Sandhusker
Well-known member
Rod, "They handle it on their own utilizing their own ID programs and databases, as it should be."
No, you misunderstood my question. How are those other countries handling the cross-border cattle?
Rod, "So right back at'cha: If you truly believe this is a food safety concern, why should another country handle YOUR food safety?"
I guess I don't understand your question. And BTW, I see it as a food safety issue, a marketing issue, and a survivability of the industry issue. I also feel any country can do whatever they feel is in their best interests.
Rod, "Because the seafood COOL didn't. US fishermen are on record stating that they wish it had never come into existence due to reduced profits."
You sure about that? Here's what I found;
"For instance, in March, the Food Marketing Institute, a trade organization, said seafood labeling had cost 10 times more than original estimates and had failed to increase sales of U.S. seafood. But the United Fishermen of Alaska tell a different story, saying origin labeling has increased demand and prices for their wild salmon."
"Meanwhile, the Food Marketing Institute said last week that mandatory country of origin labeling for seafood is failing to deliver the benefits promised by the law because it has not increased sales of U.S. seafood and cost more to implement than USDA had estimated. FMI also contended that -- based on case studies of its members -- the cost in the first year per store has been $9,000 to $16,000, compared to the $1,530 that USDA had estimated. The cost for suppliers was $200,000 to $250,000 compared with the $1,890 USDA estimated, the group said. FMI suggested the rules be replaced with an industry-led marketing program. Mark Vinsel, executive director of the United Fishermen of Alaska, said Alaska salmon had been eligible for trade adjustment assistance because of import competition. But country-of-origin labeling for seafood had been so effective that prices of fresh salmon covered by the labeling law have gone up so much that those fishermen are no longer eligible for payments, while the price of species that go into canned salmon is so low those fishermen still qualify for payments. Vinsel also said the "wild caught" and "farm-raised" labels have been vital in informing consumers. A spokeswoman for the Southern Shrimp Alliance said it supports mandatory labeling and that labeling works "hand-in-hand" with marketing programs. HELLO......CHECKOFF.....
No, you misunderstood my question. How are those other countries handling the cross-border cattle?
Rod, "So right back at'cha: If you truly believe this is a food safety concern, why should another country handle YOUR food safety?"
I guess I don't understand your question. And BTW, I see it as a food safety issue, a marketing issue, and a survivability of the industry issue. I also feel any country can do whatever they feel is in their best interests.
Rod, "Because the seafood COOL didn't. US fishermen are on record stating that they wish it had never come into existence due to reduced profits."
You sure about that? Here's what I found;
"For instance, in March, the Food Marketing Institute, a trade organization, said seafood labeling had cost 10 times more than original estimates and had failed to increase sales of U.S. seafood. But the United Fishermen of Alaska tell a different story, saying origin labeling has increased demand and prices for their wild salmon."
"Meanwhile, the Food Marketing Institute said last week that mandatory country of origin labeling for seafood is failing to deliver the benefits promised by the law because it has not increased sales of U.S. seafood and cost more to implement than USDA had estimated. FMI also contended that -- based on case studies of its members -- the cost in the first year per store has been $9,000 to $16,000, compared to the $1,530 that USDA had estimated. The cost for suppliers was $200,000 to $250,000 compared with the $1,890 USDA estimated, the group said. FMI suggested the rules be replaced with an industry-led marketing program. Mark Vinsel, executive director of the United Fishermen of Alaska, said Alaska salmon had been eligible for trade adjustment assistance because of import competition. But country-of-origin labeling for seafood had been so effective that prices of fresh salmon covered by the labeling law have gone up so much that those fishermen are no longer eligible for payments, while the price of species that go into canned salmon is so low those fishermen still qualify for payments. Vinsel also said the "wild caught" and "farm-raised" labels have been vital in informing consumers. A spokeswoman for the Southern Shrimp Alliance said it supports mandatory labeling and that labeling works "hand-in-hand" with marketing programs. HELLO......CHECKOFF.....
I guess not all of us are cut from the same cloth though huh?