Agricultural News
Extraordinary Relief Denied for a Colossal COOL Disaster
Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:51:06 CDT
Scott George, President of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association distributed the following news release:
Yesterday morning, we learned that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the request for a preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiffs including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) and the National Pork Producers Council. We are understandably disappointed in the Court's review of the matter. The final rule on country of origin labeling (COOL) has been found by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to be "economically significant." While we in the countryside know what is economically significant, for the CBO that means the costs to the industry would exceed $100 million. These are costs that will end up being paid by producers through lower prices and passed onto to consumers through higher prices.
That is what is really at issue here. For most things, a fair price for a fair service. But with COOL, this is a mandatory government run labeling program that has already failed. Moreover, a study by Kansas State in November 2012, found that mandatory COOL had not impacted beef demand and even more significantly, despite the fact that origin information had been on retail products for nearly three years, typical consumers were completely unaware of it. Next time someone tells you they want to see origin information on the meat they buy, ask them if they have noticed it yet. It's not hard to see why consumers wouldn't notice it - it's not a graphic or a big flag, it's not a seal or a guarantee, it's most typically small typeface print mixed in with the nutritional information, safe handling instructions and price and weight.
This is not how we want to differentiate our product. Look instead at some of the industry led labels, you will find them right there, appealing to the consumer and rewarding the producer with premiums. These are programs that are working for us and showcasing the product we produce. These are the programs that are offering the customer what they want, whatever they want. Customers that buy these products are willing to pay for it. That is what this argument should be about. It should be about us as an industry really looking at what the consumer wants and providing that to them. That is not the job of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) their role is to make sure that the product we produce is safe. We have won that argument - beef safety is beyond question. This argument is all about marketing and how we want to market our product. I certainly don't want the USDA trying to market my product.
Look at the Beef Checkoff, the Beef Promotion and Research Act. Producers realized beef demand was in decline and proactively took steps to turn that trend around. Over the past 28 years, the Checkoff has raised demand by listening to consumers and providing them the health and nutritional information they need to make the right choice. But even in the Checkoff, producers realized that they did not want the USDA making marketing decisions, and the Cattlemen's Beef Board was created. Yes, they have USDA oversight, as do the claims made by industry-led labels and certifications, but the decisions are made by cattlemen and women. That is our position here at NCBA. We oppose government mandates and government mandated programs that take decisions out of the hands of cattlemen and place them in the hands of bureaucrats. We will continue to work to ensure that marketing and production decisions remain in the hands of those closest to land, the cattle and the customer.
I hope you will join me and interject commonsense back into this issue. We need to keep industry-led marketing programs strong and ensure they are the source for beef consumers. COOL has been a colossal failure and has cost our industry too much without providing a tangible benefit or an ounce of goodwill.
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI
Top Agricultural News
More Headlines...
