Interesting poll about consumers

[the chief]

New Poll Shows Consumers Overwhelming Support Country-of-Origin Labeling on Food

Congress Should Expedite Mandatory Labeling Requirements, Not Substitute Weak Voluntary Measures



WASHINGTON, D.C. - A new public opinion poll released today on country-of-origin labeling for food shows that an overwhelming majority of consumers favor the concept and want the labeling required by law so they know where their food is raised or produced, said Public Citizen, which commissioned the survey. As the Senate this week considers the agriculture appropriations bill, which would again delay country-of-origin labeling, the consumer group reiterated its demand to lawmakers to prioritize the implementation of a mandatory labeling program.



Eight-five percent of those surveyed say they want country-of-origin labeling (COOL). Additionally, 74 percent support the idea of Congress making such labeling a mandatory program, and 55 percent have "little or not much trust" in the meat, seafood, produce and grocery industries to voluntarily provide country-of-origin information. The poll, which was conducted June 9-12 by Lake Snell Perry Mermin & Associates, surveyed 1,004 adults living in private households in the continental United States.



In light of this new data, Public Citizen repeated its call to Congress to implement mandatory COOL as soon as possible. Congress has repeatedly delayed the effective date for 2002 Farm Bill requirements that ordered mandatory country-of-origin labeling on meat, peanuts, seafood, and fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables sold at retail. In April 2005, the seafood requirement went into effect, but for other foods mandatory labeling has been delayed until September 2006.



"Country-of-origin labels are just common sense. What is industry hiding by not wanting to reveal where its food is produced?" asked Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's food program. "More than half of the consumers polled in this survey didn't trust the food industry to volunteer this information. We think it's time for members of Congress to listen to their constituents and mandate that industry label its food products."



The poll asked:



*Do you favor or oppose requiring the meat, seafood, produce and grocery industries to include on food labels the name of the country where the food is grown or produced?



Favor 85 percent

Oppose 11 percent

Don't Know 4 percent



*There is a bill in Congress to require labels on the food we buy with the name of the country where meat, seafood, or produce is grown or produced. [ROTATE] __Should Congress require industry to provide this information or __should industry be allowed to decide if they want to provide this information?



Congress Require 74 percent

Industry Decide 21 percent

Neither 2 percent

Don't Know 3 percent



*How much would you trust the meat, seafood, produce and grocery industries to voluntarily provide information about where food products come from - a lot, some, only a little, not much at all?



A lot/ Some 44 percent

A little/ Not much 55 percent

Don't Know 1 percent



"Consumers are becoming more vigilant about the onslaught of threats in today's world," said Hauter. "From terrorism to mad cow disease, consumers believe they themselves can best protect their families from danger. Country-of-origin labels give consumers information they need to factor into their buying decisions."



Just two weeks ago, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to once again delay mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat. Now, it's the Senate's turn. Public Citizen urges senators to heed consumers' preferences and reject the provision in the agriculture appropriations bill that would delay mandatory COOL for meat until 2007.

 

[Sandhusker]

Consumers want it, states are making their own COOL laws, but yet Congress continues to stonewall. Why?

 

[Mike]

Consumers want it, states are making their own COOL laws, but yet Congress continues to stonewall. Why?

Follow the money.

"This rule is costly and burdensome with no real benefit to consumers," says Janet Riley, an AMI spokeswoman. "There is absolutely no evidence that consumers want this law." As proof, Riley points to a 2002 poll, funded by an industry group. that found three quarters of consumers said no additional information was needed on food labels. But the question made no mention the country of origin labeling proposal. Other polls, in which consumers were asked specifically if they would favor country of origin labeling, found strong support for the approach. In one such poll, Packer Magazine, a produce industry trade journal, found in 2002 that 86 percent of consumers favored mandatory country labeling for produce. The National Public Policy Agricultural Committee, a project of the University of Kansas, similarly found in 2001 that 98 percent of agriculture producers favored labeling.

 

[STAFF]

Here is a link that is traceback to the product using todays technology http://www.scoringsystem.com/sales/images/smartphones_us.pdf This is being used in 8 countrys including Japan and Korea.

 

[Sandhusker]

Consumers want it, states are making their own COOL laws, but yet Congress continues to stonewall. Why?

Follow the money.

"This rule is costly and burdensome with no real benefit to consumers," says Janet Riley, an AMI spokeswoman. "There is absolutely no evidence that consumers want this law." As proof, Riley points to a 2002 poll, funded by an industry group. that found three quarters of consumers said no additional information was needed on food labels. But the question made no mention the country of origin labeling proposal. Other polls, in which consumers were asked specifically if they would favor country of origin labeling, found strong support for the approach. In one such poll, Packer Magazine, a produce industry trade journal, found in 2002 that 86 percent of consumers favored mandatory country labeling for produce. The National Public Policy Agricultural Committee, a project of the University of Kansas, similarly found in 2001 that 98 percent of agriculture producers favored labeling.

Wow, Mike, who would of thought the AMI might be behind it :shock: :lol:

 

[STAFF]

This rule is costly and burdensome with no real benefit to consumers," says Janet Riley, an AMI spokeswoman. You are right Sandhusker,look who is bais of their industry.AMI is just doing what their leadership wants.That why traceback is a paramont for the consumer to prove COOL.

 

[Cattleman]

Funny, the pole did not ask how much more consumers would pay for labaled products! They want lots of things, but they want it for free!! IF you introduce these products, they will still probably go with the cheapest one!!

Don't get mislead people!

 

[Mike]

Consumers want it, states are making their own COOL laws, but yet Congress continues to stonewall. Why?

Follow the money.

"This rule is costly and burdensome with no real benefit to consumers," says Janet Riley, an AMI spokeswoman. "There is absolutely no evidence that consumers want this law." As proof, Riley points to a 2002 poll, funded by an industry group. that found three quarters of consumers said no additional information was needed on food labels. But the question made no mention the country of origin labeling proposal. Other polls, in which consumers were asked specifically if they would favor country of origin labeling, found strong support for the approach. In one such poll, Packer Magazine, a produce industry trade journal, found in 2002 that 86 percent of consumers favored mandatory country labeling for produce. The National Public Policy Agricultural Committee, a project of the University of Kansas, similarly found in 2001 that 98 percent of agriculture producers favored labeling.

Wow, Mike, who would of thought the AMI might be behind it :shock: :lol:

I don't know this to be a fact but my "computer models" point in this direction. After downloading the new version of "Common Sense" software and plugging in certain intangibles, I have been able to point a finger at many of the adversaries of todays cattleman. It has been enlightening!

I had a problem when I plugged in "Creekstone's Dilemma" though. I blew fuses and tripped breakers for miles around. :wink:

 

[Mike]

Funny, the pole did not ask how much more consumers would pay for labaled products! They want lots of things, but they want it for free!! IF you introduce these products, they will still probably go with the cheapest one!!

Don't get mislead people!

Japan is doing it for a penny per lb. more. :???:

 

[rkaiser]

It's about resistance to change because it would cost the packers money to impliment when the system they have in place is working just fine.

Canadians have nothing to fear from COOL, in fact it may help us sell more product.

 

[Anonymous]

It's about resistance to change because it would cost the packers money to impliment when the system they have in place is working just fine.

Canadians have nothing to fear from COOL, in fact it may help us sell more product.

Randy- I agree 100%- in the long run M-COOL will be very beneficial to Canadian cattlemen.....As it is now, few even know Canadians produce good beef- its all passed off as a US product.....

 

[STAFF]

As I Stated in a previous post: Here is a link that is traceback to the product using todays technology http://www.scoringsystem.com/sales/images/smartphones_us.pdf This is being used in 8 countrys including Japan and Korea.

So when will CANADA step up to the plate with their own COOL law?

Randy- I agree 100%- in the long run M-COOL will be very beneficial to Canadian cattlemen.....As it is now, few even know Canadians produce good beef-
Cattleman wrote:
Funny, the pole did not ask how much more consumers would pay for labaled products! They want lots of things, but they want it for free!! IF you introduce these products, they will still probably go with the cheapest one!!
ONE thing you have to remember that the cost to pass information to the package with a thermal label is about 0.003 tenths of a cent or the money to pay for the extra ink.

 

[Cattleman]

Is delivering what for a penny more? Prices go up in the retail stores a penny a pound? Producers absorbed a penny a pound of cost?

My main beef with these surveys like in most about humanely treated animals in an environmentally friendly way they want their produce raised, yadda yadda yadda, they want it, but when they step into grocery sotre they just look at prices.

Why do people even conduct surveys constructed in this way anymore. That is my point.

 

[Anonymous]

Consumers want it, states are making their own COOL laws, but yet Congress continues to stonewall. Why?

Follow the money.

"This rule is costly and burdensome with no real benefit to consumers," says Janet Riley, an AMI spokeswoman. "There is absolutely no evidence that consumers want this law." As proof, Riley points to a 2002 poll, funded by an industry group. that found three quarters of consumers said no additional information was needed on food labels. But the question made no mention the country of origin labeling proposal. Other polls, in which consumers were asked specifically if they would favor country of origin labeling, found strong support for the approach. In one such poll, Packer Magazine, a produce industry trade journal, found in 2002 that 86 percent of consumers favored mandatory country labeling for produce. The National Public Policy Agricultural Committee, a project of the University of Kansas, similarly found in 2001 that 98 percent of agriculture producers favored labeling.

Look who's already challenging Montanas new law :???: If they spent the amount of money labeling the meat as they spend fighting against a labeling law, we wouldn't need a M-COOL law-- but then that wouldn't fit into their plans of raping the producer and defrauding the consumer, would it?

----------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2005

Last modified June 20, 2005 - 12:37 am



Label law under fire
By Becky Bohrer
Associated Press

As the fight continues in Congress over mandatory meat labels, one also may be brewing in Montana over the state's labeling law.

The American Meat Institute, a meatpackers' trade group, contends federal law - namely, the federal Meat Inspection Act - prohibits the state from requiring country of origin meat labels.

"No state may impose a labeling requirement that is different than or in addition to what's allowed under federal law," Mark Dopp, AMI senior vice president for regulatory affairs and general counsel, said in a recent interview.


The Montana law, set to take effect next year, requires placards denoting the country of origin of beef, lamb, pork and poultry products sold at grocery stores and other retails outlets. Products whose origin is not known would be labeled as such.

State Agriculture Director Nancy K. Peterson said the law is considered a "catch all" that would be in effect if the federal labeling requirement stalls but would be void if the national plan took effect.

Federal country of origin labeling for meat has been delayed before and is set to take effect nationally in September 2006. However, the U.S. House this month voted to delay it again.

Packers and processors are among those who have opposed to the requirement, citing the cost of implementing the program.

Ranchers, like Dennis McDonald, believe labeling would benefit both consumers and producers, helping shoppers make more informed decisions and helping U.S. livestock producers by driving up demand for meat they produce. McDonald, who is president of the Montana Cattlemen's Association, said labeling would also allow ranchers to differentiate their products from those of competitors.

Those advocating the current system are "in a very small minority," he said.

"The meat processors presently can buy cheap, foreign beef and disguise it as U.S. product and sell it at the retail level, ultimately, for a substantial profit," he said. "From their perspective, it's nothing personal; it's just dollars and cents."

AMI, with the Montana Retail Association and Food Marketing Institute, wrote Montana's governor and attorney general in late April, saying the mandatory labeling provisions of the state measure are "pre-empted" by the federal Meat Inspection and Poultry Products Inspection acts. Dopp said he hasn't heard back.

A spokeswoman for the governor said Saturday she was not immediately aware of a response.

Brad Griffin, the retail association's president, calls Montana's law an "emotional bill that, in the end, isn't going to be enforced." He said his group was looking at all options to prevent enforcement.

Griffin said implementing the measure could mean additional costs that get passed on to consumers. He also believes it would lead to a lot of "country of origin unknown" placards.

"Until such time as the cattle industry can identify exactly where the beef comes from, retailers will have no way of knowing," he said.

Bill Donald, a rancher and president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association, said he agrees with the concept of labeling but worries about who Montana's law would actually help. Placards indicating unknown origin could raise doubt in consumers' minds, he said, and because sources of other meat, like chicken, can be traced more easily, there's the potential for beef to be put at a competitive disadvantage.

McDonald disagrees. He believes the Montana law is workable and that labeling will be a positive for producers and consumers.

"To think to the contrary, you would have to take the position that consumers are better off with less knowledge than more knowledge," he said.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Is delivering what for a penny more? Prices go up in the retail stores a penny a pound? Producers absorbed a penny a pound of cost?

My main beef with these surveys like in most about humanely treated animals in an environmentally friendly way they want their produce raised, yadda yadda yadda, they want it, but when they step into grocery sotre they just look at prices.

Why do people even conduct surveys constructed in this way anymore. That is my point.

This is my guess as to why, Cattleman. Too often, somebody wants to prove a point, more specifically, their point, so they conduct a poll and word it so that it will bring out the bias that they want to "prove".


For example, look at all of HAY MAKER and Oldtimer's polls! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Cattleman]

Actually Maple Leaf, I guess I posed my point wrong I guess I know that and I should just be blunt and say people should quit falling for them and spouting them as proof to support their arguments!

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

. . . and I should have known that you knew! :lol:

Oh well, it turned wet now that I've cut hay and what else can we do on a slow day? :roll:

 

[Murgen]

Enjoy some scenery pics. MLA, going by your place tomorrow. Are you going to be home?

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Enjoy some scenery pics. MLA, going by your place tomorrow. Are you going to be home?

I will be out for the A.M., to deliver hardware and look at a bit'o real estate. You should find me home after lunch. There will be someone here all morning if your going by then.

Some awesome scenery in that show and really great to see some folks that have only been "keyboard contacts" until now. Man I wanna make that trip soon!

Thanks, Murgen.

 

[the chief]

Too often, somebody wants to prove a point, more specifically, their point, so they conduct a poll and word it so that it will bring out the bias that they want to "prove".


Yeah, I guess that's why they posed the question: DO YOU WANT YOUR FOOD THAT YOU BUY TO BE LABELED BY THE COUNTRY IT CAME FROM?

That is just SO misleading, isn't it? :roll: :roll: :roll: