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

Current COOL Rule does Not Meet Congress's Intent

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
IT's an individual company decision, which will have to be made in collaboration with a company's retail grocery customers, which ultimately are the entities that provide country-of-origin information to their consumers," Vilsack said.

Vilsack has requested several additional measures in addition to those outlined in COOL legislation including information about what production step -- born, raised and slaughtered -- occurred in each country on labeling of product from animals with multiple countries of origin. Vilsack also requested that processors label products that "are subject to curing, smoking, broiling, grilling, or steaming."

Perhaps there needs to be an honesty training course required for these companies as they seem to have lost that trait.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Johnson, Enzi Praise Sec Vilsack's Efforts to Revisit COOL Rule



USAgNet - 02/25/2009



U.S. Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and U.S. Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming commended Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's decision to give the Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) rule some real teeth and strengthen the rule to reflect what Congress intended.



Johnson and Enzi have been long-time advocates of COOL and have been vocal about changes needed in the rule to reflect the intent of Congress. Secretary Vilsack called both Johnson and Enzi this week to discuss his decision to revisit the final COOL rule issued by former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, saying it did not follow the intent or letter of the COOL law passed by Congress. Johnson and Enzi led an effort with 30 of their colleagues to address the flawed rule with former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schaefer in September 2008, and reignited their bipartisan efforts with Secretary Vilsack once he was sworn in.



Vilsack announced that he will ask the meat industry to give consumers a more accurate picture by only labeling products as U.S. meat if they are from livestock that are born, raised and slaughtered in this country. If industry does not comply, Vilsack has announced he will initiate a new rule making process.



"The EU already has a far more stringent labeling program than the one intended by Congress. COOL clearly isn't a trade problem. It's a consumer right-to-know issue. The final rule proposed by Secretary Schafer left holes big enough to drive through. That's why Secretary Vilsack's efforts here today are so important for farmers, ranchers and consumers," Johnson said.



"Senator Johnson and I helped write the original COOL language in the 2002 Farm Bill. We know what we intended but unfortunately the USDA has spent years fiddling with the language and twisting the intent of the law to pander to packers. I applaud Secretary Vilsack for taking the reins and putting some enforcement and purpose behind the rule. Americans should be able to choose American products by common sense labels that tell them where their food originated and where it was processed," said Enzi.



The three main problems Johnson and Enzi raised with Secretaries Vilsack and Schafer in the final rule, which Vilsack agrees with and is taking action to address, include:



-- USDA allowed for U.S. exclusive origin meat products to be labeled with multiple countries of origin, also retaining the option for retailers to label bulk cases of meat with signs that don't separate out U.S. product.



-- USDA's definition of processed products and consequential exclusion of a significant number of food items was significant. Cooked chicken meat or peas mixed with carrots in a vegetable mix both are examples of "processed products" under the final rule.



-- USDA allowed processors to use a label for up to 60 days after a meat product of a certain origin is no longer in a processor's inventory. While intended to provide "wiggle room" for the production chain, the net effect may be gross abuse of the "U.S. origin" label.



usagnet.com
 

Tex

Well-known member
Ed Schafer (sp?) should be told to give back all money he made while working at USDA or tell who was pushing packer policies in the USDA. These people need to be dealt with to solve the problem long term. If packers can just plant operatives in the USDA to be used when the political winds allow them to use them, we will be no better off than we are today in the future. I am sure this will embarrass some members of Congress, but it is what is needed so the public can hold them accountable for things they do behind closed doors that are in their best interests but not the country's.


Oldtimer said:
Johnson, Enzi Praise Sec Vilsack's Efforts to Revisit COOL Rule



USAgNet - 02/25/2009



U.S. Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and U.S. Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming commended Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's decision to give the Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) rule some real teeth and strengthen the rule to reflect what Congress intended.



Johnson and Enzi have been long-time advocates of COOL and have been vocal about changes needed in the rule to reflect the intent of Congress. Secretary Vilsack called both Johnson and Enzi this week to discuss his decision to revisit the final COOL rule issued by former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, saying it did not follow the intent or letter of the COOL law passed by Congress. Johnson and Enzi led an effort with 30 of their colleagues to address the flawed rule with former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schaefer in September 2008, and reignited their bipartisan efforts with Secretary Vilsack once he was sworn in.



Vilsack announced that he will ask the meat industry to give consumers a more accurate picture by only labeling products as U.S. meat if they are from livestock that are born, raised and slaughtered in this country. If industry does not comply, Vilsack has announced he will initiate a new rule making process.



"The EU already has a far more stringent labeling program than the one intended by Congress. COOL clearly isn't a trade problem. It's a consumer right-to-know issue. The final rule proposed by Secretary Schafer left holes big enough to drive through. That's why Secretary Vilsack's efforts here today are so important for farmers, ranchers and consumers," Johnson said.



"Senator Johnson and I helped write the original COOL language in the 2002 Farm Bill. We know what we intended but unfortunately the USDA has spent years fiddling with the language and twisting the intent of the law to pander to packers. I applaud Secretary Vilsack for taking the reins and putting some enforcement and purpose behind the rule. Americans should be able to choose American products by common sense labels that tell them where their food originated and where it was processed," said Enzi.



The three main problems Johnson and Enzi raised with Secretaries Vilsack and Schafer in the final rule, which Vilsack agrees with and is taking action to address, include:



-- USDA allowed for U.S. exclusive origin meat products to be labeled with multiple countries of origin, also retaining the option for retailers to label bulk cases of meat with signs that don't separate out U.S. product.



-- USDA's definition of processed products and consequential exclusion of a significant number of food items was significant. Cooked chicken meat or peas mixed with carrots in a vegetable mix both are examples of "processed products" under the final rule.



-- USDA allowed processors to use a label for up to 60 days after a meat product of a certain origin is no longer in a processor's inventory. While intended to provide "wiggle room" for the production chain, the net effect may be gross abuse of the "U.S. origin" label.



usagnet.com
 

Latest posts

Top