Canada Group to Sue US Over M-COOL

[Oldtimer]

More on the Zogby Poll

Released: August 09, 2007
Zogby Poll: 85% Want to Know Where Their Food Comes From

Survey shows 90% believe knowing the country of origin of the foods they buy will allow consumers to make safer food choices


As food recalls – from both imported foods from overseas and foods produced here in the U.S. – continue to make headlines, Americans may be paying more attention to where their food comes from. Nearly three in four (74%) say it's important to them to know the country of origin for the all types of products they buy, but even more – 85% – say knowing where their food comes from is important. But for the vast majority of Americans it's about more than just wanting to know – 94% believe consumers have a right to know the country of origin of the foods they purchase, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

Just knowing what country a food comes from is no guarantee it will be safer than a food produced in the U.S., but nine in ten (90%) believe knowing the country of origin will allow consumers to make safer food choices. One of the components in this year's Farm Bill deals with expanding country of origin labeling beyond seafood to include meat, produce, and other foods and is currently under consideration by Congress. Most Americans strongly favor mandatory labeling – 88% say they would like all retail foods to be labeled this way. This requirement is most supported by older adults, but significant majorities in all age groups said they would support this country of origin labeling effort.

But wanting to know and going out of their way to check where a product comes from are two different things. Checking the country of origin seems to be on the minds of consumers at least some of the time – 37% said they check most of the time and 34% said they check occasionally. While 11% said they always make sure to check to see where a product comes from, 15% rarely do and 4% never check.

Despite overwhelming support for labeling, 5% disagree with mandatory country of origin labeling for foods. Of those, nearly two-thirds (63%) said compliance would be too costly and it would drive up food prices. Another 27% said it doesn't matter what country food comes from that is sold in the U.S., and 2% believe such labeling could be unfair to foreign competitors.

Many food shoppers (70%) said they are willing to pay more for produce, poultry, meat, seafood and other food products if they were from the U.S. But how much are shoppers willing to pay to know their food doesn't come from a foreign country? One in three (34%) would pay up to 10% more for U.S. food and nearly half (46%) would be willing to pay from 10% to 25% more. Just 11% would be willing to pay 25% or more for U.S. foods over cheaper imported foods.

Not everyone is so willing to pay more for food just because it doesn't come from outside the U.S. – 15% wouldn't be willing to pay more for food from America. Of those, 38% said they wouldn't be willing to pay more because cost is the most important factor in making their food choices, while another 27% said it doesn't matter what country the food they buy comes from.

These findings are included in the August issue of Zogby's American Consumer newsletter, which focuses on how Americans feel about imported goods, product safety, food labeling and many other issues and is available now at http://www.zogby.com. The Zogby Interactive survey of 4,508 adults nationwide was conducted July 17-19, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points. Other findings from the online survey include:

90% of Americans want the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to hire additional inspectors to increase inspection of food imports

96% said they take recall warnings seriously.

Most Americans (67%) are satisfied with how the U.S. government gets the message out to the public about recalled products, but 30% believe the government's efforts are lacking.

Overall, nearly half (48%) said they don't know where the majority of the vegetables, fruits and nuts they consume originate.

While nearly two-thirds (65%) of American adults said they go out of their way to buy local produce and other food products, 32% said it isn't a priority.

For a detailed methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1204

(8/9/2007)

 

[mwj]

OT if all the people in these poll's are to be beliveed, how are the packers selling all of there comodity beef :shock: Every ''branded'' beef program in the country should have more demand than they could take care of,would you have a guess as to why this is NOT the case :roll:

 

[Oldtimer]

OT if all the people in these poll's are to be beliveed, how are the packers selling all of there comodity beef :shock: Every ''branded'' beef program in the country should have more demand than they could take care of,would you have a guess as to why this is NOT the case :roll:

One of the reasons is because of all the confusion of the USDA inspected stamp-- many folks still believe that the USDA inspected stamp means that they are getting US beef-- so why should they buy branded if they already think they are getting what they want....

Also like in our area, you never see any Branded beef--all the local plants that tried it couldn't compete against the generic- because folks already thought they were getting USA beef because of the USDA inspected stamp...
I think M-COOL will help the branded programs too....

Lets tell them the whole truth, like they want, and see how it all shakes out...

 

[Horse Guy]

This was especially funny to me "Canuck conspiracy theorists " considering who its coming from.
OT Isnt it true that you post on the other forum about the "New World Order" conspiracy. You know the shadow government that is going to create a North American Union. How Canada and Mexico is going to take over the United States?

 

[Oldtimer]

This was especially funny to me "Canuck conspiracy theorists " considering who its coming from.
OT Isnt it true that you post on the other forum about the "New World Order" conspiracy. You know the shadow government that is going to create a North American Union. How Canada and Mexico is going to take over the United States?

No shadow government-- a Corporate run government...And if you look at how the lobbyists with the most big corporate money already control most of what is done in Congress or the parliaments of all 3 countries, you'll see they've pretty well succeeded....

And what "Canuck conspiracy theorists" are you talking about?...

 

[diamondn]

I for one would not mind the COOL program if it implemented correctly.

The timing is to quick to be implemented correctly in my opinion.

Are the feedlots, packing house, breeders etc all set to keep records of sales, births, for each animal whether it is in the US and Canada?

Ask yourself - Do you keep record of where you buy each and every animal (and also when you bought them did you ever ask what country it was born in)? (Some of you may do this but I believe there are many that do not.)

How and where are these records going to be stored?

Who will the be ones to verify if the information the seller is stating is the truth?

Just think about this can be abused until there is something is in place to show the animal from birth to death. Everyone keeps says we need to know but I have yet to hear of a fool proof method or system being used to track this.

How accurate will COOL be if this is not done correctly?

Well that is my two cents.

 

[Oldtimer]

I for one would not mind the COOL program if it implemented correctly.

The timing is to quick to be implemented correctly in my opinion.

Are the feedlots, packing house, breeders etc all set to keep records of sales, births, for each animal whether it is in the US and Canada?

All cattle already in the US prior to Jan 1, 2008, that can't be IDed will be considered US....Every animal coming in to the US now (and for the past 4 years) is already IDed-- tags and hot iron branded--C^N for Canada, MX for Mexico....Should be easy to tell apart...

Ask yourself - Do you keep record of where you buy each and every animal (and also when you bought them did you ever ask what country it was born in)? (Some of you may do this but I believe there are many that do not.)

Yep- done it for 50+ years...And in brand states like ours most have their ownership map right on their hide- besides state certification of every movement and ownership change...

How and where are these records going to be stored?


Who will the be ones to verify if the information the seller is stating is the truth?

Each person in the link will have to keep records- and transfer affidavits of those records along thru the system...It has been done by some Packers for years--and is currently being done for many countries under the BEV program and thru the US School Lunch Program...

The laws are verified and enforceable by the USDA and State Health Services....Much of it- especially with suspected violators can be done with periodic audits...With the high number of people wanting this legislation, I think the public will be one of the major watchdog groups to assure compliance....

Just think about this can be abused until there is something is in place to show the animal from birth to death. Everyone keeps says we need to know but I have yet to hear of a fool proof method or system being used to track this.

What in this world is foolproof? I spent 30 years in law enforcement- and I've never found anything made by man that couldn't be counterfeited or that a way found to get around it--if the effort and the risk are worth it....

Like any other law it will have to be enforced- and violators prosecuted- and if violations become a problem, then Congress may have to stiffen the penalties and the enforcement...

How accurate will COOL be if this is not done correctly?

Well that is my two cents.

 

[Oldtimer]

Five years later, COOL still open to debate



Farm & Ranch Guide

Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:00 PM CDT



Our Views



In 2002 the U.S. Congress passed country of origin labeling (COOL) as part of the Farm Bill. Now, here it is five years later, and COOL has still not been implemented - although it is getting much closer. However, it is still receiving much debate.



Some of the recent debate is originating north of the border in Canada. A coalition of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council, which calls itself CLiP COOL (Canadian Livestock Producers Against COOL), is claiming that COOL requirements violate both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).



We feel the Canadian trade complaints about COOL are unfounded. The idea of foreign groups telling the U.S. government what it can and cannot do, or what kind of information U.S. consumers should be given, is galling. It is presumptuous for these Canadian organizations to think they have that sort of authority within U.S. borders.



Trade between countries, as addressed in the WTO and NAFTA, requires that we treat imported product no less favorably than domestic product. We feel COOL does just that - it requires both imported and U.S. beef and pork to be labeled with their respective countries of origin.



COOL, apparently, does matter to consumers and producers alike. A recent poll of 4,508 individuals revealed that 90 percent of those surveyed believe that knowing the country of origin of their food will allow them to make safer food choices.


Recent problems with imported products from China and other countries, coupled with Canada's ongoing problem with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, perhaps illustrate more keenly the growing support for COOL and an urgency for applying the program to the U.S. food supply.



Opponents of COOL have sometimes tried to argue that COOL is not a food safety issue, but in light of the recent problems with products from China, that argument has less validity. Public support for stricter food labeling laws is growing. The labeling of beef, lamb and pork, as proposed in these regulations, is a step in meeting those consumer demands.



USDA's success in labeling imported fish and shellfish can serve as a template for labeling other food products, but the agency must take into consideration the differences between the processing, transportation and processing of fish and those of meat products.



The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 was amended by Congress in 2002 to include a provision for country of origin labeling to the Farm Bill. COOL was never implemented, however, for a variety of reasons.



In July of this year, the U.S. House again amended the Act by adding language regarding different allowable categories for labeling beef products. The amendment maintains the language of the 2002 Farm Bill with respect to U.S. products, and also establishes a multiple country of origin meat label for product derived from animals not of U.S. origin.



The current law also required an imported meat label for product imported into the U.S. for immediate harvest.



However, labeling requirements must effectively meet the goals and objectives of the program, and should be as simple as possible to minimize additional costs to processors, producers and consumers alike. It must also inspire consumer trust and confidence by ensuring the label is an accurate representation of what the consumer is receiving.



The House version of the Farm Bill is out there, and now it is the Senate's turn to provide its version of the Farm Bill - and COOL is expected to be part of the discussion. And it's likely another comment period could follow.



We feel it's very important for producers to take advantage of these opportunities to communicate with USDA about how to implement the law in a manner that preserves the intent of Congress in a least-cost method. We encourage everyone to stay engaged and involved in order to see this process through to the day COOL is finally implemented.



farmandranchguide.com

 

[hillsdown]

COOL is the next best thing to building a wall

By J. Patrick Boyle


You've got to hand it to our nation's protectionist groups for the rhetorical shape shifting they use to dissuade consumers from buying foreign products. They offer a daily dose of anti-import claims to match the day's headlines One day, they argue that foreign products are unsafe, while the next day, they say that buying foreign products destroys tropical rainforests.

But now, instead of arguing theory, they are championing a real - but misguided law - saying it's the key to a safer food supply. I'm talking about the 2002 Farm Bill's version of mandatory country-of-origin labeling - a law that begs for repeal or repair. In reading a recent guest opinion piece by R-CALF that ran in this newspaper, it's clear they don't let the facts get in the way of their arguments in support of this costly government mandate.

They claim that a long label detailing where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered somehow makes meat safer. Not surprisingly, an impressive group of prominent experts disagrees. From a former secretary of agriculture to numerous congressmen to one of the Senate authors of the 2002 Farm Bill's COOL language, all say that these labels offer no food-safety benefits.

The fear the protectionists peddle in their arguments is a disservice to everyone. And claims that every country in the Western Hemisphere, except the U.S., has COOL, ignores the fact that the U.S., Canada, and Mexico all had mandatory country-of-origin labeling on the books well before the 2002 Farm Bill was passed. None of them, however, has had the "born, raised and slaughtered" version of COOL included in that farm bill. Unfortunately for the meat-consuming, producing, and processing public, this costly and absurd labeling law takes effect in 2008 - and so will associated cost increases.

All of the arguments we have seen are an attempt to hide the real reason this law was included in the last farm bill: to block imports. The reality is that this form of COOL is an unfair, illegal non-tariff trade barrier. In fact, it's the Cadillac of trade barriers for those in the U.S. who are afraid of foreign competition. They hope the tracking, segregating, and labeling of different meat products will cause domestic packers to reject livestock or meat with a foreign heritage. But will our trading partners simply sit back and continue to import our goods while we build walls to keep their products out? Not likely.

The protectionists' short-sighted approach to limiting competition is sure to invite well-justified trade complaints under the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Indeed, COOL included in the 2002 Farm Bill is likely to put us at odds with key allies and trading partners who happen to buy a lot of agricultural commodities from us.


But set aside COOL-fueled trade wars for a moment. The farm bill version of COOL will hurt at home, too, because it will foist unwanted and unnecessary food price hikes onto consumers who have never indicated they care to know, or are willing to pay for, information about the travel history of the meat they eat. In fact, a poll from the International Food Information Council shows that, when asked what they care about when looking at a food label, less than two percent of consumers responded that they cared about a product's country of origin. That means consumers will pay for information that most of them find irrelevant. A lot more.

The retail grocery industry calculated that COOL for seafood - already in effect -- has cost 10 times more to implement than USDA estimated. So while livestock producers and meat processors reel from higher input costs associated with rising corn prices, they'll have to weather a second economic hit triggered by a law that makes meat, but not poultry, more expensive. It takes little imagination to see consumers shifting away from red meat purchases and toward other proteins because of COOL-inspired price increases.

Those who want to torpedo trade will always come up with the new reason du jour as to why we shouldn't buy foreign products. What they either fail to realize, or willingly ignore, is that most of the world's consumers - about 90 percent of them - live outside the United States. The key to the future success of American agriculture is to sell more products to that 90 percent. Making our products unnecessarily more expensive, while simultaneously antagonizing our trading partners and customers, is a recipe for reduced - not expanded exports. And it's a recipe for higher prices and reduced meat consumption.

The shape shifters can change their arguments with the day's news, but the damage to our nation's meat and livestock industries and to consumers' pocketbooks will be permanent.

 

[Oldtimer]

COOL is the next best thing to building a wall

By J. Patrick Boyle

The author is the President & CEO of the American Meat Institute--that represents the major multinational meatpackers, that want to continue the ability to profit from the FRAUD and DECEPTION to US consumers by importing cheap foreign meat and passing it off to US consumers as US meat....What else do you expect him to say? :lol: :lol:

 

[Oldtimer]

The CFIA has begun studying a Chinese request to re-examine the blanket ban, but any changes would likely be limited to cooked and canned poultry clearly marked as a product of China, the director of the agency's meat program said.

I thought this quite interesting-- the Canadian government thinks its important enough that Canadian consumers should be told the origin of this chicken--but Canadians don't think US consumers should be allowed to know the origin of their beef/pork.... :shock: Could we be talking HYPOCRISY--eh :???: ;-) :lol: :lol: :lol:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/4/2007 1:08:00 PM


CFIA Rethinking Chinese Poultry Ban



According to a report in the Ottawa Citizen, The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is looking at changes to a current ban on Chinese poultry.



Fresh poultry from China is banned because of concerns about avian flu and Newcastle disease - the first because it can affect humans, and the latter because it could affect Canada's chickens.



The CFIA has begun studying a Chinese request to re-examine the blanket ban, but any changes would likely be limited to cooked and canned poultry clearly marked as a product of China, the director of the agency's meat program said.



The agency has completed a review of documents, and is inspecting Chinese slaughterhouses, processing plants and laboratories used to monitor antibiotic, pesticide and metal residues in the meat.



The initial inspections would be followed up by periodic audits of production facilities.



The news comes as consumers grow increasingly wary of products from China, and as Chinese officials are looking to open a market for cooked chicken products in the U.S., which has sparked outcry from groups ranging from elected officials to the United Poultry Growers Association.



Details at canada.com/ottawacitizen



Source: Canadian Meat Business

 

[vs_cattle]

You have a small point there BUT thats CHINA come on we should start posting stuff FROM CHINA as well with all the problems with their imports of goods into the United States I think North America should work together to get things done

 

[Oldtimer]

You have a small point there BUT thats CHINA come on we should start posting stuff FROM CHINA as well with all the problems with their imports of goods into the United States I think North America should work together to get things done

Mexico ranks just behind China for the number of FDA/USDA inspection rejections found- and has been cited by the GAO and other investigations as major violators of Packing/slaughter and enviro/chemical/feed/drug regulations ...Shouldn't consumers have the right to choose to, or NOT to, buy meat products from Mexico?

Some don't buy the USDA/CFIA's story that Canada and the US beef is the same risk factor-- as even our own CDC has come out and said that the BSE risk from Canadian beef is 26 times that of the US.... Shouldn't the consumers have the right to choose to, or NOT to, buy beef products from Canada?

Under GATT/WTO rules we have the right to require that products be labeled--but we can't pick and choose countries and give favoritism to individual countries....

Label it and let the consumer make the choice....

 

[vs_cattle]

we can let consumers choose but we still have to work as a whole in North America I CANT Understand why us and CANADA would'nt be at the same risk we have Canadian Cattle comming into the USA, We are so close together, I heard that feed for Canadian cattle most of it was comming from American Locations prior to the disease breakout so if thats true I no we fed the same feed. We the UNITED STATES ARE LOOSING EVERYWAY YOU LOOK AT THE SITUATION WITH THE BOARDER CLOSED! Other countries dont want to import our BEEF. How can we tell them our BEEF is safe at this risk level mind Canada is the same or close to it and We wont take CANADIAN BEEF I would be a little sceptical there too the BEEF is safe for export but we will not Import it from same or similar risk countries even if they are in our back yard

Sorry for the spelling

 

[Oldtimer]

We the UNITED STATES ARE LOOSING EVERYWAY YOU LOOK AT THE SITUATION WITH THE BOARDER CLOSED! Other countries dont want to import our BEEF. How can we tell them our BEEF is safe at this risk level mind Canada is the same or close to it and We wont take CANADIAN BEEF I would be a little sceptical there too the BEEF is safe for export but we will not Import it from same or similar risk countries even if they are in our back yard

Sorry for the spelling

But at the same time-- some of these countries we export to are still demanding that we segregate the Canadian beef out- and guarantee they are not getting Canadian beef.....

And all the US beef being sold in these foreign markets is labeled "Product of USA" so that their consumers can make an informed choice...

Are not our loyal US consumers that have stood behind and built the US beef/cattle industry valuable or worthy enough to receive the same options???

 

[vs_cattle]

No I hope thats not what your getting from my writings I know it can be a little crazy reading my post


Im PROTOPIC RELATED)
- Boarders Opening
- COOL (Just to make R-Calf / Cool PPL HAPPY I have Nathing against COOL)
- Being Fair to the WORLD (If we can't fallow the guidlines why should the WORLD)
- Making American more profitable any way shape or form (Not Closing the boarder)

 

[Oldtimer]

No I hope thats not what your getting from my writings I know it can be a little crazy reading my post


Im PROTOPIC RELATED)
- Boarders Opening
- COOL (Just to make R-Calf / Cool PPL HAPPY I have Nathing against COOL)
- Being Fair to the WORLD (If we can't fallow the guidlines why should the WORLD)
- Making American more profitable any way shape or form (Not Closing the boarder)

What you call the R-Calf / Cool PPL-- is from the latest polls 92% of US consumers and cattle producers....

If M-COOL is implemented so folks have an informed choice, I would not fight to keep the Canadian border closed--altho I think we are raising an unnecessary risk to our US cattle herd...One of the reasons many of the other countries of the world don't follow the WTO's OIE guidelines and have stricter ones for themselves....These are not rules-just guidelines that a country may or may not choose to follow-- and many agree the way R-CALF does- that we should err on the side of protecting US consumers and US herd health.....

 

[hillsdown]

What you call the R-Calf / Cool PPL-- is from the latest polls 92% of US consumers and cattle producers....

I have had the oportunity this week to get together in person with many ranchers from Montana to Texas 17 different ones in fact.Sadly a death in the family got us together.We actually discussed MCOOL and who was involved in the poll.Strangely not a single one was used in the poll as a producer or consumer.So my question is OT just who are the people being polled?

 

[vs_cattle]

What you call the R-Calf / Cool PPL-- is from the latest polls 92% of US consumers and cattle producers....

NO R-Calf and MCOOL People want these demands you dont see everday AMERICAN getting on the news filing law suits stating they want and NEED MCOOL

BUT

R-Calf is LESS THEN .000000000000000000000001% of the USA

R-Calf - Ranchers who use scare tactics to persuade others closing the boarders is the only way to go!

WRONG WE ARE IN WORST SHAPE NOW WITH THEM CLOSED THEN EVER PRIOR TO THE WHOLE MESS! We need to fallow USDA with Science not opinions or belifes

MCOOL - A mix of Americans not just Rcalf, but also consumers who want to know where their food comes from.

I dont know about the 92% of Americans statistic I highly doubt that maybe the poll was done on R-Calf Operations and producers who are already for MCOOL I think the % is some where along the lines of 6/10 at best which is 60% of Americans want MCOOL Most states already have forms of MCOOL so to speak for marketing such as CALIFORNIA we have have:
Buy California Cheese its where happy cows come from!
Buy California Grown!
OTHERS & OTHERS
These are labled products of California but guess who picks up the bill Producers not Consumers!

 

[vs_cattle]

If M-COOL is implemented so folks have an informed choice, I would not fight to keep the Canadian border closed--altho I think we are raising an unnecessary risk to our US cattle herd...One of the reasons many of the other countries of the world don't follow the WTO's OIE guidelines and have stricter ones for themselves....These are not rules-just guidelines that a country may or may not choose to follow-- and many agree the way R-CALF does- that we should err on the side of protecting US consumers and US herd health.....

Yes, they are guidlines are not mandatory but if we want countries to fallow them and allow us to export to them why would'nt we fallow them as well. I dont think the only reason you want MCOOL is for US herd health its you think it will make you more money as you think or thought keeping the boarder closed would make you more money BUT again its just bringing problems and LOSS OF MORE MONEY TO AMERICAN COMPANIES