Time to Implement COOL

[HAY MAKER]

Date: February 21, 2007



Subject: Time to Implement COOL: Letters to Congress Needed.



R-CALF USA members were in Washington, D.C., last week urging Congress to implement country-of-origin labeling for beef by September 2007. You will recall that COOL opponents successfully delayed implementation of COOL for beef until September 2008, so we need Congress to pass a new law to move the date to 2007.



COOL opponents are lobbying hard to convince Congress that the COOL law is unworkable and should be changed. However, the COOL law has been successfully implemented for fish and shellfish since April 2005, and it’s been working ever since! It’s now time to implement COOL for beef.



Please consider writing a personal letter to your Senators and Representatives explaining to them why you want COOL implemented by September 2007. In your letter, you can explain that USDA found solutions to all the perceived problems when they wrote the rules for fish and shellfish, and these same solutions can now be used as a model to implement COOL for beef.



A new rule for implementing COOL for beef should:



â€" Allow packers to indicate beef has come from imported animals without having to specify each further production step that may have occurred in the U.S.;

â€" Allow packers to label blended products with a list of the countries of origin that may be contained in the product, rather than a definitive list of each country;

â€" Allow retailers to rely on pre-labeled products for origin claims;

â€" Allow meat packers to rely on country markings that already are applied to cattle imports in order to determine origin;

â€" Eliminate unnecessary and duplicative record-keeping requirements regarding chain of custody and separate tracking during the production process to allow packers and retailers to rely on documents they already keep in the ordinary course of business;

â€" Reduce the record retention requirement from two years to one year; and

â€" Specify that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims.



COOL for fish and shellfish is already working under a common-sense approach. The same can be done for beef, and it can be done under current law without further delay. The changes outlined above would help address any legitimate concerns about the costs of the labeling program, while preserving the full benefits of mandatory COOL for U.S. cattle producers and for their consumers.



Your letters will help build the momentum to implement COOL that was started during R-CALF USA’s Washington, D.C. fly-in last week. If we start early, we’ll win early!



You can write your Senators using the following address:



The Honorable (Full Name)

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510



You can write your Representative using the following address:



The Honorable (Full Name)

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515



It would also be helpful to send a copy of your letter to the USDA. Here is the USDA address that you should send your COOL letter to:



Country of Origin Labeling Program, Room 2607-S

Agricultural Marketing Service

1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0254

Washington, DC 20250-0254



Thanks for your help and good luck with your letters!

 

[skcatlman]

Do you need a bigger can opener, so what the r-calf group wants for COOL is that - you can say it comes from anywhere as long as the producer can deliver their own documents to prove COO. and don't have to keep ecords after 2 yrs. as for the may contain rule you don't have to prove what percentage is from where just it has some from where ever maybe. So it this what the US consumer can expect to find - This beef maybe has some percentage of beef from somewhere else and may have been packaged there, but may contain US beef. Oh yeah that will inspire confidence in your products. i'm laughing so hard it iss hard to type. LOL LOL LOL LOL

 

[Oldtimer]

Advocates say time ripe for country-of-origin food labeling



By Susan Salisbury

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

February 28, 2007



Is that ground beef in the supermarket from the United States, Mexico, Argentina or someplace else entirely?



Consumers who want the answer to that still can't find it on the label, despite a law that was set to go into effect Sept. 30, 2004.



Congress has repeatedly pushed back the implementation deadline for a national law that would require food to carry a label declaring its country of origin.



"It's high time for it to happen," said Emily Eisenberg, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based National Farmers Union. "We think now we have a chance to get this moving."



Only seafood is now required to carry a country-of-origin label.



In late January, legislation to move the deadline to September 2007 from September 2008 was introduced in Congress. The National Farmers Union has organized a coalition of close to 200 organizations that support the legislation and date change.



Today, the farmers' union and the Consumer Federation of America, along with congressmen and senators from Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota, will discuss the legislation at a news conference in Washington.



J. Luis Rodriguez, trade adviser for Lake Worth-based Florida Farmers Inc., the only Florida group in the coalition, said Tuesday that recent food contamination outbreaks such as the E. coli spinach contamination scare in California have helped draw more attention to the labeling law. The law also helps make the sources of the food supply easier to trace.



Florida has had a produce-only labeling law since 1979, and the state's growers have pushed for national legislation since then.



Food manufacturing and retail groups such as the Food Marketing Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers Association-Food Products Association and the American Frozen Food Institute have spoken out against the law, calling it costly, burdensome and unnecessary.



Rodriguez said the law's chances have improved since the November elections, which changed control of Congress.



"Every consumer poll shows that over 80 percent of people want to know where their food came from," Rodriguez said. "It is ironic that the origin of everything else, such as clothing, is identified."

The Maitland-based Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association has changed its stance in the past 18 months from supporting a mandatory law for produce to one that is less stringent and starts out as voluntary. Retailers who don't comply initially would be forced to later, said Mike Stuart, association president.



"We have worked with a dozen organizations representing a good chunk of the produce industry, along with the Food Marketing Institute, to develop an alternate strategy for COOL," Stuart said, using the acronym by which the law is known.



Seafood labeling in supermarkets, in effect nationally since April 2005, has benefited Florida fishermen and importers, too, said Bob Jones, executive director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association in Tallahassee.



"There is greater interest in local seafood, no question about it," Jones said.



Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services spokesman Terry McElroy said Commissioner Charles Bronson is in favor of moving up the law's implementation date.



So is the Consumer Federation of America. "The sooner we can get it done, the better," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Washington-based federation's Food Policy Institute.



"The benefit to consumers is that it gives them more information about the food they are buying when they are in the supermarket. If they want to purchase food from a particular country, they can. If they want to avoid food from a particular country they can," Waldrop said. "Right now, there is no way to do that."

palmbeachpost.com

 

[skcatlman]

You guys just look at the automobile industry. When the imports came in domedtic US producers attacked saying imports were not as good as US. Now look where that market is. Consumers want what they want and where it comes from has less to do purchasing decisions than price. There will be those who only buy US products but they are the vast minority.

 

[Oldtimer]

You guys just look at the automobile industry. When the imports came in domedtic US producers attacked saying imports were not as good as US. Now look where that market is. Consumers want what they want and where it comes from has less to do purchasing decisions than price. There will be those who only buy US products but they are the vast minority.

But they have the choice....Toyota or Ford...

All the cars are not all lumped in one lot under a generic name- like the Soviet Union used to do...You can choose....

Today with our beef and our meat we don't have that choice- and that is wrong......

 

[skcatlman]

I think you missed the point. If you say US beef is safer or better you will have to prove it and that can't be done. And COOL wants just to say it may contain some beef from heck knows where other than the US. You want to differentiate US beef in the market place and think that will cause the market to increase consumtion of US beef. In reality studies show it won't change consumers choices significantly.
I find it funny that you quote a palm beach paper a paper from a city where over 30 % of the population is not originally from the US. I am sure the whole city will only buy US beef.LMAO
I like your persistance even though it is completely misguided.

 

[Oldtimer]

sak-kartoon-- You forgot to post a nasty answer to the post about NFU and 20 other groups supporting M-COOL...

You better straighten those folks out too...Only a million plus members of National Farmers Union-- you can tell them all how wrong they are too-- plus the thousands of the other groups ;-) :lol: Since we know you Canucks are always right and know better how we should run our country :roll: :lol: :lol:

 

[skcatlman]

Ot if so many people wanted COOL why has it not been implemented yet. Logic says there are not really that many people who want it implemented and that is why it hasn't happened. Why when you had the chance to elect people supporting your position didn't you. The change could have been made but it just doesn't have the support that is required to implement it. If it goes thru good for you but i don't think it will help the US cattle man and as far as comparing it to the labeling of wild and farmed seafood it is a differnet issue. I truely believe that with the lawsuits over foodborne illness in garden produce you guys are opening your selves to lawsuits with e.coli in US beef. Someone will now be liable it is US cattlemen that is who will have to pay for it. I never said i know everything but at least i keep an open mind and look down the road for potential problems. You guys never mention possible problems either you are not thinking ahead or you are ignoring them and that will eventually get you into trouble.
And here it goes the insults and insunations start again.