COOL, bring it on!

[cowman]

The R-CALFERS pretend if only they could have COOL all their problems would be solved, little realizing that practically all our beef would not be affected by the COOL law? The real theory behind COOL is that US packers wouldn't want to bother segregating Canadian beef and therefore would just buy American cattle. That is how R-CALF sees it...an economic trade barrier?
What they don't realize is that most of our young beef never hits the supermarket anyway? It goes to the steakhouses and high end restaurant trade. Before BSE, there was a steady stream going to Japan. The liners left feedlot alley for the plants in Washington, got killed, slapped a USDA label on them, onto the boat for Japan! And the Japanese marvelled at that tasty US beef! LOL
I believe Canada should also have a COOL law, so that our consumers know they are eating good quality Canadian beef instead of Aussie garbage or US corn fed Brahmas! We should never be afraid to label our beef "Product of Canada"? We should be proud enough of our product to label it and not be lumped in with an inferior product?

[whiteface]

I'm all for COOL too, cowman, for the exact same reasons. As far as American packers not buying our cattle because of COOL, they will buy their cattle wherever they are the cheapest to be able to re-sell for the highest profit, period. If it turn out that it's ours, they'll still buy them, if it's Mexico's or Brazil, all the power to them. Have a good day all!

[kato]

I agree also.

Besides, if R-Calf keeps up it's rhetoric and keeps scaring consumers off of beef, and they actually find a case down there, that big old maple leaf just may keep us from going down with their ship. ;-)

We've got a product second to none, and should be proud of it.

[rkaiser]

How about the fact that as this thing drags on, the American packers are gaining more of a hate all the time for Rcalf and it's members. If the US packers had a preference (which I agree Whitey they don't care where they get their cattle), some might think that they would avoid the Rcalf cattle because of the money and headache they have caused.

[cowman]

Randy: Another good reason to compile a list of all R-CALF members and supporters! Lets bring a little grief to these guys?
I don't blame R-CALF for trying to destroy our industry to further their own gains, but I do believe we have a right to payback if we can? You know...you try to screw me then I'll pay you back in spades!
If they had acted civil I could understand, but when they out and out lie and try their best to destroy us then I believe it is time to get out the heavy guns and play hardball? Take out full paper ads in major US papers telling the US consumer what a bunch of kooks these guys are? Let them know, very clearly, that we will not buy their products? Let them know we do not like their dirty tactics and will not deal with them!

[cowman]

The local feed store has stopped selling smartlic and any other product from the US that his customers think they can do without.
He says that is just his small gesture to let the US companies know how he feels about RCalf etc. Now, if every feed store in AB, plus UFA etc. would do the same it might get somebody's attention.

[farmers_son]

We need to be clear, there is COOL and there is Mandatory COOL. Mandatory COOL would involve a lot of costs for U.S. cattle producers with no guarantee any benefits would make it back to them. Mandatory COOL would involve retailers reorganizing their inventories and distribution lines to ensure U.S. beef was kept separate from beef from all other countries. The implications were far reaching for the U.S. producer who bore the burden of proving the beef was of U.S. origin while at the same time there were no requirements to identify country of origin in restraurants/food service and processed/prepared foods. When R-Calf talks COOL they are really meaning MCOOL. R-Calf is against voluntary COOL and is in favour of mandatory COOL although they do not the “mandatory” word in communications with U.S. producers.

Think of MCOOL like this example. For instance if Canada had MCOOL on cars… A law would be passed that all cars sold in Canada and not entirely made up of 100% Canadian parts would have to be sold on separate lots which could only sell foreign cars. Given the cost of running a separate car lot, the proponents of MCOOL would hope that car dealers would only sell 100% Canadian made vehicles. Although sales of cars with parts imported from the U.S. would still be allowed, the hoped for effect is to discourage sales of competing imported products and make more jobs for Canadian workers. The Canadian government would justify this law by suggesting there was something wrong or not as good about the imported car parts so it must be kept separate from the “better” 100% Canadian cars.

South Korea tried something like MCOOL a few years ago and the U.S. took the matter before the WTO and won. Clearly MCOOL is illegal. More than that any benefits would accrue to the retailers not to the producer. But we should not be surprised at R-Calf’s support for MCOOL given their willingness to do anything to keep out Canadian beef. Bottom line, MCOOL may have benefits to Canadians by possibly forcing further increased value adding in this country which would be positive but MCOOL still would be an unfair and poorly disguised impediment to trade and should be discouraged.

The text of the MCOOL legislation can be found at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/30oct20030800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-27249.htm