COOL repealed

[smstonypoint]

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.

I take this statement to mean that you think, contrary to the predictions of economic theory, that increased costs of providing marketing services are absorbed by marketing firms. Here's a simplified generic illustration of an increase in the costs of providing marketing services (space, form, time, and/or ownership utility) within a partial equilibrium framework.

The farm-level demand for an agricultural product (Df) is derived by subtracting the cost of providing marketing services from the retail demand (Dr) for the product. The retail supply (Sr) is obtained by adding the cost of providing marketing services to the farm-level supply (Sf). The difference between the retail- and farm-level prices is the marketing margin.

The diagram shows the effects of an increase in the cost of providing services -- farm-level demand decreases to Df*, retail-level supply decreases to Sr*, the retail-level price increases, the farm-level price decreases, and less of the product moves through the system. Consumers and farmers lose.

The authors of the USDA study linked above found no evidence that MCOOL for beef, pork, or poultry had increased the respective retail demands for those products. Thus, the net effects of MCOOL on beef and pork found in that study are those illustrated in the diagram above.

Farmers/ranchers, packers, retailers,etc. can use available institutions for verification and certification of voluntary COOL if they think the increase in costs due to COOL will be more than offset by consumers' willingness to pay for that information in the way of higher retail prices.

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.

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.

Marketing firms are in business to make a profit. Presumably, Hershey did not made its decision in anticipation of reducing its profit.


The USDA offers a voluntary certification program for labeling non-GMO products according to USDA To Certify Non-GMO Foods With New Label : The Salt : NPR. Firms that perceive that there will be a sufficient number of consumers who will be willing to pay the higher prices that will be needed to cover the costs of verification and certification can enter the program.

Steve

 

[DFB]

The USDA offers a voluntary certification program for labeling non-GMO products according to USDA To Certify Non-GMO Foods With New Label : The Salt : NPR. Firms that perceive that there will be a sufficient number of consumers who will be willing to pay the higher prices that will be needed to cover the costs of verification and certification can enter the program.

Steve

Yes and there is the NON GMO project also mentioned in that article has been doing verification for a while.

Who's statement is that that says the consumer shall bear the manufactures cost of certifying their product?

 

[smstonypoint]

Who's statement is that that says the consumer shall bear the manufactures cost of certifying their product?

Mine, based on 50+ years studying economics, including reading Adam Smith:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Steve

 

[jerrybob]

I take this statement to mean that you think, contrary to the predictions of economic theory, that increased costs of providing marketing services are absorbed by marketing firms. Here's a simplified generic illustration of an increase in the costs of providing marketing services (space, form, time, and/or ownership utility) within a partial equilibrium framework.

View attachment 452346



Steve

At the corner of SF and DF is a great little tavern that has many beers on tap........it's great to just sit around and talk about this stuff!:laughing: