AFF Sentinel Vol.5#24
With the successful defeat of attempts to
steal rights and freedoms from American livestock producers in
the Farm Bill, now comes dealing with the unpleasant aftermath -
mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (mCOOL).
Mainstream groups again tried to stave off
implementation of a law yielding little but costing hundreds of millions of
dollars, ultimately devaluing livestock for producers. Timing is everything.
China's difficulties with a small percentage of export items came at a bad time
for fighting mCOOL implementation.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT.), chairwoman, House
Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA Appropriations Subcommittee, enabled mCOOL
implementation as one tool needed to "protect" American consumers.
Unfortunately, activists ignore facts: it is USDA- equivalent inspection that
delivers food safety, not a country label. Instead, in further excess,
legislation has been introduced to force food manufacturers to list every
country sourcing any food ingredient in a particular prepared food product.
The best sensible groups could affect was less
restrictive language, less demanding recordkeeping and a new grandfather date
for imported animals. But as the entire livestock production, processing and
retail food production chain expends time, effort and cash to deal with this
less-extensive version of the monster, let's not forget some of those
responsible: DeLauro and LAG partners like Consumer Federation of America's
Carol Tucker Foreman, Public Citizen (PC) and Consumer's Union (CU).
The cost will not appear as an invoice in
producers' mailboxes but as packers and retailers spend many millions to comply
with mCOOL, rest assured what won't show up in livestock income accounts
will be the dollars expended to comply. The radicals claim trickle down
economics don't work, that more money in packer's pockets doesn't trickle down
to producers. Yet lousy retail movement means packers need fewer cattle and pay
less for them. Higher corn prices always mean lower prices for calves. This
will be no different.
R-CALF has always claimed mCOOL "won't cost
ranchers anything." Ridiculous! Lost income is still lost. When the truth
dawns, we'll see how cattlemen regard R-CALF's mostly unjustifiable boast that
they made it happen.
Having no experience with the consumer end of the
meat business, what the radicals don't understand is that consumers will not
pay for anything unless it improves the eating experience or fixes
perceived food safety problems. Since mCOOL will not do either and origin was
way below taste, tenderness and price on consumers' criteria lists, they will
not pay.
But the consumer was really just a pawn in anti-
trade farm groups' real agenda with mCOOL - keeping Canadian cattle and
beef and Mexican feeder cattle out. But mCOOL will only achieve their goals if
they make importing prohibitively expensive or convince American consumers that
the beef they have been eating for years - 90-plus percent U.S. -- is unsafe.
That's what the LAG tried when Bill Bullard, Foreman, CU's Adam Goldberg and
PC's Patty Lovera stood on stage together trying to scare consumers (2004).
South Korean consumers might be stampeded by unfounded rumors for political
ends but, so far, American consumers haven't.
The new grandfather clause specifies animals in
the U.S. by or on July 15, 2008 will not be subject to the new rules.
That gives feedyards with Canadian cattle in their pens targets.
Such late notice for a major international
upheaval is already too late for the hog industry. Major disruptions have
occurred in the pipeline for baby pigs from Canada to American finishing
operations. If it were the big oil pipelines from Canada or Mexico, everyone
would have heard. But since it's agricultural trade being gored, general media
is silent and thousands of pigs are euthanized. Angering two of our top three
oil suppliers for no good reason can't be regarded as intelligent policy.
Unless either country blocks implementation
through WTO or NAFTA channels - and both countries are unlikely to just ignore
this - the deadline is Sept. 30. More likely, with the glacial speed of
international trade regulation, any stoppage will only occur after the industry
has spent millions to comply.
USDA's Bruce Knight has worked out a way to deal
with an impossible timeline by developing regulations simultaneously along two
channels - the old 2002 Farm Bill language and the new 2007-8 Farm Bill. He
tells us to expect proposed regulations in July.
In our next issue, we'll examine the law's
language and give our take on the shake out. The compromise language that was
worked out proves interesting ... and maybe surprising.
Email your comments to the author {mos_sb_discuss:08}
|