"M" COOL enforcement

[~SH~]

Sand: "So a carcass can become 300 packages, so what? I'll guarantee you there is a label on all 300 today."

Not a label requiring proof of birth origination. LOL!

Still the diverting illusionist you always were.

At some point you have to admit that you supported a mandatory traceback system because only a complete fool would think you could prove where a package of ribeyes were born without a traceback system.


~SH~

[RobertMac]

[PORKER]

ScoringAg is the leading traceback and recordkeeping company in fish and shellfish when done by computers.

Also COOL and the SUPPLY Chain traceback

The legislation requires records to be maintained by everyone in the supply chain for one year and available within five days if the USDA requests it.
Additional legislation introduced earlier this year would require COOL information to be extended to include product ingredients, which could be detailed on manufacturers’ Web sites. According to the AdWeek article, this would mean “for the first time, consumers would see the extent to which many venerable American brands outsource ingredients around the world.”

The legislation was introduced in April by Reps. John Dingell and Bart Stupak, both Michigan Democrats and leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

[PORKER]

USDA's first-year cost estimates to implement the law for retailers and their intermediary suppliers like packers with their suppliers like order buyers, salebarns, and stockyards are higher with the industry's actual expenses based on FMI case studies involving more than 1,000 stores:

USDA Estimate
Retailer cost per store: $1,530

Supplier cost per company: $1,890

Actual Cost
Retailer cost per store: $9,000-$16,000

Supplier cost per company: $200,000-$250,000

Some are not convinced that the COOL labeling system is going to work under the current law. "It's just going to be a train wreck," said.Jeremy Russell, communications director for the NMA. Russell explained that there are serious flaws in the law that will result in large numbers of livestock that will be virtually "unmarketable."

Grassley said that he would be willing to look at some changes, but only if "people are willing to accept the concept that consumers ought to know where their food comes from — just like they do if their clothes are imported."

Harkin, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, obviously has a lot of influence on the fate of COOL. He said Wednesday that he is not planning any changes to the current law.

"We have come to a time where we really do need to know where all our food is coming from," Harkin told Iowa Independent. "I'm sure there will be some efforts to water down or change COOL, so it's important the focus remain on keeping COOL intact in the farm bill but also keeping the pressure on USDA to write a common-sense and workable final rule."
The interim-final rule has many holes to fill.

[mrj]

Yet, with all the "need to know" they exempt small grocery stores, food service, and restaurants.......leaving MAYBE five percent of imported beef to be labelled!

THank you R-CALF....for nothing but costs and false perception in consumers minds that our food will magically be made be safer.......the little bit that has a COOL label, anyway.

mrj

[Tex]

[mrj]

Tex, didn't you notice that it doesn't take effect till Sept. 30?

We plan on making money from age and source verification of our cattle.

Won't it take some time for the retailers affected by COOL to see what their costs are and drop the prices they pay for beef?

mrj

[Tex]

[PORKER]

Country of Origin Rule for Foods Draws Criticism From Hill
By Aliya Sternstein, CQ Staff -- Congressional Quarterly Today, August 6, 2008 Wednesday


Advertisement

Sponsored Links
A proposed rule for country of origin labeling is meeting resistance from food safety advocates in Congress as the Sept. 30 deadline for implementation approaches.

The Agriculture Department's interim final rule, issued July 28, does not meet the requirements in the 2008 farm law, said one of the House's primary food safety watchdogs, Agriculture Appropriations Chairman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

The law (PL 110-246) requires retailers to label the source of many foods, including beef, chicken, produce and pecans, by Sept. 30. But the Agriculture Department (USDA) plan for implementing the law "does not make sense," DeLauro said.

"Under the proposed rule, for example, if peas are frozen and bagged, they are covered and to be labeled. If carrots are frozen and bagged, they too are to be labeled. However, if you put the peas and carrots in the same bag, they're not covered and will not be labeled," she said.

In the proposed rule, covered foods do not need labels if they are part of a processed food item or combined with at least one other covered food. A "processed food item" is defined as a retail item derived from a covered commodity that has undergone specific processing -- such as cooking, curing, smoking or emulsifying -- resulting "in a change in the character of the" covered food.

Examples of exempt foods under the proposal include corned beef, teriyaki flavored pork loin, roasted peanuts, breaded chicken tenders, fruit cups, and salad mixes with lettuce and a dressing packet.

The interim final rule "changes the definition of a processed food item such that a greater number of products are now exempt from" country of origin labeling requirements, according to USDA documents.

After receiving comments, the department decided on "excluding products that would be more costly and troublesome for retailers and suppliers to provide country of origin information," the proposal states.

The new processed food definition was based on historical precedent -- the existing fish rule exempts seafood medleys, breaded shrimp and marinated fish fillets -- and extensive input from stakeholders during an initial comment period, said Agricultural Marketing Service Administrator Lloyd Day.

He said the exemption for food services is expressly provided for in the farm law, which defines such an as establishment as "a restaurant, cafeteria, lunch room, food stand, saloon, tavern, bar, lounge, or other similar facility operated as an enterprise engaged in the business of selling food to the public."

"Congress had a very prescriptive piece of legislation and we are implementing it based on what they have written," Day said. "If folks wanted different things covered in legislation, they had opportunity to do it."

Scott Openshaw, the Grocery Manufacturers of America's communications director, noted that all packaged or processed foods imported into the United States are already required to display country or origin markings in accordance with Customs regulations.

But Senate Agriculture Committee aides said they take issue with the department overextending exceptions for food service establishments and processed foods.

Restaurants, cafeterias, delicatessens, food stands, bars and services that set out ingredients for consumers to concoct their own take-home meals would be exempted from sticker requirements, according to the rule.

Overall, "USDA's rule is long overdue and an important step to getting product labeled. Although some details of the rule still need to be worked out, consumers will not have to wait much longer to know where their food comes from," said Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Aides said they hope the agency will modify the rule before it takes effect.

A spokesman for Bart Stupak, D-Mich. -- who has held nine food safety hearings this Congress as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee -- said it seems there are sizeable gaps in the labeling of processed food in the proposed rule.

"Finding a way to exempt as many foods as possible is not what Congress had in mind," the spokesman said, noting that Stupak has not yet thoroughly vetted the directive.

Stupak and full committee Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., are finalizing draft legislation that may contain a processed food labeling provision, as part of a massive overhaul of the Food and Drug Administration.

The Agriculture Department has been slow in rolling out the program, first enacted in 2002 (PL 107-171), partly because Congress has changed it over the years. Lawmakers twice postponed the start date for full operation, and altered which specific foods would be covered. Only fish has been required to carry country of origin labeling since 2005.

Source: CQ Today Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill. ©2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2008 Congressional Quarterly, Inc.

[Tex]

Leave it to the USDA to show how incompetent they are. You will not be disappointed in this regard.

I am glad we have a little oversight that points this out. Go Bart Stupak!!!!

I bet he wishes he could fire some of these fools. I sure wish he could.

[Oldtimer]

[PORKER]

A spokesman for Bart Stupak, D-Mich. -- who has held nine food safety hearings this Congress as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee -- said it seems there are sizeable gaps in the labeling of processed food in the proposed rule.... COOL LAW

"Finding a way to exempt as many foods as possible is not what Congress had in mind,"

The proposed rule for country of origin labeling COOL is meeting resistance from food safety advocates in Congress as the Sept. 30 deadline for implementation approaches.

The Agriculture Department's interim final rule, issued July 28, does not meet the requirements in the 2008 farm law, said one of the House's primary food safety watchdogs, Agriculture Appropriations Chairman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

The law is being altered on which specific foods would be covered by COOL , that was in the original bill passed by the congress in the 2008 Farm Bill mandate. Senate Agriculture Committee aides said they take issue with the department overextending exceptions for food service establishments and processed foods.
Could this be the way that they intend to kill the COOL law internally ????