May 26, 2013

NCBA Reacts to USDA’s Final Ruling on Country of Origin Labeling

The following is a statement from National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) President Scott George, a Cody, Wyo. dairy and cattle producer, regarding today’s announcement that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a final rule regarding the Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling Rule (MCOOL).

“We are deeply disappointed with this short-sighted action by the USDA. Our largest trading partners have already said that these provisions will not bring the United States into compliance with our WTO obligations and will result in increased discrimination against imported products and in turn retaliatory tariffs or other authorized trade sanctions. As we said in comments submitted to USDA, ‘any retaliation against U.S. beef would be devastating for our producers.’ While trying to make an untenable mandate fit with our international trade obligations, USDA chose to set up U.S. cattle producers for financial losses. Moreover, this rule will place a greater record-keeping burden on producers, feeders and processors through the born, raised and harvested label.”

“As cattlemen and women, we do not oppose voluntary labeling as a marketing tool to distinguish product and add value. However, USDA is not the entity that we want marketing beef, and on its face, a label that says ‘harvested’ is unappealing to both consumers and cattle producers.”

 

Share

Major Deadline Looming for the U.S. Beef Industry

Today is a major day for U.S. beef producers as it is the deadline for the U.S. to respond on Country of Origin Labeling and come into compliance with WTO rulings.  If the U.S. fails to do so, it becomes a target for retaliatory trade practices, primarily from Canada and Mexico, a move that could affect all U.S. consumers and producers.

Country of Origin Labeling became mandatory in the U.S. in 2008 and was designed as a marketing tool to provide consumers information on the source of the beef they purchase.  It was not intended as a food safety measure but competeing countries have complained to the WTO that the labeling is inheritantly unfair and treated foreign products less favorably than domestic products.  The World Trade Organizaiton issued a split decision in November of 2011 on the complaint by Mexico and Canada, affirming the right of the U.S. to label products in order to inform consumer but at the same time finding the method that it was done to be discriminatory.  After a series of appeals by the U.S. Trade Office and the Obama Administration, USDA must restructure the labeling process.  USDA has issued a revised three-tier system, a system the Office of Management and Budget expects to have a $100 million impact on the industry.  This system has not yet been adopted.

If this system is not adopted by today, Mexico and Canada are open to taking measures necessary to ensure compliance, including the use of retaliatory tariffs among other actions.  The Canadian Trade Minister Ed Fast and the Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz are reported to be working toward having the Canadian Government publish a list of possible U.S. Products that could be a target of tariffs should the U.S. fails to become compliant.  The cost of these retaliatory tarriffs from Canada are expected to run up to around $1.1 billion.  Mexico is expected to be considering similar measures.

Share

Efforts Underway to Limit Confusion on Names of Beef Cuts

A flat iron steak by any other name is still a tender and delicious beef steak; but the fact that it has also been called other names, including top blade steak and top chuck steak, can be confusing to consumers. That is why Ron Frederick, executive director of the South Dakota Beef Industry Council (SDBIC), is pleased to see standardization underway in the naming and labeling of beef cuts.

Frederick says significant updates to the Uniform Retail Meat Identity Standards (URMIS) system were approved early this year after the Beef Checkoff, in partnership with the National Pork Board, spent more than 18 months conducting research with consumers to identify what, specifically, will help them better understand the beef and pork cuts they see every day at the meat case. The resulting changes to beef nomenclature and package labeling will provide standardized cut names and basic information on fresh beef preparation.

It’s a change that SDSU Meat Specialist Dr. Keith Underwood says should make for a more consumer-friendly beef purchase experience. “Research has shown that if consumers are confused about a cut of meat, instead of trying a new value cut like the flat iron, for example, they’ll go back to purchasing the three or four cuts they are familiar with and with which they’ve had success in the past,” explains Underwood. “Confusion is a roadblock that can keep them from branching out and trying new cuts.”

In addition to simplifying the name cuts of beef, Underwood says a recommended new label format that will clearly and concisely display the name cuts of beef and include basic use and preparation information is a plus for consumers and beef producers alike.

“There are some cuts that may not react best to dry heat cooking like grilling or broiling,” he says, “but might need to be braised or are great in a stir-fry, for example. Helping the consumer know how best to utilize and cook that specific beef cut will help provide them with a much more positive eating experience.”

Underwood says that while the URMIS standards are not mandated, he expects larger retailers to come on board more quickly, while smaller retailers may take longer to transition to the new labeling and name standards. To assist retailers, he says the Beef Checkoff, Pork Checkoff and American Lamb Board are funding www.meattrack.com, a website providing information and tools for retailers. “It provides a list of adoptive common names approved for use under the standards and provides some examples of labels and other resources for retailers and training tools as they transition,” explains Underwood.

Concludes Frederick, “These new standards and the resources to help implement them are examples of the ongoing efforts of the industry to make needed changes at the meat counter so shoppers can be more confident about the beef they purchase.”

Share