OP
DFB
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Messages
- 2,923
- Location
- Southern VT, Southern ME
- Tractor
- John Deere 4100 HST /410 FEL, R4s
Pardon my language (economics), but there are both benefits and costs associated with mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL).
Although there was no consensus, the majority of studies predicted that the costs of MCOOL for beef and pork would exceed the benefits.
From the summary:
The 2009 ruling led to labels such as "Product of U.S. and Canada" showing up on a package of beef, for example.
The 2013 ruling required that same package to read more specifically,"Born in Canada, Raised and Slaughtered in the U.S."
... the specificity of "Born, Raised and Slaughtered" stages in 2013 ... means additional costs with additional precision, ..... an incremental additional cost, but it isn't as large as the original cost to be in compliance.
You know those same talking points are used by the processed food manufacturing industry in the GM food ingredient debate. IMO the cost to the consumer in their right TO KNOW what they are consuming whether it be genetically modified, foreign sourced, environmentally destructive either domestically or worldwide, or even HEALTHY is higher than whatever costs need to absorbed in a company's profit line.
Any additional cost for virtually any business is most always meet with resistance instead of compliance.
Funny though how certain ones quickly change the attitude when sales begin to diminish because of an unyielding stance thru consumer rejection or boycott.
Hershey for one just announced they would only use cane sugar and no longer source sugar beet sugar which is virtually 100% GM.
The cost of labeling is too much is always the argument yet look at certain manufacturer's and they constantly change packaging routinely...think cereal boxes or snacks to meet seasonal marketing or to increase their sales.
Voluntary COOL is possible for beef, per the full study:
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for labels on meat products. FSIS labeling policy allows fresh muscle cuts of beef and lamb to be identified as "U.S. beef" or "U.S. lamb" so long as the statement is truthful. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) offers a voluntary program to officially certify that livestock, meat, and meat products originate from the United States and are eligible to be labeled as U.S. beef. The voluntary program certifies that livestock and meat products have been produced from livestock born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. In effect, USDA has offered to overcome the major stumbling block for labels: verification and certification. To certify U.S. origin, AMS audits production and processing records.
And because satisfactory mandatory food labeling is not required in this country (though a large consensus of consumers have asked for it) A LOT of food manufacturers are already doing this right now using their own dollar aka profit margin and are paying for certifications because they do perceive it is a win with consumers and not a loss for them.
Using third party program certifications on their product labels has only increased the division between an informed consumer and a part of industrial food not willing to change
Yup there two sides to every debate