CattleNetwork_Today 3/2/2007 12:00:00 PM
Canada Cattle, Hog Industries Prepare To Make Case Vs Labeling
WINNIPEG (Dow Jones)--Canada's cattle and hog industries say they are preparing to again step up their case against the U.S. government's Country Of Origin Labeling, or COOL, rules.
And industry officials say they're ready to put up a fight.
The proposed rules would require mandatory country-of-origin labeling on beef, lamb, pork, fish, agricultural commodities and peanuts. If passed, beef from cattle not born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S., for example, would have to be labeled with the country of its origin.
"Country of Origin Labeling in retail is a form of interruptive access," said Ted Haney, president of the Canadian Beef Export Federation, or CBEF. "It's not designed for health, it's not designed for food safety ... it is designed solely to force identification of non-U.S. products to U.S. consumers."
The Canadian Pork Council made submissions to the U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this week as the agency opened a comment period for COOL, said Martin Rice, the organization's executive director.
"We essentially pointed out that while COOL may work for something like fish and shellfish, the same cannot be said about the cattle and hog sector," Rice said. "You have to remember it's much simpler to track fish and shellfish, given that there are no feedlots involved, there are no auction yards where feeder fish come and go, there is no finishing of the animal, etc. ..."
Such rules, if adopted, would have serious ramifications on the amount of beef and cattle Canada exports to the U.S., according to industry officials. The amendment has had trouble passing, and has twice been delayed from implementation.
Some in the U.S. industry have pushed for the rules because they say it would help from a marketing perspective given that the rules would be designed to underscore increased safety measures. Others in the U.S. industry say they are against it because of, among other things, the costs of implementation.
COOL was originally expected to be implemented by the Fall of 2004, said the Canadian Pork Council's Rice. It has had two subsequent delays, with the implementation now scheduled for September 30, 2008.
Rice said a bill is now in place in Congress aimed at moving the implementation a year ahead.
Haney said the Canadian cattle industry is a bit better poised heading into this round of pleading their case against implementation.
"Canada's beef sector is better prepared this time around because we are clear as to what the objectives are and how to compensate, but we also stand to be injured greatly because we don't have normalized access to key markets in Asia at this time."
"Prior to the BSE outbreak in Canada, the beef industry export dependence on the U.S. for processed product was just over 70%," he said. "Canada's beef processing industry has already stated its intention to bring that dependency down to the 50% level."
Haney acknowledged that since BSE, Canada's dependence on the U.S. as a destination for its beef products has gone back up to 85%. Part of that was associated with Canada's now-restricted access to Japan and lack of access to Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea or mainland China, which were Canada's chief sources of trade diversification.
But efforts to remove those restrictions were continuing, Haney said, noting that some breakthroughs with China were close.
Canada's Beef Information Center is undertaking efforts to limit the effects of COOL on the cattle sector.
“The Beef Information Center has been out ahead of this situation and has been working with industry participants in order to understand the impact of the rules on beef distributors and users in both Canada and the U.S.," Haney said. "One of the key tactics has been to increase the use of Canadian beef by the U.S. food sector, which will not be covered by COOL."
He said there will be a re-shifting of Canadian beef products moving into the U.S. as a result while the efforts to open offshore markets continues.
"The hope is that Canada will be able to maintain its value and its market share," he said.
Rice said another key problem with COOL is that it will represent an additional financial burden on retailers and wholesalers in the U.S. and Canada.
"Retailers in both countries, from what we know, have not found that COOL will provide any benefit, or that consumers in the U.S. will even embrace the idea once there is an increased cost involved," Rice said.
Haney agreed, noting that the CBEF has also heard mixed messages coming from the different sectors in the U.S., with most not supportive of the program.
"These U.S. outlets do not view this program as a demand-enhancing tool, but rather one that will increase cost," Haney said. "This means that the cost will eventually be transferred back down to U.S. cattle producers."
Source: Dwayne Klassen, Dow Jones Newswires; (204) 947-1700; resnews@compuserve.com
Canada Cattle, Hog Industries Prepare To Make Case Vs Labeling
WINNIPEG (Dow Jones)--Canada's cattle and hog industries say they are preparing to again step up their case against the U.S. government's Country Of Origin Labeling, or COOL, rules.
And industry officials say they're ready to put up a fight.
The proposed rules would require mandatory country-of-origin labeling on beef, lamb, pork, fish, agricultural commodities and peanuts. If passed, beef from cattle not born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S., for example, would have to be labeled with the country of its origin.
"Country of Origin Labeling in retail is a form of interruptive access," said Ted Haney, president of the Canadian Beef Export Federation, or CBEF. "It's not designed for health, it's not designed for food safety ... it is designed solely to force identification of non-U.S. products to U.S. consumers."
The Canadian Pork Council made submissions to the U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this week as the agency opened a comment period for COOL, said Martin Rice, the organization's executive director.
"We essentially pointed out that while COOL may work for something like fish and shellfish, the same cannot be said about the cattle and hog sector," Rice said. "You have to remember it's much simpler to track fish and shellfish, given that there are no feedlots involved, there are no auction yards where feeder fish come and go, there is no finishing of the animal, etc. ..."
Such rules, if adopted, would have serious ramifications on the amount of beef and cattle Canada exports to the U.S., according to industry officials. The amendment has had trouble passing, and has twice been delayed from implementation.
Some in the U.S. industry have pushed for the rules because they say it would help from a marketing perspective given that the rules would be designed to underscore increased safety measures. Others in the U.S. industry say they are against it because of, among other things, the costs of implementation.
COOL was originally expected to be implemented by the Fall of 2004, said the Canadian Pork Council's Rice. It has had two subsequent delays, with the implementation now scheduled for September 30, 2008.
Rice said a bill is now in place in Congress aimed at moving the implementation a year ahead.
Haney said the Canadian cattle industry is a bit better poised heading into this round of pleading their case against implementation.
"Canada's beef sector is better prepared this time around because we are clear as to what the objectives are and how to compensate, but we also stand to be injured greatly because we don't have normalized access to key markets in Asia at this time."
"Prior to the BSE outbreak in Canada, the beef industry export dependence on the U.S. for processed product was just over 70%," he said. "Canada's beef processing industry has already stated its intention to bring that dependency down to the 50% level."
Haney acknowledged that since BSE, Canada's dependence on the U.S. as a destination for its beef products has gone back up to 85%. Part of that was associated with Canada's now-restricted access to Japan and lack of access to Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea or mainland China, which were Canada's chief sources of trade diversification.
But efforts to remove those restrictions were continuing, Haney said, noting that some breakthroughs with China were close.
Canada's Beef Information Center is undertaking efforts to limit the effects of COOL on the cattle sector.
“The Beef Information Center has been out ahead of this situation and has been working with industry participants in order to understand the impact of the rules on beef distributors and users in both Canada and the U.S.," Haney said. "One of the key tactics has been to increase the use of Canadian beef by the U.S. food sector, which will not be covered by COOL."
He said there will be a re-shifting of Canadian beef products moving into the U.S. as a result while the efforts to open offshore markets continues.
"The hope is that Canada will be able to maintain its value and its market share," he said.
Rice said another key problem with COOL is that it will represent an additional financial burden on retailers and wholesalers in the U.S. and Canada.
"Retailers in both countries, from what we know, have not found that COOL will provide any benefit, or that consumers in the U.S. will even embrace the idea once there is an increased cost involved," Rice said.
Haney agreed, noting that the CBEF has also heard mixed messages coming from the different sectors in the U.S., with most not supportive of the program.
"These U.S. outlets do not view this program as a demand-enhancing tool, but rather one that will increase cost," Haney said. "This means that the cost will eventually be transferred back down to U.S. cattle producers."
Source: Dwayne Klassen, Dow Jones Newswires; (204) 947-1700; resnews@compuserve.com
Comment