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

More Food Info......It's Coming

Mike

Well-known member
Organic Food? Sure, But is it Cage-Free?

Some U.S. shoppers want more information on food labels.

By Amanda Paulson
The Christian Science Monitor

CHICAGO -- The organic industry may be one of the fastest-growing niches of the food world, but for a small group of consumers organic is passé.

Instead, they're pushing for reliable information that would tell consumers whether industrial or family farms produced the food, whether that food was grown locally, and whether farms treated their animals "humanely."

That makes for a crowded label. Nevertheless, some food retailers and producers are starting to respond. Some recent examples:

Whole Foods announced a $10 million low-interest loan program to help local farmers - as well as other efforts to get local products into their stores.
The Association of Family Farms announced new standards - and a new seal - to assure buyers that food isn't just raised humanely and sustainably but also comes from small family farms.
Equal Exchange, the company that helped develop the "Fair Trade" certification carried on chocolate, coffee, and other international products, announced that it has introduced a few products from US farmers using sustainable practices and receiving fair compensation.
Burger King said that 2 percent of its eggs and 10 percent of its pork will come from farms that do not confine animals in cages or pens that severely restrict movement. The company expects those targets to rise as more cage-free eggs and nonconfined pork becomes available.
"It's all about as much information as possible for people," says Jim Slama, president of the nonprofit environmental group Sustain, as he tours booths offering organic raw-milk cheese and grass-fed beef from small Midwest farmers. "Organic is great, but people are concerned that big business has come in. There's a whole alternative movement."

The FamilyFarmed.org conference, sponsored by Sustain and held in Chicago this past weekend, is evidence for how the movement is growing and how far it has to go.

The movement, in one sense, is relatively tiny. The organic industry has been steadily growing at close to 20 percent a year, but it still encompasses only about 2.5 percent of all food sales, according to the most recent 2005 figures. A far smaller subset of consumers who buy organic also care about issues like buying local products or supporting fair-trade principles.

But it's enough awareness to convince some producers - and the organizations that represent them - that there's a need to get even more information to buyers about where their food comes from.

"There are parts of our population that seem willing to pay for what they think food is worth," says David Ward, cochairman of the Association of Family Farms. He argues that conventional US agriculture is designed simply to get the lowest possible prices - but not necessarily best quality - on store shelves.

New-age farmer is green, humane

The standards proposed by the association mean a farmer wouldn't necessarily have to meet the organic qualifications of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). But the farm would need to be family-owned and -run, pass a farm-certification process regarding working conditions, environmental practices, and humane animal care, and enter into long-term fair-compensation contracts.

Mr. Ward hopes the seal and certification process will be in place by fall - and that consumers might start seeing products carrying the seal by early next year.

Equal Exchange, meanwhile, has already started putting some domestic products - pecans, almonds, and cranberries, for now - on shelves, though it may be a while before a fair-trade certification process is in place, says Erbin Crowell, manager of Equal Exchange's domestic fair-trade program.

For now, he's concerned more with instilling fair-trade principles than with a certified stamp on packages.

"It's the movement behind the seal that's important," says Mr. Crowell. And it means getting the farmers' story to consumers. People who buy the Equal Exchange pecans, for instance, can plug the expiration date into a website and learn all about the Southern Alternatives Agricultural Co-op that produced them.

'Fair-trade' farming comes to US

Pursuing domestic standards for a movement that was founded on the need to help third-world farmers get a fair shake out of globalization wasn't easy, Crowell notes. "We're sticking our neck out a bit." But the company heard enough people ask why Equal Exchange wasn't doing more to help small farmers at home to convince it the time was right.

Ideally, say promoters of such standards, getting consumers more information about the values they care about is good for everyone. But some worry that it could also turn into a bureaucratic nightmare for farmers already struggling to file all the requirements for the USDA's organic label, the "Certified Humane Raised and Handled" label, or a host of others.

"My farmers are concerned about another set of rules and regulations," says George Siemon, CEO of Organic Valley. Most of the farmers represented by his co-op, a large-scale brand that's managed to continue to support small local farms, would meet standards for both family-scale and fair trade - but that doesn't mean they're necessarily looking for several more hoops to jump through. "If we look for another seal, we want to look for one more, not six more," Siemon says. "We'd like to have a unified approach."
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well, its time for the consumer to demand and to know where there product is coming from......... this could be made simple .. a flag with USA written in the middle means that it was bred, born and raised in the USA or that it was planted and harvested in the USA........ and hopefully enough people will be writing their congress person to get this passed.
 

mrj

Well-known member
MoGal, are you very sure that is ALL the information consumers want?

Those who stand behind their demands ask for FARM or RANCH and PRODUCER of origin.

Are the producers who demand implementation of the current COOL law really ready to provide that much information?

And, yes, I do realize some farmer/ranchers already DO provide that much information under their brand name products. The Private Enterprise system at it's best, IMO.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
MoGal, are you very sure that is ALL the information consumers want?

Those who stand behind their demands ask for FARM or RANCH and PRODUCER of origin.

Are the producers who demand implementation of the current COOL law really ready to provide that much information?

And, yes, I do realize some farmer/ranchers already DO provide that much information under their brand name products. The Private Enterprise system at it's best, IMO.

MRJ

MRJ, I don't recall that the nutrition information being put on the label was pushed by the consumers or voluntary as you advocate. Interest groups got together and pushed for those disclosures to be mandatory. It was a good thing.

I do have a problem with packers having control of that information (animal ID) for their marketing purposes without the express consent of producers or without paying them for it. If that happens, the packers will be able to increase their position without paying the producers for it.

It seems you always look out for the packers instead of producers. This is one of the reasons producers have looked for other organizations than the NCBA to look out for their interests. You are still under the perception of what is good for the packer is good for you.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
MoGal, are you very sure that is ALL the information consumers want?

Those who stand behind their demands ask for FARM or RANCH and PRODUCER of origin.

Are the producers who demand implementation of the current COOL law really ready to provide that much information?

And, yes, I do realize some farmer/ranchers already DO provide that much information under their brand name products. The Private Enterprise system at it's best, IMO.

MRJ


Econ, once again your extreme bias against packers/NCBA/modern beef production blinds you to the fact that I could just as well have been referring to producer branded beef.

And that is exactly what I was doing, since "Organic Beef" most often is not a 'packer' product. Unless it has become so quite recently.

Your little games and traps get boring so quickly.

MRJ

MRJ, I don't recall that the nutrition information being put on the label was pushed by the consumers or voluntary as you advocate. Interest groups got together and pushed for those disclosures to be mandatory. It was a good thing.

I do have a problem with packers having control of that information (animal ID) for their marketing purposes without the express consent of producers or without paying them for it. If that happens, the packers will be able to increase their position without paying the producers for it.

It seems you always look out for the packers instead of producers. This is one of the reasons producers have looked for other organizations than the NCBA to look out for their interests. You are still under the perception of what is good for the packer is good for you.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ wrote:
[q
Econ, once again your extreme bias against packers/NCBA/modern beef production blinds you to the fact that I could just as well have been referring to producer branded beef.

And that is exactly what I was doing, since "Organic Beef" most often is not a 'packer' product. Unless it has become so quite recently.

Your little games and traps get boring so quickly.

MRJ uote][/quote]

MRJ, MCOOL does not preclude more information. It has a minimum of information on the label. Just because you are for MCOOL doesn't mean you require more or less information on the label than MCOOL requires.

You seem to want everything voluntary. Given what has happened with the wheat gluten from China, people in this country have the right to know where the ingredients come from. The pet food problem has unveiled a huge hole in food safety---that foreign sources of food products are not inspected sufficiently. Domestic inspections are not sufficient either, as the Senate testimony unveiled.

At least in the U.S., you can seek justice by suing those who are responsible. You can't do that with Chinese sources. Their system doesn't allow it. If you are in the media, you can't even report anything that is negative without party approval.

It really doesn't matter if MRJ agrees with this policy of identifying the country of origin. The market will demand it because of the ineptitude of our regulatory agencies in providing security from these type of foreign threats.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
DeLauro plans FDA import hearings

PETER URBAN [email protected]
Article Last Updated: 04/13/2007 10:21:13 PM EDT


WASHINGTON — With the FDA singling out wheat gluten from China as the culprit behind a mass recall of contaminated pet food, Rep. Rosa DeLauro plans to hold a congressional hearing to examine how the agency inspects imported foods.
"We are all aware of the disturbing statistics related to imported foods. The U.S. now imports far more foods than it exports, but there are fewer inspectors for imported foods," said DeLauro, D-3.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require exporting countries to have the same food safety standards as the United States. And the agency inspects less than 1 percent of food imports, DeLauro said.

"Given that the contaminated pet food appears to be connected to wheat gluten imported from China only heightens my concern about the agency's ability to inspect imported products. It is this aspect of the pet food recall crisis that I am particularly troubled about and intend to examine further in a follow-up hearing," she said.

DeLauro, chairwoman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on agriculture, announced her plans in written testimony delivered Thursday to the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on agriculture. That panel held a hearing Thursday on the pet food recall.

Dr. Steven Sundlof, director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, testified at the hearing that contaminated dog and cat food may still be on the shelves at some U.S. stores.

"We believe that the recall has been very effective in preventing further
illness and death in pets. And we believe that we've gotten the vast, vast majority off of the market. But we are not going to leave any of those stones unturned," he said.
Sundlof said the affected pet food contained wheat gluten contaminated with melamine, an industrial chemical used in plastics and fertilizer. The wheat gluten, he said, came from China.

The contaminated food was blamed for the deaths of scores of pets in the United States.

The Pet Food Institute, which represents pet food manufacturers, announced at the hearing that it is forming a commission to strengthen industry procedures and safeguards in light of recent pet food recalls.

In her written testimony, DeLauro criticized the FDA's response, saying it was "tragically slow," and that pet owners deserve answers.

Peter Urban, who covers Washington, can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]
 
Top