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

Canadians Want Canadian M-COOL

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
Some progressive Canadian producers can now see the value in identifying their product- truthfully labeling it for the consumers- and marketing and promoting it...

Telling the consumers the truth on the origin of their food products should be an "automatic" in every country of the world- while only the US and Canada don't have it- and only a few old Canucks who think they can go back to the "status quo" of 2003 are fighting it....

And they're too dumb/bullheaded to see that it ain't gonna happen--2003 will not exist again....

Farmers seek clear definition of 'Canadian'

Last Updated: Thursday, January 24, 2008 | 5:06 PM AT

CBC News - Canada



Labelling on packaged foods will be on the minds of farmers at P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture meetings Friday in Summerside.



Executive director Ian MacIsaac told CBC News Thursday that members will vote on a number of resolutions concerning foreign competition, including asking the government for clear labelling of what is Canadian and what is not.


"We want a better definition of what is product of Canada," said MacIsaac.



"We want it to say, 'Grown in Canada,' and we want it to say 100 per cent of that product that is in the can or in the package was actually grown in Canada."



Currently, product of Canada labelling refers to the value of what is in the package, and because packages can sometimes be more valuable than the produce, a label reading product of Canada can be affixed to food grown in other countries.


The federation will also discuss levelling the field with respect to foreign competition when it comes to food safety standards.



"We want the government to realize, either we are able to use the same production techniques as people outside Canada, or those products aren't allowed in our grocery store shelves," said MacIsaac.



Given hard times for many traditional Island farm products, the meeting will also focus on new opportunities for producers, including new crops such as canola, soybeans or growing sugar beets to be used for producing ethanol.



MacIssac said there are also resolutions calling for more government assistance to help farmers through the current financial crisis.



cbc.ca
Click to expand...
 
"We want the government to realize, either we are able to use the same production techniques as people outside Canada, or those products aren't allowed in our grocery store shelves," said MacIsaac."

Shades of protectionism? :shock:
 
We want a better definition of what is product of Canada," said MacIsaac.

****You can't retire RFID tags after slaughter an then if you have to prove that product originated in Canada after 5 years being frozen and canned and setting on the shelf. You will need a Audit Trail verification system. Europe now requires 10 year record retention.

"We want it to say, 'Grown in Canada,' and we want it to say 100 per cent of that product that is in the can or in the package was actually grown in Canada."

**** You are going to need a better recordkeeping system then anyone has now.
 
McDonald's call for animal traceback system

By Mike McGinnis
Agriculture Online Markets Editor


• NCBA seeks voluntary animal traceback system • National animal ID timeline
animal traceback system
Despite McDonald's Corporation, the largest U.S. beef buyer, calling for a national animal traceback system, beef industry leaders oppose any mandatory measure.

On Friday, Gary Johnson, senior director worldwide supply chain management at McDonald's Corp., said traceback of beef to cattle is the foundation of the food industry, which depends totally on the trust of consumers for its future operations, according to the Dow Jones newswire.

Animal traceability is the most important thing the cattle industry can do to earn and keep the trust of consumers, Johnson said during a speech at the World Meat Congress in Australia.
Because of its purchasing power, the worldwide restaurant chain's call for a traceback system could carry a lot of weight.

Johnson's comments didn't include whether the system should be mandatory or voluntary for producers.

In the event of an animal disease outbreak such as BSE, or "mad cow disease," the government would be able to use the traceback system to find any infected animals.

There seems to be widespread agreement within the livestock industry that a traceback system is needed. The issue of whether the government or private industry should oversee the program is what concerns producers. COOL law has to have traceback in order to do audit's for source verification .
Also Sao Paulo-based JBS expects European Union restrictions on Brazilian beef imports to boost global prices for the commodity, according to guidance posted on the Brazilian stock regulator's Web site.

JBS also said the EU limits will increase sales from its Australian unit and of processed beef products, more than offsetting a loss in profitability for its Brazilian beef exports to the region. The reason is the Brazinian SISBOV animal database can not do tracebacks.
To contact the reporter on this story: Carlos Caminada in Sao Paulo at [email protected] .
 
International traceability has brought down Brazil's beef industry,right to it's knees. No traceability will get you nowhere today with the consumer. Brazil has lost it's bet that no one would notice that they were lieing about their SISBOV cattle database. This day and age country's and governments are being preasured to follow HACCP and welfare regulations.

With the way the video was shown yesterday on this site ,it proves that government isn't checking what it demands. Recordkeeping systems can catch this kind of animal welfare abuse.It's done by camera surveliance of the processor or food handler moving data directly to a database so that the next owner of that product can be assured of quality, welfare , and records that can be audited 24/7. This is happening with the likes of the Burger Kings, Mac Donalds, etc. as records transparency has come about because of the same reasons and problems we have had with seller's not stating all of the true facts . Just look at the pet food problems we have had all in name of profit . Our www.scoringsystem.com products prove every day that true and complient records will always pay. The COOL law will prove again that the truefullness of food origins that we all eat and enjoy will finnally become fact .
 
International traceability has brought down Brazil's beef industry,right to it's knees. No traceability will get you nowhere today with the consumer. Brazil has lost it's bet that no one would notice that they were lieing about their SISBOV cattle database.

You hit the bullseye on that statement. If we had been ready we could have taken over in the EU beef supply like Austrailia took over the Japan and South Korea beef supply after BSE. What ? No one was ready? Well maybe Canada can USE the SCORINGAG database to sell the EU 1,300,000 tons of beef.
 
Consumer Reports Investigates the Truth Behind Labels that Imply 'Made In the USA'



YONKERS, N.Y., Feb. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Whether motivated by
patriotism or recent health and safety alerts regarding goods made abroad,
consumers may look to find domestic-made goods, but finding a product's
homeland on the label isn't always easy, says Consumer Reports.



From a can of Pennsylvania Dutchman branded sliced mushrooms that claim
to be "America's Favorite Mushrooms," but are actually a product of China,
to the packaging for a padlock branded "American Lock," which is assembled
in Mexico, Consumer Reports finds that simply implying a product is made in
the United States is certainly no guarantee.



"Generally, imports must be labeled with country of origin, but that
alone doesn't always tell the product's whole story," said Tod Marks,
senior editor at Consumer Reports.

For example, CR found a package of Chicken of the Sea Pink Salmon that
claims the contents are "Premium Wild-Caught Alaskan" pink salmon, but the
product of origin label indicated it's a product of Thailand. The Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute explains the salmon is indeed from U.S. waters,
but it takes a detour to Thailand for processing and packaging before
returning home for sale. Under the FTC rules the packaging must indicate
the fish's detour.



CR found labeling rules can be daunting. The context of the claim and
whether it's likely to mislead a reasonable consumer are key factors,
according to the Federal Trade Commission, which is responsible for
protecting consumers from false and deceptive claims. Consumer Reports
identifies what to look for:



A direct "made in the USA" claim means that "all or virtually all"
significant parts and processing are of U.S. origin. But "qualified" claims
are also allowed, including "made in the USA of U.S. and imported parts."
Companies must be able to back up either type of claim. In general, imports
must be labeled with their country of origin. Among fresh foods, only
imported seafood and shellfish must be labeled.



Look for "designed in" or "packaged in" to emphasize a U.S. connection,
followed by "assembled in" or "made in," referring to the actual country of
manufacture. The FTC cracks down on standalone terms such as "created in
the U.S." to describe, say, a product invented in Seattle and made in
Bangladesh, because consumers are likely to interpret "created" as
all-inclusive. It's legal to use simply "assembled in the U.S." if the last
"substantial transformation" took place in this country--in other words, if
the finished product was created here.



For information about "Made in the USA" labeling, check out the March
issue or Consumer Reports on sale February 5. The full story is also
available online at http://www.ConsumerReports.org.
 
Ontario growers face economic disadvantage


(thepost.ca) – In many respects, Ontario farmers are at a competitive disadvantage. Local produce is grown under regulations not found in other places of the world that put fruits, vegetables and other foods on our grocery store shelves. The high Canadian dollar makes the Canadian market attractive to foreign interests importing their goods here.

Facing these circumstances, it would be easy for farmers to turn to the government hat in hand, looking for a bailout, some sort of cash infusion to lower operating costs and make Foodland Ontario economical with produce from places like Chile, China and northern California. But they're not. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, a 38,000-strong group representing farmers' interests, has a list of two things it would like to see happen to help it regain a competitive edge.

Both can be done without any additional spending of tax dollars. The first is educating the consumer. Consumer choice is paramount. If the demand is there for local produce, then stores will find the supply. During a meeting at The Standard last week, OFA president Geri Kamenz said the federation is tracking a shift in consumer attitudes away from price and towards a desire for locally-grown food.

"When you are making a food purchase decision, you are not just buying food," Kamenz said, noting that roughly 752,000 jobs ride on the work of Ontario's 50,000 farm families. "You are investing in your own future, in your community, in health care, in education, in social services and in the environment."

The second desire of the OFA is to change labelling practices in Ontario. "If we were to go to the grocery store, we would be unable to differentiate between what is truly a product of Canada and what isn't," Kamenz said. "We have a misleading labelling system in Ontario." It's a system that allows produce grown outside of Canada, but canned or processed in Canada, to be labelled as a product of Canada.

It's a system that is misleading and has to be changed. As Kamenz noted, Canada has to be more vigilant about what food it allows into the country: does it meet our social and moral standards? These two wishes would help bring balance to agriculture and give hope to sector that has fallen on hard times. It will also help farmers cope with some of the red tape the government throws in the way, like the greenbelt, a policy that is liked in principle, but has turned out to have a lot of kinks in practice.

"The greenbelt legislation is very politically motivated," Kamenz said. "But farmers in the greenbelt are now limited to producing food. "They better create the conditions in the marketplace to enable us to sell our product. That is sustainability." As already stated, the OFA's two wishes don't have to cost taxpayers anymore than they are already paying. But it will cost politicians something: "It will take political will," Kamenz said. Sometimes, it's a shame to say, that is harder to come by than tax dollars.
 
Seafood labeling missed by many Oregon retailers
2/10/2008, 1:40 p.m. PSTThe Associated Press

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Only about half of Oregon retailers follow federal rules for labeling seafood with its country of origin, but a state report says the problems seems to be a lack of information, not defiance.

the Oregon Department of Agriculture did an audit last year at the request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service.

"Many of the establishments we contacted during the audit were simply unaware of these requirements or how to do the labeling," says ODA Assistant Director Dalton Hobbs.

He said the department gave the retailers information that he expects will improve the compliance rate.

In Oregon, 40 retail stores selected at random for the audit, and 21, or 53 percent, were in compliance against a national average of near 60 percent.

"There is a willingness and an interest by retail establishments to comply with the mandatory labeling," said Hobbs.

Federal law allows for a fine of up to $10,000 per violation if it is determined to be willful but that has not happened in Oregon.

"We will continue to work with retailers to teach them how they can better trace their product and establish the country of origin," said Hobbs.

"What I heard from retailers is that they are glad we checked on country of origin labeling and that they welcome the help in meeting the requirements," said ODA's Lindsay Benson, who performed the audits.

Hobbs said more people want to know where their food comes from.the cattle industry remains the last frontier that large meatpackers hope to dominate - it is the only major livestock sector not already corporately controlled from birth to plate.
 
Andrew Dickson, general manager of the Manitoba Pork Council, said the ramifications of the US.COOL law will soon be felt by Manitoba producers.

He said some American farmers who buy weanlings here to feed to market weight have said they will not renew contracts this month.

"We're still shipping weanlings, but that is going to be a real big issue in the next couple of weeks," Dickson said. "Because if we don't get this COOL thing sorted out, that weanling industry is going to come to a crashing halt."

Manitoba farmers sold four million weanlings to the United States last year and shipped 1.3 million market-weight hogs south of the border.

Dickson said the chief buyer with U.S. hog processor John Morrell Co., in Sioux Falls, S.D., told Manitoba producers in December it would not buy any Canadian-origin animals as of September. That included Canadian-born animals that were fed to market weight in the United States.

A spokesman for Smithfield Foods, Morrell's parent company, didn't respond to an interview request.
 
I've come to the idea that canada has a good product overeall. The fact is that they have a considerably smaller product volume with a much higher BSE rate than the US does. The neat thing is that you have a very low amount of brood cows left and your high "dollar" is hurting your exports. Couple that with your BSE disease problem and you have allowed us to weather the Bullshite ethenol fad here in the states. Just when I think you are the most ignorant S.O.B. in the history of the presidentcy you manage to sandbag one for us GW.
 
By RICHARD DUPLAIN
[email protected].
Published Friday April 11th, 2008
Appeared on page A4
Two provincial farm organizations and the Department of Agriculture are united in their opposition to federal food-labelling rules they feel could destroy the local agricultural industry.

The National Farmers Union, the Agricultural Alliance and the provincial Department of Agriculture all want to see "truth in labelling."

Labelling rules need to conform to the truth, according to a brief prepared by the Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick and presented to the provincial government during the recent Agricultural Summit discussions.

"Our reputation and investment are at stake. There is no point in going to the extent that we do in making our foods safe if there is no protection for us and the consumers about what is being called Canadian," reads the brief.

The federal government announced in December a review of the labelling guidelines.

The National Farmers Union recently asked a House of Commons agriculture committee to clarify labelling rules.

"Laws and regulations are ambiguous at best and deceptive at worst," said union co-ordinator Grant Robertson.

"Only food produced by Canadian farmers should be allowed to be called a Product of Canada."

Federal government rules stipulate a Product of Canada label can be put on any food where 51 per cent of production costs are incurred in Canada. Those costs can include labour, transportation and packaging.

"Canadian consumers are absolutely misled by current food labelling standards," said Rob English, vice-president Jolly Farmer Products Inc. and president of the Agricultural Alliance of New Brunswick.

"We want packaging to reflect whether the contents were processed in Canada and to state the origin of the specific product. We need to have the labels reflect the truth, otherwise consumers are being lied to."

A bag of oranges grown in the U.S. and shipped to Canada for packaging and sale here can be labelled a Product of Canada provided shipping, packaging and other costs amounted to 51 per cent of the price, English said.

"Oranges aren't even grown in Canada, yet they can display the Product of Canada label."

It's the same for fish, he said.

"Fish may be caught in Russia, shipped to China to be made into filets or steaks and then sent to Canada to be packaged and sold as a Product of Canada," he said.

Farmers fear a problem such as contaminated food from a foreign country that's labelled as a Product of Canada will tarnish the reputation of domestic growers and producers.

"Canadian farmers produce the safest food in the world. We have tough regulations for handling, processing and food inputs. Canada has a gold-label connotation," he said.

"A product from another country could cause illness because other countries don't share the same concern for food quality, and if this happens, it will ruin our reputation because all the consumer sees is the Product of Canada label."

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency ensures Canadian farmers and food processors produce the highest quality food in the world, English said.

"Unfortunately, Canada doesn't have regulatory authority over food imported into the country."

Agency guidelines for processed fruits and vegetables make it optional for Product of Canada labelling in Canada and exporting Canadian products. However, the same guidelines require a Product of Canada label for imported ingredients if 51 per cent of the cost of production is incurred in Canada.
 
Canadian hog cull underway



(4/15/2008)
Ian Elliot

A government funded program aimed at reducing Canada's hog breeding herd by 10% picked up speed Monday. The program is an attempt to prevent the collapse of the domestic hog industry. Low hog prices, an inflated Canadian dollar, and soaring feed grain and fuel costs, added to what is seen by Canadians as "punitive" U.S. country-of-origin labeling rules which go into affect later this year, have combined to push the domestic hog industry near collapse.

"Industry told us they were willing to adapt to the current situation, but producers needed help to make changes to their operations. We are working hard to bring the sector in line with market realities and ensure its long term viability," said Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz.

The cull aims to remove 150,000 sows, boars and pregnant gilts from the breeding herd by this autumn. Eligible producers will receive around $225 per breeding swine. As of Monday, eligible hog producers can apply to the Canadian Pork Council (www.cpc-ccp.com) for compensation under the $50 million program. Applications are also available through provincial pork producer associations, or through a toll free number 1-877-655-2567
 
It's a little more complicated than just getting a cheque. They also have to kill every animal in the barn, close the barn, and not replace the animals that have been killed for at least three years.

Effectively they must promise to put the barn out of production. No small deal when you consider the cost of a hog barn. :!:
 
Some packers did not want to use the ScoringAg packing plant software because it would show full traceback and that would disrupt their marketing secerts. They don't want to do segeration either. Just a lot of wasted production that could have fed a lot of families around the world. To bad Canada didn't have a hook for every animal.
 
Actually, when it comes to pigs, we pretty much do have hooks. Maple Leaf has a massive plant very close to us that is running at reduced speed right now, and has other plants that it has just closed in other provinces in order to feed this plant.

What we don't have right now is barns, the time it takes to build them, and affordable feed. :? Isoweans are a very time sensitive animal.
 
Hey maybe you should send a load or two of these weaners to SD and let them loose for the road hunters.
 
Some americans want to speak for canadians again :roll: but then again maybe they would want a canadian to respond to the statement the canadians want M-COOL . The whole thread is based on words being twisted, what the article was speaking about was the fact that the regulations that contitute what and how product of canada is arrived at should be changed NOT that we want a system like M-COOL that might come in in the US. To those that spin things maybe print the whole article not just parts so it can't be taken out of context. :roll:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top