Tag Archives: gerry ritz

Country of origin labeling M-COOL – The March Deadline Approaches

Alright, onto this.  I’ve realized most of the sites and people here are American so this one may hit home.  I’ve already read one blog on this and I’ve been wanting to do my take on it since the appeal deadline for the USDA is fast approaching.  I just read an article in The Western Producer that has had some of the smartest things I’ve heard yet on this whole issue,

http://www.producer.com/2012/03/u-s-report-favours-harmonization-in-meat-sector%e2%80%a9/

Finally someone’s getting this across.  And it’s part of the “Beyond the border” agreement between Canada and the United States back in December.  Finally some sense is coming back to this.  According to federal ag minister Gerry Ritz from the article,

For all intents and purposes for the beef industry, the border doesn’t exist. There is a free flow of cattle back and forth.

I want to post a comment I made on another blog a few days ago before this article came out,

I’m from Alberta and we’re on the other side of that labeling.  Labeling that’s labeled us different from the U.S beef supply.  I travel down to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado a bit.  The Rocky Mountain range.  I feel as at home there as I do in Alberta.  It’s all western traditions, western ranching, western lifestyle.  But this labeling has drawn a line through our western ranching family.  A political line on a map that runs across the rockies.  Ranching doesn’t run east/west like the border.  Ranching runs north south with it’s heart in the foothills of the rockies.  Lines that divide and define that just don’t make sense.

Alright, now COOL.  Country of origin labeling.  Actually M-COOL Mandatory country of origin labeling, which is where the problem lies.  That simple word, Mandatory.  Now I understand most of my potential readers will be Americans that may not have ever visited Canada.  Here we have labels but they’re all marketing gimmicks.  You’ll see large signs in stores, “Alberta Beef” or “Western Canadian Beef” or “Canadian Beef”.  Marketing.  Now I don’t necessary agree with that because there’s no backing that up.  Most of the one’s that advertise Alberta Beef, I’m sure aren’t 100% Alberta beef.  But at the same time I don’t think there should be a rule making them prove it.  Honestly, if consumers really want beef that you know where it comes from, buy it from a small local butcher shop that has it processed locally and can show you that.  Or even better find a rancher that sells their own beef locally.  There are lots of them here in Alberta that have their beef provincially inspected to sell within the province.  Many are quite successful at it.  Once the government gets involved all it does is drive up costs.  Cost to the packers, feedlots and producers because in the end, they’re the ones that will end up paying for all this.

If you want to label beef, label it by what it was fed.  Corn fed, grass-fed, barley fed, etc.  Because then consumers can pick based on taste rather than what pretty coloured flag is on the package.  Like I said in my reply.  I travel down to the western states quite a bit.  I eat American beef, I visit with American ranchers.  We’re all the same and the vast majority of the beef that is affected by this law is Canadian beef.  According to that article,

Moens said this bill was the first of its kind in the world.

Country-of-origin labelling is usually done to increase product value, he added, but the American law added only costs.

Sorting cattle and hogs was expensive for processors, increasing the costs of imported cattle by an estimated $45 to $59 per head while the cost for handling U.S. cattle was just an extra $1.50 per head.

The costs created a strong incentive for processors to buy only American product rather than pay for extra segregation, paperwork and labels.

That’s just not right.  And obviously the WTO saw the same.  I look forward to hearing if the USDA will appeal or like this article says maybe M-COOL will be drastically changed for the better and the U.S and Canada can move closer to a unified beef market.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

City people and cattle liners, why?

It’s articles like this that I read tonight in the Western Producer that just make me shake my head and wonder why,

Producers must provide answers

Accountability paramount | Experts call on industry to lead charge for animal welfare research

Posted Feb. 23rd, 2012by Robert Arnason

PIPESTONE, Manitoba — Canadian cattle producers are urged to pay more attention to the issue of livestock transport because consumers are certainly doing so.

Canadian Cattlemen’s Association vice-president Martin Unrau recently said at a town hall meeting in Pipestone that federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz’s office receives more letters on livestock transport than any other issue.

“This is where the consumer sees the animals,” Unrau said at the meeting, which is part of a new communication effort to help the CCA connect with cattle producers.

“We have to be accountable to the public…. The perception has to be that we look after our cattle very well in transport.”

A Ritz spokesperson confirmed that the minister’s office received more than 200 letters on the topic last year.

Unrau’s comments were made weeks after dozens of animals died when a commercial cattle truck collided with a train north of Carberry, Man. That type of incident may be a random occurrence, but the related headlines and television news stories can potentially alter the public’s perception of livestock production and transport.

Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein, who studies the transport stress of farm animals for Agriculture Canada in Lethbridge, said it’s hard to control the emotional reactions of Canadian motorists when they drive by a trailer filled with cattle, pigs or chickens.

Nevertheless, Canada’s cattle industry must be prepared to deal with the related questions and concerns, she added.

“If a customer has a question, they have a right to ask it. It’s going to look far better for the industry … if (it) can answer some of those questions honestly with some knowledge and science behind it,” she said.

One concern is the length of time that cattle are kept inside trailers.

Canadian regulations allow cattle to be transported for 52 hours without stopping for food or water, but animal welfare organizations such as the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) have argued that’s much too long and too stressful on the animals.

In its 2010 report on Canada’s farm animal transport system, WSPA referred to a Harris/Decima poll that said the public feels the same way.

The poll found that 96 percent of Canadians felt it is at least somewhat important to limit transport times to reduce animal suffering.

Unrau said reducing the maximum time inside a trailer would severely affect Manitoba cattle producers because the province is many hours from slaughter plants and major feedlot operations.

While he conceded that reducing the maximum time makes sense for animal welfare, he also said no one really knows the appropriate length of trip for a cold and vast country like Canada.

Animal welfare experts in Canada such as Schwartzkopf-Genswein are studying the issue, but there are many unanswered questions:
■ is it better to unload animals during a trip to provide food and water?
■ should food and water be provided on the trailer?

Schwartzkopf-Genswein said it may seem obvious that stopping for food and water or providing food and water onboard makes sense for animal welfare, but those questions lead to other questions.

“We’re not even sure if off loading for feed and water even helps the animals…. (Would) they even drink the water because it’s different to them?” she said.

“Is welfare better if they are provided with feed and water? Probably. But what do we do when it’s – 30 C and the water freezes?”

The livestock industry needs to find the answers or someone outside the industry may impose a set of regulations for livestock transport in Canada, Schwartzkopf-Genswein said.

200 letters? Seriously?  What is this world coming to?  Should food and water be provided on the trailer?  Honestly?  We’re taking this seriously?  Yes, I understand having a cap on the number of hours in a trailer.  Obviously you keep them in there long enough with nothing, they’ll die, so obviously.  But seriously.  It’s all a case of humanizing livestock.  These people driving in the city see a large livestock trailer packed with cattle and think that must be horrible because they imagine themselves in that situation.  Then ironically most of them pile onto a city bus or train at probably a higher density rate then the cattle liner.  Give me a break.  Why can’t people just look at it and go, you know what I don’t understand why they do that, I’m going to ask someone that’s involved in it to find out the reasons they do it that way.  Then I can make a reasonable and knowledgable decision on it.  NO!  They look at the trailer and go, That’s horrible, I’m going to write a letter to the Agriculture minister about how horrible and disturbing this is to me in my daily commute to witness this.  Maybe we should go back to cattle drives and get them writing letters that we’re tying up traffic.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: