• 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.

US Politics - Country of Origing Labeling

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

    US Politics - Country of Origing Labeling

    Was going to toss in a comment on country of origin labeling for livestock that is being pushed through the US. Likely dealt with in the livestock postings but interesting as a topic hear - realizing mostly if not all grain in these threads. Quote from National Cattleman's Beef Association in the US.

    COOL



    COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN LABELING

    NCBA Staff Contact:
    Colin Woodall, Executive Director of Legislative Affairs
    202-347-0228
    cwoodall@beef.org



    Summary

    As directed by the 2002 Farm Bill, mandatory country-of-origin labeling will be implemented on September 30, 2008. NCBA is supportive of the concept of country-of-origin labeling, but NCBA has urged that a poorly written law will be harmful to U.S. producers.



    NCBA policy adopted in February 2007 directs NCBA to work with Congress and USDA to ensure that a country-of-origin labeling program ensures maximum benefit and minimal market disruption to the U.S. beef industry.



    During development of the 2007 Farm Bill, the House Agriculture Committee worked with NCBA and other food groups to make mandatory COOL a little more workable for producers. This language was included in the Farm Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 27, 2007, and NCBA is expecting this language to remain intact as the Senate takes up deliberations on the Farm Bill this fall. While not perfect, these changes represent an improvement to the COOL law currently on the books.



    Background:
    NCBA has worked with producers, the administration and Congress for many years in support of a labeling program that promotes U.S. beef without overburdening producers. Our work on this issue goes back to 1997 when our Board of Directors met during NCBA’s Convention and adopted policy favoring legislation on labeling. In January 2002, at NCBA’s 2002 Convention, the Board adopted policy supporting “voluntary” labeling, but in May 2002, the Farm Bill was passed and signed into law containing a provision calling for “mandatory” labeling.



    The current compromise worked out during House deliberations of the 2007 Farm Bill calls for the labeling of beef, pork, lamb and goat meat in four separate ways:



    Product of the United States: This is product that is born, raised and processed within the United States and is from animals that have never crossed the U.S. border (unless being transported from Hawaii or Alaska to the continental U.S.)

    Multiple Countries of Origin: This is product that might have been born in another country but is raised and processed in the United States and will carry a label listing all the countries involved. For example: feeder calves that are imported from Mexico and then fed out and slaughtered within the United States could potentially carry a label that reads “product of the United States from cattle imported from Mexico.”

    Imported for Immediate Slaughter: This label would include all cattle that are imported into the United States for processing only and would, like those with “Multiple Countries of Origin,” carry a label listing all the involved countries. For example: fed cattle imported from Canada and processed in the United States could potentially carry a label that reads “product of Canada and the United States.”

    Foreign Country of Origin: This label is for all fresh beef that is imported into the United States and will only list the product’s country of origin.

    Ground beef has also created a dilemma within the labeling debate. How do you label a product that contains components from multiple countries? The language contained within the Farm Bill would allow a label for ground beef, pork, lamb, or goat to simply list all the countries of origin that may be in that product.



    Another concern for cattle producers was how to actually verify the origin of their cattle. Under the new legislative language, producers are instructed to use only documents that would be used in the “normal conduct of business” to prove origin. These documents include animal health papers, import or customs documents, and tax documents.



    Because it is going to take time to implement COOL, the new language also includes a grandfather clause for all cattle within the United States prior to January 1, 2008. This should exempt all calves entering feedlots this fall and next spring from labeling requirements. However, starting next spring, all new calves will need a paper trail verifying their origins.



    NCBA Submits Comments to USDA on MCOOL Rulemaking:

    NCBA submitted comments on August 20, 2007, to USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) on the mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law due to be implemented September 30, 2008. In its comments, NCBA:

    reinforces producers’ belief that, as a marketing program, COOL should be producer-driven and not mandated by the government;
    takes issue with the misconception that COOL can somehow offer the consumer extra assurances of food safety;
    points out the disparity of exempting food service, processed foods and poultry from complying with mandatory COOL; and
    suggests that COOL labels be more visually appealing and recognizable to the consumer as part of the effort to “brand” our product.

    NCBA also reiterated its support of the compromise language developed by the House Agriculture Committee as part of the 2007 Farm Bill. While not ideal the compromise language is an improvement over the current law.



    In NCBA’s comments, NCBA President and North Carolina Cattleman John Queen told USDA, “NCBA looks forward to working with USDA and Congress to ensure that the mandatory country of origin labeling program that is put into place on September 30, 2008 allows for the differentiation of U.S. beef, gives the consumer a choice, and provides a return to American’s cattle producers. If this program does not satisfy these three criteria, we will deem mandatory COOL a failure and will work to change the law.”

    #2
    I am for country of origin labeling because of the fact that some countries may not be providing us with the safest of foods and we may view them as Canadian or American when they are not. Consumers should know where their food comes from.

    Comment


      #3
      The thing we have to remember is the the U.S. COOL is going to require a huge administrative cost for producers and feedlots and also for everyone in the chain above farms. Who do we suppose that cost is going to be passed on to? Yup, the bottom of the chain - producers.

      Comment


        #4
        Lee,

        Both consumers and growers will be forced to pay a portion. As will food manufacturers. Supply and Demand WILL take this into account... over the long term... it is a extension of the value chain... meaning less gets directly back to the farm gate...

        Unless the grower direct markets produce that can capitalise on the change... and then actually increase (for a little extra work) the margin of profit!

        There is always a silver lining somewhere Melvill!

        Comment


          #5
          Yup, Tom, some producers will likely be able to take advantage of the perception of U.S. consumers that 100% domestically produced beef is a superior product or, out of national loyalty, a preferred product. If those producers play their cards right, they likely will be able to use that niche to improve their net incomes. However, I suspect there are too many primary producers in the U.S. for each of them to pull that off. Therefore, in the short or medium term, quite a bunch of them will have the cost handed down to them.

          Comment


            #6
            From a recently released US consumer poll:

            {Nearly 69 percent of the 1,000 Americans polled indicated they check labels for nation of origin, up from 53 percent a year ago, the institute said.

            Furthermore, 86 percent agreed with a statement calling for suspension of Chinese imports until China meets U.S. product and food-safety standards.

            Meantime, 87 percent indicated they have confidence in American-made and distributed products and food. }

            Interestingly in some of the other polls taken- After the US ,which they consider the highest quality and safest-- the countries they trust most for foods and products are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand...The countries that are mistrusted the most are China, Mexico, and most countries of Asia and South America......

            Comment


              #7
              You just have to wonder, or believe, if COOL isn't US trade protectionism dressed up as a food safety issue.

              Comment


                #8
                Our country could do the same thing with all the fresh produce that finds it way north in the winter months. Our political people do not seem to grasp this concept though. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Protectionism yes. Especially because if it does not help the American farmer when all is said and done it will be scrapped.
                  To bad us consumers are idiots sometimes.

                  Comment

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