Solution to America's M-COOL Problem

[Joe-2]

Some Americans(like R-calf)are demanding M-COOL. The rest of them all realize that it will be all cost and no benefit.
Here is an inexpensive and easy solution to the problem.
Just explain to consumers that the beef with the yellow fat is American,and the beef with the white fat is Canadian and let them decide which one to buy. End of problem!!!

Think they'd go for it???

[whiteface]

Joe, I'd like to see you over on Ranchers with that same solution, be awesome to see you at it with some of those guys...
Just not today, it's fightless friday. Hope yer there tommorrow with that statement!

[Willowcreek]

The interesting thing is tho that if the US had a COOL law ***tioning it would take away many of the arguments that R-CALF, NCBA, consumers groups, and Congressmen are making about keeping the border closed. Much of the food safety issue about Canadian meat would be a moot point. The consumers would have a choice and the decision would be left to them to decide the safety of Canadian product.

Personally I believe that if there was a COOL law much of the opposition to the border opening would have disappeared and the border would be open.

[intr3est]

Good point Willowcreek! And after they implement COOL and we implement testing of all cattle, who's meat will they then choose?

[farmers_son]

Interesting comments re: M-Cool giving consumers a choice. International trade in beef is not driven by consumer demand rather it is and it needs to based on science, recognizing that the science is interpreted by politicians.

Look at Japan. I notice that Japan resuming trade with the U.S. does not revolve around a mandatory law identifying U.S. beef in Japanese meat coolers so the consumer can choose.

The consumer needs to be assured that all beef is safe. Consumer confidence in beef will be eroded by segregating product according to country of origin thereby forcing nation against nation as inevitably each country makes inferences that the other countries’ product is somehow not as safe or nutritious or tasty as their domestic country's product.

Whether we are talking U.S. beef, Canadian beef, Australian beef or elsewhere, before it gets to the retail cooler it all passes through the hands of a few multinationals such as Cargill or Tyson. Just think about how these pirate companies could pit each nation’s producers against another nation’s producers in order to drive down the price of live cattle.

Let’s face it, when it comes to making a living raising cattle those packers are the problem, not producers in Canada or Australia. There is more to be gained by North American producers and Australian/New Zealand producers finding ways to work together to break the monopoly of the big packers than producers will ever realize from country of origin legislation. COOL just plays into the hands of the multinationals. My opinion.

[Willowcreek]

Interestingly tho, it is my understanding that Japan, like many of the European nations, has COOL. I know that after the May 2003 cow and before the Washington cow, when Japan was requiring the US to segregate off US beef, all beef going to Japan was being marked and sold as a Product of USA.

[jensend]

any of the real r-calfers wouldn't back off if there was suddenly a feasible, enforcible cool law. they are protectionists, straight and simple and regard government intervention to restrict foreign competition as their reason to exist. right now they have the totally insupportable health issues and cool as a fallback but they will always find a reason to want to restrict competition. if the border opens we will see a raft of trade actions trying to paint the canadian cattle industry as unfairly subsidized. what's happening now is the future. these guys are loading up with money and will be a pain in the butt for years to come.

[farmers_son]

It was my understanding that the U.S. and Australia successfully won a WTO ruling against South Korea for its dual beef labelling law (MCOOL) in 2000-01.

See: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm
click on beef, Korea.

Korea had passed a MCOOL law that would have seen U.S. beef labelled as such. The U.S. successfully challenged that law. I am not aware of what the situation is in Japan but I imagine the U.S. would not tolerate MCOOL used to discriminate against its products in Japan any more than it would have in Korea.

[grassfarmer]

Well said farmers_son (your 2nd last post) packer control is the biggest problem facing us all. We can waste a lot of time debating whether r-calf will keep the border closed, or if a a few ncba members touring Canada will open it. In reality the border being open or closed to live cattle per se is not the problem. We only seek it to get out of a short term bind caused by the current packer monopoly.
Since day 1 (May 03) this whole deal has been about packer profiteering in a captive market - beef prices did not crash for consumers they went up, the financial blows ranchers and feeders have taken was because money was removed from the production chain unfairly. I wish people would see that and act - politicians will not admit it, ABP/CCA will not admit it. So we muddle along wasting taxpayer money bailing out a production chain that needs regulation not subsidisation.

[Cedar]

Well said, Grassfarmer, but, do you have any idea what type of regulations would do any good to try and alleviate this problem?

[grassfarmer]

Cedar, An obvious starting point is limiting the percentage of packer owned cattle they can slaughter. This does not take money it takes political will.
ABP passed a resolution seeking a 10% cap on packer ownership - we'll see if this gets taken seriously by the Government.
Another is to take a long term view of the industry by backing initiatives like that of Cam Ostercamp - to allow primary producers to "buy back" control of their slaughter capacity. Far better than the short-term bailouts we have been getting.
I read the Cattlemen magazine today and was amazed at their coverage of the ABP AGM last month. First they make the mistake of thinking "ABP" speaks for Alberta beef producers - it doesn't.
Delegates voted down a proposal to limit packer ownership of cattle to 14 days and the article states that
"feeders generally are in favour of this move whereas ranchers are against it as it limits the numbers of calf buyers at the auction." Well no one asked this rancher - we do not need packers buying calves - they are only going to get them custom fed anyway so ranchers would be far better off if the feedlot operatives turned up and bought the calves before selling fats to the packers. We must break this monopoly situation or we are all in dire trouble.

[cowman]

I get a little nervous when people start talking about limiting who can or cannot buy cattle at an auction. An auction sale is supposed to be about free enterprize...the highest bidder gets the cattle? Why put in rules too limit who can buy cattle? I suspect if Cargill/IBP/XL weren't in the market we would actually see prices going lower?
How is it that IBP/Cargill have got to the place they are at today? The answer is they are very good at what they do and others have a hard time competing with them! Sort of like Wal-Mart? This is just the way of our modern world?
If the ABP doesn't represent the Alberta cattleman, then who does? I mean everyone who pays the checkoff got to vote, right? If they chose not to, then that is their right? Now obviously I didn't vote in the ABP elections and I do not believe they have any right to exist, but I still have to pay the checkoff and I expect the delegates to at least try to do what they believe is right for the industry? And I do believe most are honorable men who believe in what they are doing. I also believe they have a mandate from the voters to carry out the job they were elected to do? Isn't that democracy?

[cowman]

Cowman, you are absolutely correct. It is no different than the low voter turnout in some municipalities during municipal elections. In some areas less than 25% ov the eligible voters turned out, and in my view if the rest of the electorate sat home on their backsides and didn't vote they abdicated their right to whine and complain. Same goes for ABP.
From what I see, early on in his term, Darcy Davis is doing a pretty fair job as Chairman of ABP.
I think that the beef industry organizations may not be on the same page with some issues so it will be interesting to see what they all have to say at the Beef Industry Conference in Red Deer in mid-Feb.

[grassfarmer]

Cowman - heroic defender of transnational corporations everywhere. I suggest you read "When Corporations rule the world" by David Korten to see how our modern world really works.
Reality is Cargill and Tyson didn't get where they are by being the most efficient and best in their field - they got there by exerting influence on politicians. These sharks were induced to come here by multi-million dollar bribes by our politicians yet when BIG-C proposes to get the same Government to bridge finance ownership of a producer owned plant where the producer will pay back all the money they are not interested. Problem is Cam and Randy (correct me if i'm wrong Randy;O))don't have multi million $ bank accounts to bribe the politicians with.
This whole exporting boxed beef across the border deal we have been doing since September 03 was a set up deal - set up between US and Canadian politicians in the pockets of transnational corporations - to extract even more wealth from primary producers than they normally are able to.
You only have to look at the revolving door in North American politics that sees retired politicians and ag ministers become directors of the big transnationals - clear reward for unfairly influencing Government policies to favour the corporations.

[farmers_son]

Cowman: I agree with your comments.

Grassfarmer: I agree with some of your comments, sorry not all.

I have not read the book you mentioned but I would say that economics rule the world. I agree that Cargill and Tyson did not achieve their market monopoly by being the most efficient in their field. Politics would have played a role, ruthless business practices would have played a role as well. I agree that the U.S. policies that saw Canadian boneless beef imported into the U.S. after May 20 were formulated to specifically benefit American interests in Canada while keeping pressure on primary producers who were being used as pawns in political maneuvering that involved a great deal more than BSE and food safety. When you say that retired politicians and ag ministers become directors of the big transnationals, I believe that happens more in the U.S. than Canada. Canadian politics is considerably different than in the United States. Canadian politicians of note and their after government pursuits include: Hon. Flora McDonald is Vice-Chairperson, Partnership Africa Canada. Joe Clark has been appointed to a teaching position at American University in Washington, DC. While Frank McKenna was a director of the Carlyle Group which among other things was involved in the U.S. defense industry, certainly that appears to be the exception.
You will not be successful approaching government for support for producers packing plants if you somehow believe government and the various ministers are somehow the enemy. We need to keep focused on who the enemy is. That is clearly the big packers, Cargill and Tyson.