Luke, thank you for a civil response and I will certainly respond in kind.
Luke: "My suggestion, not an argument, is that: R-CALF is an US organization that is protecting US industry, COOL differentiates based on a consumer's perception of quality, COOL will enable our checkoff dollars to be used more efficiently to drive demand of US beef."
With all do respect, my factually based opinion is that R-CALF is an organization that is hurting the U.S. industry in numerous ways.
For instance, what could possibly be more potentially damaging to our industry than to risk the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption (domestic production) in order to stop the importation of 5% of our domestic beef consumption (Canadian live cattle imports) by standing on a position that having BSE in your native herd means your beef is "high risk". How can you have any integrity in that position when we now have BSE in our native herd and our BSE "firewalls" are less stringent than Canada's due to their traceback and chicken litter ban?
How anyone could consider that flawed political move "proper representation" is beyond my comprehension.
Good thing for the U.S. cattle industry that the media didn't see R-CALF as a credible source of information on BSE and good thing the 9th circuit didn't buy into R-CALF's "opinions" or consumer demand for U.S. beef could have been in the tank. Luckily, facts and truth prevailed as it should.
Consumers perceptions of quality beef has to do with value for the price, not what country it originated from. Look no further than all the foreign products in Walmart.
"M"COOL will not drive demand for U.S. beef when 95% of the labeled beef under "M"COOL would be labeled as U.S. beef making foreign beef a novelty item.
There is lots and lots of examples to prove that Country of Origin is not high on the consumer's priority list.
Luke: "Ironically, COOL scares enough people, with all the answers, into saying that implementation, enforcement, and cost/benefit questions are not answered."
No, "M"COOL, as written is a seriously flawed law because it demands proof of where beef was "born, raised, and slaughtered" but then prohibits "M"ID to accomplish that.
Have you even read the law?
Luke: "Although I don't know where you got your figures and why the person who came up with those figures couldn't figure out how much it would cost, I can honestly say that 5% is still worthy of an effort."
The figures are from USDA.
"Food service" accounts for 75% of our imported beef. That is a fact take it or leave it.
If you think 5% is worthy of supporting an unenfoceable law, you are obviously not in the retail beef business.
Go to the USDA listening session site and listen to those who actually market beef tell you how much this will cost them in segregation costs to accomplish something that consumers are not even asking for and if they were, the free enterprise system can and would provide it without a government mandate. This law is the classic "symbolism over substance". A great concept but the costs will not outweigh the benefits.
Don't take my word for it. Go to the "M"COOL listening sessions on line and see for yourself what processors and retailers of all sizes are saying about this flawed law.
Ironically, the large packers are set up much better to handle the expense of segregation than the small packers which will serve only to further concentrate the industry.
Luke: "This is a key issue and I agree that you must have an adequate system in place to track the cattle. It is too bad that so many people are against it"
The fact remains, this law as written is not enforceable because "M"ID was prohibited.
Those consumers that want to know where their beef comes from want TRACEBACK, not a flawed Country of Origin labeling law that segregates 5% of the beef, at the cost of labeling all beef, to create a novelty item to the benefit of foreign beef.
"Hmmm let's see should I try the U.S. beef, the U.S. beef, the U.S. beef, the U.S. beef, the U.S. beef, the U.S. beef or the U.S. beef......hey what's this......"Maple Leaf Canadian beef", Yeh I'll try that.
What's our hispanic population now Luke? Think they are going to shy away from Mexican beef?
Luke: "Your mortage is only as good as your signature. Can't your bank use the courts to take your ground, based on your signature, promise to pay? What good is our court system if it can't rely on a signature? Would a nortarized affidavit be better?"
A signature is only as good as it's means of enforcement.
When you send in your income tax form, why fill out the form? Using your logic we should be able to just send a check in with your signature on it? After all, you signed the check.
If only a signature is proof positive of livestock, why do so many areas have brand inspection, why not just have a signature stating that the livestock belongs to you?
As I said, a signature is only as good as the means to enforce it.
Luke: "It is interesting that you have the same argument as the packers, but then say that you can't trust the packers to have a good tracking system for affidavits."
It is interesting that "M"COOL proponents claim we need to have "M"COOL to keep greedy packers from hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp but they are willing to trust these same packers with signed affidavits as proof of origin?
Now you tell me which argument is the most conflicting?
It's not about "trust" is about "enforcement".
Luke: "Who would burden those 5% of costs, the consumer or the packer? I am sure that eventually they would get back to the producer, but who knows what the eventual benefit of "M" Cool would be? Why are the packers so opposed of implementing a traceable system for their outputs? You offer an alternative, but why is it possible for Wal-mart to track billions of packages and the beef industry is unable to figure out a logistics system that satisfies."
You are correct, the expenses usually come from the consumer or the producer because the packer and retailer are margin operators. The path of least resistance is generally the producer.
Regardless, consumers aren't asking for it and if they were, there is a lot of source verified branded beef products for them to chose from that can trace the product to the farm of origin.
Who knows what the eventual benefit of segregating 5% of our domestic beef consumption at the expense of labeling all beef would be you ask? Why not ask those who know? Ask those who market beef, not those who claim to be in the "cattle industry" yet think they know more about selling beef than those who actually sell beef.
Why are packers opposed to "M"COOL? Because it's all expense and no benefits. Consumers are not asking for it and if they were they have numerous branded beef programs to chose from that source verify their beef.
Nobody ever said that traceback was impossible. Traceback is very possible. It's already occuring in the many source verified branded beef programs. "M"COOL has nothing to do with traceback because "M"ID was prohibited. "M"COOL proponents said they wanted country of origin, not farm of origin. They said "Just mark the imports". They said, "don't burden me with traceback". They had liability concerns with traceback so "M"ID was effectively prohibited from "M"COOL which gutted the law.
Luke: "Can we use the checkoff to encourage more customer loyalty or should we support "generic" beef with that checkoff?"
In order to have value in advertising, you need to be able to differentiate your product from something else. When 95% of the labeled beef would be "U.S. beef", all you are doing is differentiating the foreign beef as a novelty item.
I agree with you in that consumer surveys can be misleading. That's why I never agreed with the Colorado survey that concluded that consumers would pay more for U.S. beef. I'm like you, I would rather look at real life situations such as Mike Callicrate's Ranch Foods Direct which offers a "born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S." branded beef product in the same state and has yet to realize a profit.
I like to look at the example of New Zealand lamb outselling U.S. lamb due also to being a novelty item.
Luke: "This is just business, if someone is scared about more costs, they shouldn't be in the business because that is today's world."
Any sound business does not aquire additional costs unless those costs are justified. In this case they are not. The costs of "M"COOL will be directly proportionate to it's enforceability. Without enforcement, anything can be labeled as anything but the costs would sure be low wouldn't they?
Luke: "In your mind the law is flawed, it isn't a great way to encourage disscussion."
I didn't just say the law is flawed, I proved the law is flawed. You contradicted absolutely nothing I presented with facts to the contrary. I backed my position with numerous examples and facts.
Luke: "You should start that statment with "I believe," let people decide for themselves."
Luke if I wasn't prepared to back my position with facts, I would state, "I believe". In this case I don't just believe, I know. I've done the research rather than listening to the anti packer rhetoric.
Like I said, don't take my word for it. Go to the "M"COOL listening sessions and see what those who actually process and sell beef have to say about this flawed law.
Luke: "I support "M" COOL because it will force us as an industry to implement control processes that will enable us to produce a "cleaner" product."
That brings up a good point, if all the beef sold in the U.S. is inspected equally, the odds are 95% to 5% that Ecoli would be found in U.S. beef. If Ecoli is found in U.S. beef, that's more incentive to buy the novelty item isn't it?
To your concerns about the low cost processor, imported beef is inspected twice giving it another clear advantage.
Luke: " Lets keep this a discussion on theories and not get emotion or industry ties involved. Too many people are tied to an organizational mindset that doesn't promote learning. It promotes following the organization's taglines and brings emotion into it."
I appreciate your attitude and will respond in kind.
The only thing that matters to me is truth and facts, not emotional rhetoric which is exactly what "M"COOL is based on.
I fed cattle for USDA's first total process verified branded beef program, PM BEEF group. I have no problems with source verification for branded beef programs which goes beyond Country of Origin. Source verification has value. This flawed law does not.
Thanks for respectable response and the good questions Luke.
~SH~