadian beef and our industry then it will not matter if you are a supporter or not, you and all producers will pay for that mis-information as our industries are so much alike. I also believe that SH is worried about the mis-information R-CALF is spreading about the Safety of our beef and how it will affect you and the welfare of your industry and if you don't believe me go back a read a few more of his post. How can you think we have a different agenda, all we want is to protect consumer confidence and the welfare of an industry that we all make our living at.