• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

AMI cries wolf

Sandhusker

Well-known member
AMI Cries Wolf Over Labeling Reforms




Billings, Mont. – The nation’s largest meatpacking trade association, the American Meat Institute (AMI), which represents the interests of importers of large volumes of foreign meat and livestock, continues to masquerade as a representative of U.S. farmers and ranchers in order to further its political agenda.

In a full-page advertisement in the World Pork Expo supplement published in the June 2 edition of Iowa Farmer Today, AMI attempts to scare away U.S. farmers and ranchers from mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL), a law passed in 2002 but effectively delayed by multinational meatpackers for all commodities except fish and shellfish. AMI’s advertisement states, “COOL: A Threat to Farmers, Bring Your Lawmakers In Out Of The Cold.”

“AMI does not want to label beef or pork with a country-of-origin label because it’s not in their financial self-interests to allow consumers to choose from what country they want their beef and pork produced,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard.

“Instead, it is in the meatpackers’ self-interests to continue sourcing cheaper imported cattle, hogs and meat, and passing it off to unsuspecting consumers as if the meat were produced right here in the United States,” Bullard emphasized. “We know AMI is on the opposite side of consumers and farmers when it comes to COOL, but AMI’s blatant attempt to scare farmers and consumers by disguising itself as a representative of farmers’ interests is repulsive.”

Less than two weeks ago, R-CALF USA sent a letter to members of Congress to inform them that AMI and other meatpacking and processing representatives falsely claimed to represent the interests of a vast majority of livestock producers via a letter they sent to Congress to urge the defeat of farmer-led initiatives to make needed competition reforms in the U.S. livestock market.

“The packers and processors are not farmers or ranchers,” Bullard said. “It’s high time that AMI put an end to its deceitful practices and owned up to the fact that it is in its industry’s self-interests to purchase livestock at the lowest possible prices – whether that livestock is produced in the U.S. or under unknown conditions on foreign soil.

“This difference in economic interests could — and should — result in a healthy competition between farmers and packers, but this competition can’t work if AMI continues its deceitful tactics,” he asserted.

Bullard said AMI’s anti-COOL advertisement is deceptive and misleading, making claims that have already been discounted by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in a June 2003 report. For example, AMI resurrected inflated USDA cost estimates for COOL that were later called into question by the GAO. The GAO found that the USDA estimates used by AMI - a $3.9 billion dollar price tag for COOL, including $2 billion for recordkeeping – were based on assumptions that are “questionable and not well supported.”

Additionally, AMI falsely threatens livestock producers in its June 2 ad by stating, “Third party verification will be required and random audits will occur,” and that producers could be liable for the $10,000 fine levied by USDA for a willful violation of the law.

Neither the statute, nor USDA’s proposed COOL rule requires third-party verification. In fact, the interim final fish rule expressly states that the law does not require third-party audits and specifies that a downstream supplier or retailer need not require third-party verification or third-party audits of an upstream supplier’s origin information in order to avoid liability. Moreover, there is no legal basis for AMI’s threat that producers could bear the cost of a fine levied on intermediary suppliers or retailers for willfully violating the COOL law. Only a willful violation of the COOL law is subject to a fine, and only following a 30-day period during which the violation can be corrected.

Another misleading claim by AMI is that COOL would allow imports to gain a competitive advantage because imported products already contain labels as to the products’ origin.

“This claim is nonsensical because the labels on imported meat are generally lost after the product enters the United States,” Bullard pointed out. “The GAO addressed this issue in 2003 and stated, ‘we found that meat packers and processors did not routinely maintain country-of-origin information on imported meat as required by the Tariff Act.’”

Bullard said AMI’s action of first trying to pass itself off as a representative of farmers and then its action of trying to scare producers into supporting its political agenda are irresponsible and unbecoming of a trade association for any segment of the U.S. meat supply chain if that association wants to maintain any level of credibility.

“AMI needs to raise its standards so important issues such as COOL can be discussed on their merits, not on the basis of deceit,” Bullard said. “R-CALF USA is urging farmers and ranchers not to heed AMI’s cry of ‘Wolf!’ COOL levels the playing field by informing consumers of where their food is actually produced. We know COOL will take a tremendous amount of market power away from meatpackers, but COOL will result in benefits to both producers and consumers.”

# # #
 

PORKER

Well-known member
We know COOL will take a tremendous amount of market power away from meatpackers, but COOL will result in benefits to both producers and consumers.”

FOOD SAFETY is not in AMI's agenda as they are not interested in letting everyone know where they purchase beef for resale an processing whether HACCP and tracback is followed or not. Not Even the CONSUMER !
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Time to consider restaurant COOL? - June 2007 - June 5, 2007
Time to consider restaurant COOL?
Seafood fraud touches everyone in the industry, from retailers to restaurants to processors to distributors. Industry veterans know this, and some, but not all, newcomers are quick to learn the various ways some companies make an extra buck. Product substitution, false weights, overglazing — it’s all driven by competition. This issue’s Top Story, “Tricks of the trade,” by Assistant Editor James Wright discusses the latest attempts to bring seafood fraud under wraps, including the use of DNA testing and the National Fisheries Institute’s Economic Integrity Program.

One topic mentioned in the article is country-of-origin labeling for seafood sold at foodservice outlets. At first I denounced COOL for restaurants as a logistical nightmare. Of the 935,000 restaurants in the United States, each one selling seafood would have to mark its menu with species origins. Every seafood company selling to the foodservice market would have to ensure its product is properly labeled. While it’s become the norm for many upscale chefs to tout the origins of their seafood, the mom-and-pop restaurants and casual-dining chains typically do not. Policing a foodservice COOL program would invite chaos.

But something has to be done to stop the continuous black eye the entire industry sustains when one vendor or restaurant gets caught cheating. Maybe if country-of-origin labeling for seafood was extended to foodservice it would create a more level playing field and the deceptive urge would be reduced? I’m sure COOL at retail has not eliminated all fraud — it was never intended as an anti-fraud measure, only to differentiate domestic from imported seafood. Actions must be taken beyond “using only trusted vendors” — the typical advice given to seafood buyers, even from the government. If purchasing seafood by that motto hasn’t curbed the problem by now, it never will.
 
Top