• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

COOL, Labelling, South Korea

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    COOL, Labelling, South Korea

    http://www.fcc-fac.ca/newsletters/en/express/articles/20080530_e.asp
    Begin of Paste from AgriSuccess Express

    1. COOL coming with passage of US farm bill
    by Rae Groeneveld

    Now that the 2008 United States farm bill has become law, Canadian livestock producers are preparing for the ramifications of some of its new features.

    Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is a part of the bill and requires meat from American raised beef and hogs be clearly identified in the supermarket. This means meat from Canadian-born animals will have to be given a separate label and new segregation requirements could end up costing producers.

    “I don't think it’s going to vastly affect the quantities of beef that we sell to the U.S.,” says John Masswohl, director of government and international relations with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. “I think it is going to have a very significant impact on the profitability of cattle producers."

    Just how big of a cost it is to producers depends on how the packing industry handles Canadian-born livestock. Masswohl says the new law allows for labels that would declare the meat from multiple countries of origin. Producing for that type of label would allow the packers to process American and Canadian cattle without worrying about segregating the animals.

    “As soon as you get into having to segregate and sort out cattle then you create different economic values for different origin of cattle and that's the problem,” he says.

    Masswohl says a big part of how this will impact Canadian producers is dependent on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and how they write the rules to accompany the new law.

    The Canadian Pork Council has also been closely monitoring the progress of COOL. Executive Director Martin Rice says some retailers have expressed a desire to carry U.S.-only product.

    “If the retailers say they want only U.S. product then a processor will have no choice but to stop buying Canadian pigs or segregate them,” Rice says.

    End of Paste

    We can count down the days until COOL becomes law in the United States. South Korea already has country of origin labelling. If NAFTA beef is allowed to be distinguished by country; Canada, Mexico, United States, then I expect we will see the same kind of downright fear mongering that South Korean producers are doing right now against U.S. beef exports expected to resume this week. Vigils and sometimes violent rallies have taken place on an almost daily basis since the agreement was announced last month.

    We all know there are already similar groups in the U.S. and no doubt similar groups would form in Canada with the single purpose of destroying consumer’s confidence in beef from the importing country. Whether we are talking South Korea or the United States, that kind of selfish and thoughtless protectionist action ultimately only will serve to undermine consumer’s confidence in all beef. COOL, especially a COOL that segregates Canadian and Mexican beef from U.S. beef should be seen for what it is… a dangerous and deadly weapon that producers will end up using on themselves.

    #2
    Perhaps Canada will have to enact its own COOL legislation. That way when we buy a hamburger at some of these fast food places, it will come with a label stating that the meat patties within contain product from Uruguay, or Argentina or Australia or the U S of A.

    I don't know why the Americans would want to burden themselves with such a cumbersome law as this COOL thing. Its like a step backward to their 'isolation' policies of days past.

    The extra cost of enforcing COOL will undoubtedly be borne by the consumer in the end, so where is the benefit?

    Comment


      #3
      Its going to be awful hard and is highly hypocritical to be challenging the US M-COOL laws, when Canadian governments are promoting their own...And most governments of the world have long had them- and many much more restrictive than the proposed US one!! I see now that S. Korea is updating- and strengthing theres over all beef- aminly because of the N.American Imports....

      CONSUMERS HAVE BEEN SCREWED ENOUGH BY THIS MULTINATIONAL CORPORATE GLOBAL TRADE THAT IS BASED ON PROFITTEERING RATHER THAN QUALITY..........

      It just time for the old fogies at CCA/ABP/NCBA/SSGA to move into the 21st century- and change with the times....

      CONSUMERS WANT TO KNOW WHAT COUNTRY THEIR FOOD COMES FROM!!!!!!!!!

      PM announces changes to Canadian food label laws


      Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced tough new guidelines for the "Made in Canada" label on food, but Liberals have dismissed the changes as a "photo-op."


      21/05/2008 5:41:01 PM

      CTV.ca News Staff

      Ottawa is introducing new laws so that food products processed in Canada, but made with foreign ingredients, will have to say so on the label, Harper told reporters in Vineland, Ont.

      "The truth is, foods marked 'Product of Canada' or 'Made in Canada' actually may not be very Canadian at all," he said. "Our new guidelines are designed to redefine Canadian food content labels to better reflect the true origins of products in today's global marketplace"

      Under current laws, Harper said, it's legal to call a product "Made in Canada" if 51 per cent of production costs were incurred here and the final transformation of the product was in Canada.

      The current laws are largely unchanged since the 1980s -- before the rapid globalization of food production changed the origin of many of the products in grocery stores.

      "A bottle of apple juice could have a 'made in Canada' label in it and be made from apples grown in China. A bar of chocolate might say 'product of Canada,' but the cocoa beans could come from the Ivory Coast,'' Harper said.

      Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter said his party has been pushing for changes for the past three years, after "broad consultations" with farmers.

      "We heard their calls and began pursuing the needed changes. The Prime Minister's photo-op only proves that he's been hearing what the Liberal Caucus and Canadian farmers have been demanding ever since," Easter said in a press release.

      Under the new rules, a "Product of Canada" label will mean that virtually all of the contents are Canadian in origin.

      A consumer advocate says the changes are long overdue.

      "We are looking at two different reasons for labelling. One is to define some economic benefit to Canada. The other is to let the consumer know where items in that can or product came from," Mel Fruitman, the vice president of the Consumers' Association of Canada, told CTV Newsnet.

      "It is that latter concern that has been bothering us for the past few years as we are seeing more and more imported products -- and unfortunately, more and more tainted products."

      Fruitman said he wants to see better regulation of products -- and more severe penalties for those who disobey rules meant to protect consumers. He added that Ottawa needs to have more inspectors to make sure the new regulations are followed.

      Harper said the new labels would reflect whether some of the ingredients in a Canadian-made product come from another country.

      He said the announcement would be a boon for Canadian farmers because the country's consumers want homegrown products.

      Ottawa will be holding consultations with Canadians and the food industry before the final label guidelines are completed.

      Comment


        #4
        The critical factor for Canadian beef producers will be just what the labeling requirements end up being. The rules are still being written.

        The point is that these labeling laws are tools that protectionist groups in all countries, for example South Korea, will use to try and gain an advantage for their beef product by either denigrating the beef product from another country or by creating regulatory barriers to trade. The end result will be reduced consumer demand for all beef and very likely reduced live cattle prices for Canadian producers.

        I am sure U.S. producers feel the concerns over U.S. beef imports to South Korea are unjustified. I would point out that it is little different than what R-Calf tried to do to Canadian beef.

        Our Agriculture Minister is on record as saying Canada will challenge COOL under NAFTA rules. And U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins recently said how appreciative America is of oil and gas imports from Canada. Plus Canada’s critical military contributions in Afghanistan are vital to the success of the war effort in that country.

        Make no mistake about it COOL is written with one main purpose in mind, to establish a trade barrier for imports of Canadian live cattle and hogs and related meat products. This at the same time as Canadian soldiers are dying in Afghanistan taking a major role in Operation Enduring Freedom. The Canadian death toll is presently 83. Our soldiers are good enough to revenge the 911 attacks on Americans but our beef is not good enough to be sold in U.S. stores. I ask if the U.S. would rather have Nigeria or Venezuela for a neighbour? Then why does the U.S. seek to establish protectionist trade barriers against Canadian imports of cattle and hogs. It doesn’t make sense.

        See: http://www.icasualties.org/oef/

        Comment


          #5
          Farmerson quote "I am sure U.S. producers feel the concerns over U.S. beef imports to South Korea are unjustified. I would point out that it is little different than what R-Calf tried to do to Canadian beef."

          Actually a great many of the US producers feel that the US should have been supplying the Asians (including the Japanese and Koreans) and the world what they wanted- BSE TESTED BEEF- long ago... And we would have those markets back...

          But the old fogies, in NCBA/USDA/ABP/CCA/SSGA that meet in the backrooms with the multinational Corporates have prevented that....

          Farmerson- you must have a pretty poor opinion on the quality of your product if you think it can not compete on its own name- and has to passed off to consumers thru deception, deceit, and fraud as a US product in order to get it to sell.....

          Comment


            #6
            I share some of FS concerns and here is why...
            We have a pretty concentrated packer ownership in Canada and we send a lot of feeder calves south (right, wrong or indifferent). As well a lot of the cattle fed here are harvested south of the line.
            Over time the system will likely sort itself out and branded in Canada programs and Canadian processors may emerge. In the interim the increased cost will be born by the Canadian producer. Every business is a margin business, but not everyone can pass the buck along.
            It takes some size and scale to access various export markets such as the EU and there are not a lot of Canadian options out there in terms of processing and marketing at the moment.

            Comment


              #7
              I would refer back to the original post and this quote from John Masswohl:

              “As soon as you get into having to segregate and sort out cattle then you create different economic values for different origin of cattle and that's the problem,” he says.

              Masswohl says a big part of how this will impact Canadian producers is dependent on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and how they write the rules to accompany the new law.
              End of Paste

              The price of Canadian live cattle is established in U.S. packing plants minus a basis. COOL will mean Canadian live cattle have to be sorted out at U.S. packing plants plus some U.S. packing plants have already indicated they will not accept Canadian live cattle at all. As Masswohl points out this will result in a different (lower) economic value and in some instances a non tariff barrier for Canadian live cattle which is what the real purpose of COOL is. It is not about South American beef which is really not going to be affected (it was all going to the food service and restaurant trade which is COOL exempt). COOL will affect the movement of live cattle which is directed exclusively at the NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico. COOL is about restricting Canadian live cattle access to U.S. packing plants. Again, depending upon how the rules are written the impact can be more or less serious but COOL cannot be ignored. I think the U.S. needs to give serious consideration to implementing these kind of trade barriers with its number one source of oil and gas as well as a crucial military ally in the Middle East.

              Comment


                #8
                Agreed. It is not as simple as killing cattle in Canada and sticking a maple leaf logo on them.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Notwithstanding all the issues regarding how and why and whether fair or unfair or doable or not doable. What would you like to see on a label? I would like the label to read sort of like the gas pumps.

                  -fed tax
                  -prov tax
                  -primary producers share
                  -packers share
                  -retailers share
                  -transportation and other middle men's share

                  Just think of that loaf of bread that sells for 2 to 3 dollars that has less that 20 cents of wheat even at today's commodity prices. What would the consumer think of that?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    My greatest concern with adding more regulations is that the always create a “barrier to entry”. I mean it makes it less attractive to enter the industry as a compeditor, let alone trade across borders. When you say some companies won’t be bothered meeting the regulations, I expect that should read most won’t bother. Regulations always favor the multi-nationals as the have people hired to enact them. You won’t see it right away but this type of thing always lessens competition.
                    It’s strange, but it’s always the little guy that calls for more regulations and he’s the one it hurts the most.

                    Comment

                    • Reply to this Thread
                    • Return to Topic List
                    Working...