Alderspring RanchGrass Fed Beef is: Grown by us on our high mountain ranch in Idaho Grazed on certified organic and transitional pastures Fed only pasture and hay; nothing else, ever Never given chemicals of any kind (no antibiotcs, no hormones, no pesticides) Dry-aged 18-21 days, the old world way Hand carved and packaged

Huge profits are made buying foreign beef at lower prices than American beef, then duping the unsuspecting American consumer who believes meat with the USDA seal must be American grown.  This is why meat packers and retailers are strongly against Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation, and have lobbied hard to defeat it in the past few years.  COOL legislation was passed in 2002 and was to be fully implemented by September 30 2004.  In late July 2004, the House Agriculture Committee approved a bill that would kill the mandatory country-of-origin labeling program required by the 2002 farm law in favor of a voluntary program.   Late 2005, the same committee voted to delay COOL until 2007.  It has been nearly 4 years since COOL was passed, and it still has not been implemented.

Consider:

“During 2000, over 16 percent of the beef consumed by United States consumers was imported beef.  During the first four months of 2001, the percentage grew to 19 percent.  If this trend continues, over 20 percent of the beef consumed in the United States will be imported beef in 2001.  Some of this imported beef carries a USDA quality grade stamp, leading consumers to believe it is a domestic product. 
The U.S. imports beef from 26 countries.  In 1999 – 2000, these countries included Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, Spain, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, Croatia, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Thailand, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Other Pacific Islands.”
--from RCALF position paper, 5 August 2001

SUPPORT COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELS!  Not only for beef, but for produce and processed food as well.  If you as a consumer begin to demand that foods be labeled the same way as other products, we can begin to make a difference!  Ask your supermarket.  Tell your representative.

Americans for Country of Origin Labeling
 

Congress Delays COOL Behind Closed Doors Again

WASHINGTON (Oct. 27, 2005)
     A key Congressional conference committee adopted an additional two year delay of the implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for all products except seafood. A majority of the conferees have signed off on the House and Senate report, setting up a final passage vote in both houses in the near future.
     The delay is a repeat of history, when the same action occurred in 2003. On both of these occasions there was no public debate or vote, and the decision was made behind closed doors.
     “It is a travesty that U.S. producers and consumers’ interests are losing out to pressure from the retailers, packers and processors, who all have aggressively fought this law since its inception,” NFU President Dave Frederickson said.
     “Once again a deal has been struck behind closed doors by the majority leadership of the committees with no recourse for individual members of Congress except for an up-or-down vote on the overall agriculture spending measure,” Frederickson said. 
     Mandatory COOL was adopted by Congress in 2002, and its implementation for everything but seafood has been delayed.
     “I find it odd that it is taking this country longer to put a label on its food than to put a man on the moon,” Frederickson added.

From the National Farmers' Union
 

Panel Votes To Make Country-Of-Origin Labeling Voluntary
         The House Agriculture Committee today approved by voice vote a bill that would kill the mandatory country-of-origin labeling program required by the 2002 farm law in favor of a voluntary program. The affected products are red meat, fresh fruits, vegetables, seafood and peanuts. The voice vote followed a two-hour debate in which members rehashed many of the same issues raised during that farm bill debate. Along the way, the committee rejected two amendments to save the mandatory program or at least a part of it. On a 32-16 vote, the committee rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., that would have left the mandatory program intact while making compliance less onerous. The panel also rejected 30-12 an amendment from Rep. Tom Osborne, R-Neb., that would have left the beef program mandatory but made the others voluntary. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., offered an amendment to retain the mandatory fish program, but he withdrew it after House Agriculture Chairman Goodlatte promised to help address catfish growers' concerns about imports.
     The bill's prospects are questionable. Rehberg and Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., predicted it will be defeated if it is brought up on the House floor. Peterson noted the House voted to add the mandatory fresh fruit and vegetable language to the 2002 farm law through an amendment offered by Reps. Mary Bono, R-Calif., and Darlene Hooley, D-Ore. Tom Buis, a lobbyist for the National Farmers Union, said if the bill comes up in either the House or the Senate, other amendments to change the 2002 farm bill will be offered. The NFU favors mandatory labeling and limitations on the level of farm subsidies paid to individual farmers.
     The Food Marketing Institute, which represents food retailers and wholesalers, praised the bill's approval, saying a voluntary program would allow consumers to be informed "sooner, cheaper and more efficiently than the mandatory labeling law." But Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., criticized the voluntary approach in a statement. "The proposal of voluntary country-of-origin labeling is ridiculous," Johnson said. "No importer of foreign meat would voluntarily mark it as such when they could more easily hide it among the high-quality, safe American meat consumers enjoy." A USDA Agricultural Marketing Service spokesman said the department is prepared to issue a final rule on the fish and seafood portion of the law within the next couple months. The 2002 farm law called for grocery stores to label the products covered under the bill by Sept. 30, but Congress last year postponed implementation of the bill until 2006 for all covered products except fish and seafood.
   -- by Jerry Hagstrom
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tyson vice president testifies against COOL at USDA education session 
by Joshua Lipsky on 4/30/03 for 
www.meatingplace.com 

Editor's note: The following is testimony given on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, by Gary Machan, Tyson's vice president of hog procurement, in regards to mandatory country of origin meat labeling. The testimony was given at a USDA Country of Origin Labeling Listening and Education Session, which was held in Raleigh, N.C. 

"Good afternoon, I'm Gary Machan. I grew up on a livestock and grain farm in Wisconsin and today serve as Vice President of Hog Procurement for IBP, which is part of the Tyson Foods Family, the nation's leading producer of chicken, beef and pork. More than 60 percent of Tyson's annual sales are from red meat, so my company is very concerned about mandatory country of origin meat labeling.

"Unlike our vertically-integrated competitors in the red meat business, our company buys cattle and hogs from more than 20,000 independent livestock operations of all sizes to supply our plants. In turn, we produce 8,000 different beef and pork products for our customers. 

"Because some of our U.S. livestock suppliers raise animals born in Canada or Mexico, the new mandatory labeling law will force us to drastically increase the number of products -- or stock keeping units -- we produce. Instead of 8,000, our product offering could become as large as 20,000 to 40,000. In turn, we will have to more than double our material handling capabilities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, with no return on our investment. 

"I am here today because we at Tyson believe mandatory country of origin labeling will hurt our livestock suppliers, our retail customers, and our company. We believe this measure -- which we call 'the law of unintended consequences' -- should either be repealed or made permanently voluntary. 

"Let me explain some other major reasons we oppose this law. Reason #1: Mandatory labeling is unnecessary. Tyson has some experience marketing products -- consumers identify the Tyson brand as one of the strongest and most trusted in America. We also manage more than 75 other brand names. All were created to meet specific market demands. Yet, in all of the years of market research and consumer study conducted by Tyson, we have never seen evidence of customer demand for country of origin labeling on raw commodity products. In fact, while things like 'quality' and 'food safety' are customer priorities, country of origin labeling is not. 

"Some say mandatory labeling is needed because of the consumer's right to know. However, this claim is flawed, because the law affects less than half the meat consumers buy. More than 50 percent of red meat sales are in restaurants, which are not covered by mandatory labeling. 

"In fact, all meat sold in this country must meet American food safety standards, with oversight by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service. Consumers can feel confident that our government protects them by setting the same strict food safety rules for domestic and imported products.

"Reason #2: It's too expensive. USDA, the American Meat Institute and others have analyzed the cost of implementing this measure. All of their estimates are in the billions in dollars. A recent Sparks Companies and Cattle Buyers Weekly study projects the annual cost of implementing and operating mandatory labeling for the combined beef and pork industries to be in the range of $2 to $2.5 billion. A study by economists for the U.S. pork industry and Iowa State University concluded this law will cost the hog production sector alone, an additional 10% or more than $10 a head. 

"An economist at Texas A&M, meanwhile, estimates start-up costs for just the beef industry at almost $9 billion. 

"Even if consumers are willing to pay more for meat products sold under the 'Made in the USA' label, there is no proof this willingness will be enough to offset this enormous expense. If consumers won't pay, then the supply chain will pay, resulting in reduced income for producers, packers and retailers.

"Reason #3: It will be a recordkeeping nightmare. For those who thought filing taxes was a headache, just wait for mandatory labeling. As USDA representatives recently stated in a congressional hearing in Joplin, Missouri, there is no way to give consumers credible country of origin labels without requiring documentation and trace-back to each animal's birthplace. This means roughly 140 million cattle, sheep and hogs each year will potentially need 'birth certificates' that must be verified and maintained. 

"Our company buys approximately 26 million head of cattle and hogs each year. Under the new law it is likely livestock producers will have to provide us such things as:

Third-party, verified documentation where their livestock was born and raised.
A legal affidavit with each load of livestock stating a third-party, verified audit trail is in place.
Access to their production records so we can perform random producer audits.
"For a packer like us it means:
Segregating all covered commodities by country of origin throughout the production chain.
Putting approved country of origin stickers on all covered commodities.
Maintaining records and a verifiable audit trail.
"The consequences for false documentation are high. Retailers will be subject to enormous penalties -- $10,000 per violation per day -- if federal investigators discover product is mislabeled. However, if a packer mislabels a meat product's country of origin, it also can result in a packer being in violation of other existing labeling laws, and for packers whose meat is mislabeled, it's a criminal offense that could result in jail time, fines and disbarment. 

"The bottom line is this: Mandatory country of origin meat labeling is rife with problems. If left in place, we believe it will be detrimental to livestock producers, retailers and food companies like ours. Thank you for the opportunity to comment."