Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Canada Group to Sue US Over M-COOL
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oldtimer" data-source="post: 430428" data-attributes="member: 97"><p>Five years later, COOL still open to debate </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Farm & Ranch Guide </p><p></p><p>Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:00 PM CDT </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Our Views </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>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.</strong> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Some of the recent debate is originating north of the border in Canada.</strong> 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). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>We feel the <u>Canadian trade complaints about COOL are unfounded.</u> <u>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.</u> It is presumptuous for these Canadian organizations to think they have that sort of authority within U.S. borders. </strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>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 - <u>it requires both imported and U.S. beef and pork to be labeled with their respective countries of origin</u>.</strong> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>COOL, apparently, does matter to consumers and producers alike. A recent poll of 4,508 individuals revealed that <strong>90 percent of those surveyed believe that knowing the country of origin of their food will allow them to make safer food choices. </strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The current law also required an imported meat label for product imported into the U.S. for immediate harvest. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. <strong>We encourage everyone to stay engaged and involved in order to see this process through to the day COOL is finally implemented.</strong> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>farmandranchguide.com</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldtimer, post: 430428, member: 97"] Five years later, COOL still open to debate Farm & Ranch Guide Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:00 PM CDT Our Views [b] 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.[/b] [b]Some of the recent debate is originating north of the border in Canada.[/b] 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). [b]We feel the [u]Canadian trade complaints about COOL are unfounded.[/u] [u]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.[/u] It is presumptuous for these Canadian organizations to think they have that sort of authority within U.S. borders. [/b] [b]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 - [u]it requires both imported and U.S. beef and pork to be labeled with their respective countries of origin[/u].[/b] COOL, apparently, does matter to consumers and producers alike. A recent poll of 4,508 individuals revealed that [b]90 percent of those surveyed believe that knowing the country of origin of their food will allow them to make safer food choices. [/b] 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. [b]We encourage everyone to stay engaged and involved in order to see this process through to the day COOL is finally implemented.[/b] farmandranchguide.com [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
Canada Group to Sue US Over M-COOL
Top