COOL rules pooled; associations 'school' producers on details

By MONETTE TAYLOR | South Central Texas Edition

By the time these calves reach the retail meat counter, COOL will be in effect. In the same time period, it is uncertain whether the debate over the new law will be settled. -- Staff photo by Carolyn Rost

November 13, 2003 -- After months of apprehension in the U.S. agricultural industry, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued the 203 pages of rules it intends to use to implement the Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation covered under the 2002 Farm Bill.

The various associations involved in the new law have until the end of December to voice their concerns, and many of these agencies and associations have kept the Internet filled with press releases, voicing their opinions.

While many see COOL as a "positive" for U.S. producers, there are "nay-sayers" who can find fault with the rulings. While the Texas Independent Cattlemen's Association and R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) support mandatory COOL, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association have called on Congress to repeal the program for beef. Some organizations have stressed they like COOL, but only if it is voluntary, which is not an option under the current law.

Beginning Sept. 30, 2004, all retail stores will have to clearly mark the products included in the law - beef, pork, lamb, fruit and vegetables, fish, shellfist and peanuts - with their country of origin label.

Supporters of COOL have said the United States has fallen behind other trade partners because, as reported by R-CALF USDA, 70 percent of the 57 major U.S. trading partners already have adopted COOL for at least one of the products covered in the new law.

Shane Sklar, executive director of the Texas ICA, said he feels "fairly good" about the new book of rules, but said there are still "a few problems to address."

During the 60 days of review, the mandatory rules will go before the board of directors and executive board for study, before making any decisions for the ICA. Then, ICA will submit their comments concerning the rules to USDA.

Sklar said, on the surface, he is happy to see USDA has lowered the estimated cost to implement COOL to between $582 million to $3.9 billion. He believes it will be on the lower end, as do many supporters who have voiced their opinions at meetings in cattle-producing states during the past months.

As far as those who oppose COOL, such as packers, Sklar said he believes their opposition is because they control the profit margin and how much they are willing to pay producers for each animal. It has been reported that "generic" beef has "sometimes" been passed off to retailers who believed they were receiving U.S. beef.

Dr. Ernest E. Davis, professor and Extension economist at Texas A&M University, said he believes that "even if COOL increases the demand for U.S. beef, it probably will not be enough to offset the increased percentage of the wholesale and retail values." He also believes cattlemen could be "worse off than before" when mandatory COOL goes into effect.

Dr. Charles W. Graham, owner of Stallion Station in Elgin and Graham Land and Cattle Company in Gonzales, said COOL's "cost is prohibitive," and there is too much paperwork. Graham said he doesn't believe it will increase consumer demand for U.S. beef and cited a survey he took with 10 people at a local retail market in Elgin. All 10 consumers said the major things they were interested in were: (1) the meat's color; (2) quality; and (3) price. None mentioned being interested if the meat is

a product of the United States or some other country.

What many consumers do not realize is that just because a product contains the USDA sticker, that doesn't mean the product originated in the United States. Many have assumed that over the years, according to various consumers.

One area of disappointment to Sklar, along with the R-CALF USA orgination and others, is that the USDA rules fail to address the benefits to individual producers. One major feat would be the beef check-off program where producers pay $1-per-head when they sell their animals.

Supporters of the beef check-off say this should help consumers be assured of American products and be willing to pay for the best beef in the world.

According to Sklar, the new rules would hold retailers responsible for keeping records received from packers only one week, rather than the two years. Also, when the product involves "blended products," such as hamburger, the package will be marked, in alphabetical order, with countries who contribute to the products. Before, the USDA had intended to have percentages from each country listed on the packaging.

One portion of the new rules that will interest producers is that they will not be responsible for keeping records on their animals, although producers will need to have the "presumption of U.S. origin in place," unless declared otherwise.

While many producers already are involved in various programs where their cattle are carefully documented from birth, Sklar said that ... like most other businesses ... there will always be "someone trying to make a dollar" and who will try to avoid the new rulings, once they are in place.

Although the problems in Canada with "mad cow" disease, and in Mexico with tuberculosis, may have contributed to the higher prices of U.S. beef, that is not what most producers want to see as a reason.

"Once COOL is in place, it will be a competition (between countries) and we don't want for someone to have a problem to have a profit," noted Sklar.

He said he feels a "lot better," and that the law is on the producer's side, which as a representative of ICA, is what it's all about.

(To read the new proposed rules for COOL, you can find them at: www.usda.gov).