COOL repealed

davesl708 · Dec 30, 2015

MMagis said:
To be fair, that was likely the fault of the retailer you bought it from. Most, if not all seafood like that is frozen almost immediately and shipped. Guess it could have happened during shipping as well, but the same could happen with domestic seafood. I try to only buy domestic as well, but it's no more guaranteed than Asian.

If you are buying frozen fish look at Van Kampf. They catch, process box and freeze onboard the ship. When they return to port the pallets are ready for the shelves. Not sure about the other suppliers methods.

dmccarty · Dec 30, 2015

MMagis said:
To be fair, that was likely the fault of the retailer you bought it from. Most, if not all seafood like that is frozen almost immediately and shipped. Guess it could have happened during shipping as well, but the same could happen with domestic seafood. I try to only buy domestic as well, but it's no more guaranteed than Asian.

No, the smell from the shrimp was not of rotten food. The smell was of sewage. This has happened to us a couple of times. It was so bad we would not feed it to the dog.

I don't think we could buy US seafood the smelled of sewage when thawed. Even frozen the shrimp did not smell quite right and it go worse when thawed. :confused2:

Later,
Dan

DFB · Dec 30, 2015

Asian shrimp farming is scary!

DFB · Dec 30, 2015

My ex wife had relatives who owned a seafood restaurant and fish market located on the Massachusetts Cape for many years. He was unbearably critical of the quality fresh seafood and had her trained too (she used to work there.) I couldn't barely buy anything in any market fresh or frozen without her turning her nose up at it.

DrRod · Dec 30, 2015

I recently made my first visit to an H Mart -- Asian grocery. It is amazing the variety of fish they have, like who eats beltfish [very long and thin]. And they have big tanks of live fish -- long a tradition in Asia but new to us. In any case, I think its fresh.

smstonypoint · Dec 30, 2015

Pardon my language (economics), but there are both benefits and costs associated with mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL).

Before retiring in 2007, I taught an undergraduate course in agricultural marketing. MCOOL has been a contentious subject, especially for beef and pork, and I covered the topic the last three years or so that I taught the course. Before my retirement, I had at least a nodding acquaintance with the economics literature on MCOOL. Although there was no consensus, the majority of studies predicted that the costs of MCOOL for beef and pork would exceed the benefits.

I haven't kept up with the literature, but I am aware of a recent USDA-sponsored study of MCOOL for beef and pork conducted by ag. economists at Kansas State and the University of Missouri: http://www.agri-pulse.com/Uploaded/USDACOOLEconomicReport.pdf. A brief summary is available at https://kstateagecon.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/report-finds-mandatory-cool-causes-meat-industry-consumer-losses/.

From the summary:

The researchers used economic models to quantify price and meat quantity estimates over the next 10 years based on the 2009 and 2013 rulings. They compared those findings to 2008, which provided estimates if MCOOL had never occurred.

..... the beef industry's 2009 impact was an economic loss of $8.07 billion over 10 years ....for the pork industry, ..... a $1.31 billion loss.

.... approximately 16 percent of pork and about one-third of beef production is covered by MCOOL, as some products such as those sold in restaurants are not required to bear the label. MCOOL covered beef would have to see at least a 6.8 percent increase and covered pork a 5.6 percent increase in demand to avoid an adverse economic impact.

Results also showed consumers to experience net losses $5.98 billion for beef and $1.79 billion for pork over 10 years due to higher retail prices and lower retail quantities available every year.

The researchers had to study 2013 separately because the MCOOL policy changed. 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.

The additional impact of the 2013 rule was another $494 million loss to the beef industry and $403 million loss to the pork industry over 10 years. Demand increases would need to be at least another 0.4 percent for beef and 1.6 percent for pork on top of the 2009 estimates to avoid an adverse economic impact.

Consumer losses were another $378 million for beef and $428 million for pork based on the 2013 revision.

The poultry industry .....was the only one to show a gain. Those gains for 10 years were $753 million for 2009 and an incremental addition of $67 million for 2013. The gains, however, were narrow compared to the billions in losses to the beef and pork sectors that mean a total loss for the meat industry as a whole.

The main reason is (the poultry sector) doesn't have the same cost of compliance, so at the retail level there is some shift away from more expensive beef and pork prices over to poultry products, .... a pull for more production on the poultry side, and the poultry industry benefits.

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.

Steve

;

Mace Canute · Dec 31, 2015

jerrybob said:
I hope my Canadian whiskey is OK........I would hate to get sick.

Speaking of Canadian whiskey, have you tried Gimli's Crown Royal? Supposed to be good whiskey.

jerrybob · Dec 31, 2015

Mace Canute said:
Speaking of Canadian whiskey, have you tried Gimli's Crown Royal? Supposed to be good whiskey.

Have had plenty of crown royal over the years.....good stuff. Haven't had the Gimli's.....will have to try. I actually like Black Velvet special reserve.......very nice with just ice!

DFB · Dec 31, 2015

My Dad always drank VO. :laughing:

Muhammad · Dec 31, 2015

smstonypoint said:
Pardon my language (economics), but there are both benefits and costs associated with mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL).

Before retiring in 2007, I taught an undergraduate course in agricultural marketing. MCOOL has been a contentious subject, especially for beef and pork, and I covered the topic the last three years or so that I taught the course. Before my retirement, I had at least a nodding acquaintance with the economics literature on MCOOL. Although there was no consensus, the majority of studies predicted that the costs of MCOOL for beef and pork would exceed the benefits.

I haven't kept up with the literature, but I am aware of a recent USDA-sponsored study of MCOOL for beef and pork conducted by ag. economists at Kansas State and the University of Missouri: http://www.agri-pulse.com/Uploaded/USDACOOLEconomicReport.pdf. A brief summary is available at https://kstateagecon.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/report-finds-mandatory-cool-causes-meat-industry-consumer-losses/.

From the summary:

Voluntary COOL is possible for beef, per the full study:

Steve

;