WTO Challenge.........

[PORKER]

Country of Origin has food safety value when you have country's that use false labeling like fish the other day . I was shopping in a Super Target for some US fish and came across some Alaskan Polock. The label said it in two inch high letters. The wife said I had better check and in 4 pixel or so print on the back, that's small , It says from CHINA. I 'am not buying that crap and threw it back. Beef and poultry with pork will be treated the same way, with recalls being rampant from pesticides to dioxin in this worldwide meat supply. You need to check the recall list before going shopping anymore.

 

[Sandhusker]

According to the Iowa beef center,

Presently under the interim final rule, the recordkeeping burden for the first year is estimated at $126 million
for development and operation and $499 million for maintenance and operation. Thus, the total
recordkeeping cost for all participants in the supply chain for covered commodities is estimated at $624
million for the first year, with subsequent maintenance costs of $499 million per year.

Economic Impacts
The direct cost to retailers and their suppliers include the recordkeeping burden plus capital, labor, and other
related costs to manage product flow at the producer, intermediary, and retailer levels.
Benefits: The expected benefits from implementation of this rule remain difficult to quantify. Available
studies on the potential benefits of mandatory COOL suggest that benefits will likely be small. There is still
little tangible evidence found to support that consumers' stated preferences for COOL information will lead
to increased demand for commodities bearing a U.S.-origin label. Comments and new studies were of the
same type indentified in the PRIA—namely, consumer surveys and willingness-to-pay studies.
Direct Costs: In the initial proposed rule, first-year implementation costs for directly impacted firms were
estimated to range from $582 to $3,882 million.
Taking into account comments, it was concluded that costs would likely fall in the upper range of estimated
costs. Therefore, only a single set of costs are developed for the new regulation. The first-year
implementation costs for directly affected firms are now estimated at $2,517 million. Compared to the upper
range estimate of the proposed rule, this is a reduction in the estimated costs of $1,365 million, even with the
addition of 5 new covered commodities.
Costs per firm are estimated at $376 for producers, $53,948 for intermediaries, and $235,551 for retailers.
The new costs estimates per firm for producers and retailers are lower than the PRIA estimates due to lower
estimated costs per unit. Costs for intermediaries are higher due to the lower number of affected firm

Ohio University Extension

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Whether it's for health and nutrition, safety, sustainability or some other reason, consumers' food-purchasing choices continue to widen. In the mix with local foods, organics and genetically modified products now comes country of origin labeling (COOL).

On Sept. 30, mandatory country of origin labeling became effective for meat and perishable agricultural commodities such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Fish and shellfish having been subject to COOL requirements since April 2005.

"Retailers are now required to notify consumers whether the product they are buying is of U.S. origin or from another country," said Ian Sheldon, Ohio State University Andersons Professor of International Trade with the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics.

Products falling under COOL requirements include beef, lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh fruits and vegetables, and some nuts such as peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts. Under COOL, ingredients in processed food items are not required to be labeled; however, many imported products still must indicate the country of origin of their ingredients under the Tariff Act of 1930.

"For example, frozen peas and carrots are processed foods and in principle are not subject to COOL requirements. However, if those peas and carrots came from another country, then the product has to be labeled," said Sheldon, who holds an appointment with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.

Apart from giving consumers greater choice in what products they buy, Sheldon doesn't see much benefit with the implementation of COOL.

"I'm not sure what the economic logic is. I just don't see what the specific risks are for such a law to be required. If it's about safety, then perhaps we should be spending money on food safety. Do we want to leave it to consumers to determine if a product is safe based on a label?" said Sheldon, who also holds an OSU Extension appointment. "Perhaps some U.S. producers see it as a means of protecting themselves from foreign competition.

Do ya think???

But so many foreign producers, like those from Australia and New Zealand, are already doing a good job of marketing their products based on country of origin."

Sheldon said if anything, COOL might further drive up already high food prices because of the costs retailers must incur to make sure items are labeled. Those costs eventually will trickle down to the average shopper.

"The one thing I don't like about COOL is the across-the-board implementation. That means consumers will be paying higher prices for products whether or not they care which country their food is coming from," said Sheldon. "It has nothing to do with freshness, taste, or quality. The COOL label is simply a characteristic added to a food product that ultimately the consumer will have to pay for. I think it's something that will hurt some consumers in the long run."

And producers will pay for it too. All producers. No packers.

Whatever impact, if any, COOL will have on the market, Sheldon said the new law was designed ultimately to give consumers greater food choices based on their preferences.

"There is a segment of the population that obviously won't care about COOL, but there is also a segment of the population that wants it and is willing to pay for it," said Sheldon. "Whether they worry about food safety problems such as E. coli or mad cow disease, or worry about whether their raspberries come from California or Mexico, there will be some demand for products based on country of origin labeling."

But all consumers, producers, and everyone in between will be paying for the minority who already have access to information about their food if they really want it.

From the GAO'
Government cost estimates of a country-of-origin labeling program is questionable and not well supported, according to a report released by congressional auditors.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, we're not removing any access to our markets. All we're asking is that a label be placed it your product, we're doing the exact same with ours, and let the consumer decide! I acknowledge that the packers are making the EXCUSE that Canadian product is creating more overhead for them, but that's all it is, an EXCUSE. They're putting the screws to you so that you help out their cause and try to get COOL overturned. You're being used by the same g-damn people who have been playing you against us for years - so they can continue to take money out of our pockets and keep us all under their foot.

We've always placed a label on our product, exactly as we arranged under NAFTA. Now you guys are changing the rules that both countries agreed on.

As to whether its an excuse or not makes no difference. The FACT is that since COOL hit, Canadian prices are off by about 90 bucks on 8 weights. Thats 11.25 cents/lb whereas with the feed prices and Canadian dollar, we should be showing a PREMIUM of 30 cents per lb on pre-COOL prices. Thats a huge hit for us to take simply because of a protectionist act that does nothing to enhance food safety at all. I know I'll be calling my MP and expecting that the Canadian government demand all the billions back that the US has cost us by not following through on their word.

As for our packing capacity, I guess your retailers are involved in the same conspiracy as the packers, as they don't want to buy Canadian processed meat due to the overhead imposed on shelving and sorting.

Hmmmm, I seem to recall saying that exact same thing a few months ago and you dismissing it as BS. I suggest you take a real hard look at how much money it really does cost to segregate based not only on quality grade but on origin. Its further confused by differing brands having the same label, but differing origins as well. You just simply cannot comprehend so you should visit a supermarket some day and have a look around. Take EVERY shelf of meat and divide it in half for Canadian origin and US origin. Then try and figure out how much time it would take for a retailer to sort all that and how much it would cost for signage.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Why does this have to be so damn difficult? More countries than not already have COOL in place! You don't have to have a "Canada", "Mexico", "Zimbabwe" section in each store, just a flipping label! This isn't rocket science here. If consumers want US, retailers will make room for that. If they want Canadian, retailers will push out US.

Speaking of NAFTA, isn't there rules against subsidizing?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Why does this have to be so damn difficult? More countries than not already have COOL in place! You don't have to have a "Canada", "Mexico", "Zimbabwe" section in each store, just a flipping label! This isn't rocket science here. If consumers want US, retailers will make room for that. If they want Canadian, retailers will push out US.

Speaking of NAFTA, isn't there rules against subsidizing?

So you think that a retailer should fire meat from all countries into a single bin and let the consumer paw through it? C'mon, if the consumer is yelling for COOL, do you really think they'll be happy having to paw through the whole section looking for a certain origin of beef? No, they WILL want a separate section because our current society is too damned lazy to do it any other way.

As for subsidies, NAFTA doesn't really lay out what is allowed for subsidies as far as I recall. The WTO has guidelines for them, which are soundly ignored by virtually all countries.

Rod

 

[RobertMac]

Rod, all products in a retail store are segregated....what's the deal????????

The WTO has guidelines for them, which are soundly ignored by virtually all countries.

As they should be!!!!!!!! WTO is a tool for global corporations to break down national sovereignty to be able to exploit each country's natural resources and labor!!!

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, all products in a retail store are segregated....what's the deal????????

It costs money to sort. Of course all products in a store are segregated, but for each sort, it takes time and signage. That means money.

This isn't rocket science guys. For every "tub o' steaks" there must now be two or more "tub o' steaks" depending on how many countries products the retailer wishes to sell.

And whether you guys want to admit it or not, we are seeing retailers unwilling to add to their costs. This is reported by industry analysts as told to them by your retailers.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

If the retailers thought that consumers wanted Canadian steaks, you can bet they would make room for them.

 

[RobertMac]

Rod, all products in a retail store are segregated....what's the deal????????

It costs money to sort. Of course all products in a store are segregated, but for each sort, it takes time and signage. That means money.

This isn't rocket science guys. For every "tub o' steaks" there must now be two or more "tub o' steaks" depending on how many countries products the retailer wishes to sell.

And whether you guys want to admit it or not, we are seeing retailers unwilling to add to their costs. This is reported by industry analysts as told to them by your retailers.

Rod

Retailers pay a stock boy to keep product on the shelves and keep it segregated...no increased cost from COOL. Meat will come out of the processing/fabrication plant with a USDA label that will contain all COOL information.
Check to see if those industry analyst are being paid for by AMI.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Retailers pay a stock boy to keep product on the shelves and keep it segregated...no increased cost from COOL. Meat will come out of the processing/fabrication plant with a USDA label that will contain all COOL information.
Check to see if those industry analyst are being paid for by AMI.

There is still increased cost! Since I'm working parts, let me see if I can explain it to you like this:

1) 1000 parts come in.

I have two options:
1) Pile them in a big pile. How long do you think that takes?

2) Sort them by part number and put them away in particular slots. Since I just received a parts order of 1200 parts, I know it takes 3 days to put away those 1200 parts, and they were already segregated at the warehouse.

This isn't some big scam by retailers or the AMI. It takes time to sort. Meat is already sorted by quality and cut. With two countries supplying it, you've just doubled the number of bins required and you've doubled the time it takes to put that stuff away. If your warehouse boy is already busy, do you really think the retailer is going to hire another one just to carry another countries beef that is going to be identical to a product they already carry? NOT.

Randy's product and others like it are great. Hell, I'm growing product for his chains. But they are NICHE products. Should all of Canada turn into a niche product supplier just to satisfy the demands of a few R-Quackers who don't seem to be able to comprehend that their government signed an agreement with us decades ago that laid out exactly what is Canadian beef and what isn't?

Rod

 

[PORKER]

Other than organs from mixed origins of animals ,the so called COOL segeration is easy if the plant has the reading and labeling equipment correctly posititioned within the fabrication room. Even the boning line doesn't doesn't have any drawbacks.

It's all about product labeling flow. You don't double the bin space.

 

[RobertMac]

Rod, let me see if I can explain my position:

First there was Coke...the stock boy took the Coke out of the warehouse and stocked the shelf space.

Then there was Coke Classic and Coke Zero...the stock boy stocked the same shelf space with two products instead of one.

How much increased cost was that?

If COOL is causing Canadian cattle prices to go down because retailers aren't stocking their shelves with Canadian beef, then USA cattle prices should be going up because of the demand to replace the Canadian beef with USA beef...that's not the case.

 

[MoGal]

If COOL is causing Canadian cattle prices to go down because retailers aren't stocking their shelves with Canadian beef, then USA cattle prices should be going up because of the demand to replace the Canadian beef with USA beef...that's not the case.

That's absolutely right. Prices are down here as well. I realize Canadians can't look at the stores here in the USA but people are not buying meat like they have in the past. Start looking in the grocery carts at the stores and see what people are buying. 31.5 million people are on food stamps (it passed their projection this past summer of 28 mil by Oct.1st) and I imagine in about six months there will be 45 million on food stamps.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

First there was Coke...the stock boy took the Coke out of the warehouse and stocked the shelf space.

Then there was Coke Classic and Coke Zero...the stock boy stocked the same shelf space with two products instead of one.

How much increased cost was that?

I guarantee you that it took him longer to stock the two products than it did to stock one product. He had to go to the warehouse, get product from two different areas. He then had to check to ensure he had enough of each to fill up the shelf. Then he had to physically stock the shelves (which I will grant you, took the same amount of time because he didn't have extra shelf space). Then he had to take the excess back into the warehouse and place it in two different areas.

RM, you can argue all you want, but you're WRONG.

Are you saying that because it takes me longer to sort two different products than it does for me to store 2 of one product that I'm doing something wrong? Before you keep arguing, try it at home and see what I'm saying.

And then we won't even get into ordering times and shipping/sorting at the trucking levels. Plus ordering. Entry into computers. Bar coding. Etc etc etc.

Porker, I'm not real concerned about labelling times. I know how that system works. I'm also aware that packers now have sorting issues at their own warehouse level before processing.

Fact is, COOL added costs at the fish processing level. Its been well documented and I can't figure out how you guys think that beef would be any different. Its just plain common sense.

BTW, many decades ago I stocked shelves, unloaded trucks and packed groceries when I was a teenager. I know what store warehouses look like. Most times product is palletized, not for ease of sorting, but rather for efficiency of space. So that means a single product may be spread across several pallets.

Rod

 

[hypocritexposer]

Are you saying that because it takes me longer to sort two different products than it does for me to store 2 of one product that I'm doing something wrong? Before you keep arguing, try it at home and see what I'm saying.

That's why there are 'exclusive" dealers and "exclusive" suppliers. They pay extra (to sell only one product), or provide discounts to be the only seller.

Retail is a different game!

Depends if they are provided with union wages or not. Wonder what a parts person gets at GM, to separate parts, by supplier?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

That's why there are 'exclusive" dealers and "exclusive" suppliers. They pay extra (to sell only one product), or provide discounts to be the only seller.

The fact of the matter is that anytime a retailer can shave a product line, they will, especially if they have another identical product already on the shelves. Cat, AgCo and Massey all share a few common models of tractors. I'd be nuts, and my boss would rightfully swear at me, if he saw that I was carrying the same identical part from three different suppliers for the three tractors. Why? Because it takes time to sort, takes time to do inventory, takes time to order, takes time to do year end, etc etc etc. So I carry one part number for all three tractors from the supplier who supplies it to me at the cheapest price.

All COOL is doing is allowing the packers to play US and Canadian producers against one another to obtain the cheapest price on a virtually identical product.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Rod, "All COOL is doing is allowing the packers to play US and Canadian producers against one another to obtain the cheapest price on a virtually identical product."

That's the game they played BEFORE COOL, Rod! Plus, they were fixing to toss in Brazil, Argentina, etc... into the mix, too! Neither the US nor Canada can compete with S.A on price, and that is exactly where the packers were steering this business. Now, the consumer will decide where they source their beef, not just what's the most beneficial to them (and likely negetive to us).

Rod, "Fact is, COOL added costs at the fish processing level. Its been well documented and I can't figure out how you guys think that beef would be any different. Its just plain common sense. "

Big difference between beef/cattle and fish. All beef that hits our border is already labeled and has been. Any live animal is also labeled. With fish, they have to start from square 1, not so with beef, the hard part is already done. Now it's just a matter of that established label being passed downstream.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Big difference between beef/cattle and fish. All beef that hits our border is already labeled and has been. Any live animal is also labeled. With fish, they have to start from square 1, not so with beef, the hard part is already done. Now it's just a matter of that established label being passed downstream.

Fish and live beef are IDENTICAL. Who are you trying to fool?

Rod

 

[Kato]

You know what? It really doesn't matter in the long run how much extra COOL costs. It will be used by the packers as another excuse to drive down our prices AND yours. It is just another excuse they can put out for paying less for beef from wherever it comes.

Common sense says it is an extra cost, and you can bet they will milk it for all they can in order to maintain profits in tough times. At a time of low consumer spending, is that what we really need? Another nail in the coffin? As consumer pressure at the retail end starts to cut profits, they will be made up elsewhere. Guess where that is??? :? :? :? At our end of the chain, that's where.

You want to label? Go ahead. Just remember that according to agreements in place, those Canadian cattle become American beef when they are processed in American plants. It's as simple as that, and the honourable thing to do is to live up to your agreements.

Or does honour and maintaining a good reputation not matter? :???: :???:

 

[don]

seems like abitibibowater thinks nafta should be enforced.