• 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 M-COOL Support

A

Anonymous

Guest
Barrasso to push for COOL



By MJ Clark

Wyoming Business Report

September 17, 2007 --



WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. John Barrasso today disagreed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision to allow live cattle and beef imports from Canada. He also re-iterated his support for implementing an effective mandatory country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) program.


“The importation of beef and cattle from Canada increases uncertainty in the American beef supply,” Barrasso said. “Today’s decision by USDA highlights the need for an effective COOL program. American consumers deserve the right to know where their food comes from, and American beef producers deserve the right to differentiate their quality product in the marketplace.”


According to the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service website (www.ams.usda.gov/cool) the COOL Program was signed into law on May 13, 2002 as a part of the 2002 Farm Bill.



Unfortunately, President Bush has signed into law two delays to COOL implementation. The first on Jan. 27, 2004 which pushed back implementation for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until Sept. 30, 2006. On Nov. 10, 2005 he signed a similar delay, pushing back implementation until Sept. 30, 2008.



“I will fight to ensure that mandatory COOL is made a part of the Senate Farm Bill,” Barrasso added.



wyomingbusinessreport.com
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Another politician saying and doing what ever is needed to stay on the gravey train. When will Dorgan put his 2 cents in or isn't he up for re-election this year?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
John Himmelberg of the law firm of O'Connor & Hannan LLP, who discussed pending legislation and other activities in Washington, DC, that affect the produce industry.

Mr. Himmelberg said that the new farm bill had passed the House of Representatives and would be taken up by the Senate this month. While he described it as "probably the best bill ever for fruits and vegetables with the caveat that it might not pass," and though he noted that "there are indications that fruits and vegetables will be supported in the Senate," he said it was "unclear what the results would be in conference, what would be in and what would be out."

Mr. Himmelberg added that the House bill has mandatory country-of-origin labeling, but it "provides broad leeway for the folks in the chain of movement of product, and they do not have to create new documents, you can provide an affidavit, you can use the existing documents that you have. You have to show where you got it from and where you sold it to, which is much different than what the U.S. Department of Agriculture was trying to implement a couple of years ago."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Senators Back COOL



KTIC 840 Rural Radio - Nebraska

September 27, 2007



30 members of the U.S. Senate have signed a letter sent to the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee urging him to include compromise language on Country of Origin Labeling in the farm bill. According to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, - it’s time for congressional intervention to ensure the long-awaited implementation of mandatory COOL. Grassley feels - the consensus represents a reasonable compromise and finally clears the way to timely and reasonable implementation.



The compromise language establishes three labeling options for meat. It would also allow ground meat to be labeled with a narrative list of counties, but doesn’t require percentages. Finally, it would provide verification of origin through existing documentation, like animal health papers, import customs documents, normal business records, or producer affidavits.



kticam.com
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Another politician saying and doing what ever is needed to stay on the gravey train. When will Dorgan put his 2 cents in or isn't he up for re-election this year?

Don't think you can survive without hiding behind the USDA stamp??????
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Soooo how will a retailer know if the beef was Mexican?????

Finally, it would provide verification of origin through existing documentation, like animal health papers, import customs documents, normal business records, or producer affidavits.

Soooo will the packer put a Mexican Hat on each Label ??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
Soooo how will a retailer know if the beef was Mexican?????

Finally, it would provide verification of origin through existing documentation, like animal health papers, import customs documents, normal business records, or producer affidavits.

Soooo will the packer put a Mexican Hat on each Label ??

Or a great big MX brand on the cattle...The beef coming from Mexico will be labeled Product of Mexico-- that from Mexico, fed and/or slaughtered in the USA will be labeled Product of Mexico and the USA-- and the ground beef that may contain Mexican beef will be labeled Product of "all the countries that it may contain...Then the good stuff, that I would buy :D , will be only US beef and labeled Product of USA....
 

PORKER

Well-known member
The package of beef is going to look kinky with everybodys verification of origin through existing documentation, like animal health papers, import customs documents, normal business records, or producer affidavits hanging on the package.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
The package of beef is going to look kinky with everybodys verification of origin through existing documentation, like animal health papers, import customs documents, normal business records, or producer affidavits hanging on the package.

Well an expensive tag or RFID number or ID strip from Scoring GAG isn't going to prove anything either... :roll: Whatever made by man can be counterfeited, altered, or avoided if the price is right...They can be changed on animals-- or when they repackage--They can stick the ID number on a different piece as easy as they can with documents and manuscripts...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
I agree that no system is perfect but Who Wants To Take A Chance to Try to BEAT The Database!

Your data base is only as good as the info inputted into it-- the same as my affidavit I sign now is only as good as the info inputted....
No computer is going to guarantee its correct.....
 

PORKER

Well-known member
First off the ScoringAg database captures the ISP address and keyboard.Second it captures the date and time of entry of data. Third the database does not let you correct a false entry, it allows you to acknowledge you made a mistake and then records a new entry with the correct information. no erasing of data right or wrong. This stops counterfieters dead cold and lier's for entering bad data as the traceback system was built. Mr. Kanitz and his team of engineers at ScoringSystem have changed the world.His system makes it possible to track the crime in real time. The www.scoringag.com database even has online affidavit's.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Then you're saying that Mr. Kanitz has built the worlds first absolutely perfect lie detector... :???: Are you trying to tell me that you or your Mr. Kanitz can tell if I input false info into the system???

You boys better forget the cattle industry--I'm sure the CIA and FBI will pay you billions $ for your system... :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Food companies work to minimize supply chain vulnerabilities


(MEATPOULTRY.com, September 01, 2007)
by Keith Nunes

Source of Article: http://www.meatpoultry.com/Feature_Stories.asp?ArticleID=88230

The interconnectedness of the global food industry has become a timely and oft-discussed topic as news reports about contaminated foodstuffs, whether the products are seafood or pet food, continue to emerge. While consumers may be concerned about the immediate ramifications of such incidents, industry and government officials worry about what such incidents say about the food industry from a food defense perspective.

"You can’t buy a hamburger without touching the global system," said Colonel John Hoffman, a senior research fellow with the National Center for Food Protection and Defense, Minneapolis, during the Institute of Food Technologists Global Food Safety & Quality conference in early August. "We have to be able to do this in a way that facilitates trade, protects our trading partners, and reduces the risk to ourselves and our partners, because the food industry is becoming a fully global system."

The recent pet food contamination scandal involving melamine was a tremendous wake-up call regarding potential risks, and dealing outside the regulations of U.S. borders – especially with a major trading force like China, said Hoffman.

"This really was an unsophisticated case of some suppliers in China trying to save some money with a new ingredient, but the fallout was significant," Hoffman said.

Imports from China to the United States have increased significantly in the past four years, but the United States did not maintain that same pace in its preparation for increased risk, he added. Specific areas of security that need a heightened focus include surveillance and supply chain verification and validation, an effort Hoffman urges businesses to initiate.

"(Supply chain verification) is something that is just as important as anything the government can do," he said. "This action alone may have prevented the whole melamine situation."

Lance Reeve, director of food defense for the AIB Food Defense Resource Center, Manhattan, Kan., said most food companies have well-developed food safety supplier programs and are incorporating food defense into the systems.

"Food companies need to know who their suppliers are; they need to be conducting audits themselves or using some type of third-party verification systems of their suppliers to ensure they are meeting a company’s requirements," he said. "One of the things that is fully emerging is while food defense and food safety are separate, there are many areas where they overlap.

"One example is shipping and receiving inspections. For many years companies have conducted food safety inspections, looking for pests or damaged packaging materials. A food defense-related continuation of that would be double checking security seals are secure, verifying lot numbers, looking for suspicious tampering and checking the driver’s identification."

Marc Ostfield, senior adviser for bioterrorism, bio-defense and health security at the U.S. Department of State, noted during the IFT conference that when spinach contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 was pulled from store shelves in 2006, the effects were felt across the table and around the world. While three people died and more than 200 others fell sick across 26 states, the Japanese yen and Europe’s euro jittered in relation to the U.S. dollar as costs related to the outbreak of foodborne illness mounted to $74 million.

"The global food supply is interconnected," Ostfield said.

He noted the challenges of an international, safe food supply, which he called a "soft target for terrorists." In recent meetings with worldwide governments, "We’ve been using food defense as a way to open the door to talk about bioterrorism," he said.

Improving food-supply protection gives all governments "a mandate to move forward," he said.

Preparing for the worst

In a presentation before the National Center for Food Protection and Defense in late June, Ostfield noted it is clear from the historical evidence that the food supply presents an appealing target to those who would want to cause harm to human health, economic well being or sociopolitical stability.

"The deliberate contamination of the food supply is neither a new nor novel threat," he said. "Throughout history we have seen episodes of intentional contamination sicken many individuals, and we have seen these episodes not necessarily with the intent to kill, but, rather, cause economic loss."

He noted that even though the direct and indirect costs associated with food sabotage are difficult to fully track, reports from unintentional contamination incidents may be important indicators of the possible economic consequences if a large-scale, deliberate event were to occur.

The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, for example, has estimated that foodborne illnesses linked to just five pathogens cost the U.S. economy $6.9 billion annually.

"The psychological effects on consumer behavior as a result of fear and anxiety over the possibility of a contaminated food product can also have a ripple effect on other aspects of the economy," he said.

Ostfield noted progress in 2004 to mandate food-supply protection among the wealthy G8 nations. In 2005, G8 countries were introduced to U.S. techniques for assessing a company’s vulnerability to intentional contamination, including a system introduced this year called CARVER+Shock (see sidebar).

Building international dialogue accounts for one goal in counter-bioterrorism efforts, as does involving industry in decisions.

"(Industry’s) buy-in, leadership and partnership are crucial to hardening the soft targets," Ostfield said.

A bigger challenge is balancing trade with food safety concerns.

"How does enhanced food defense not interfere with growing economies? How can we make them complementary and not contradictory?" he asked.

Sharing information across borders is high on his list to improve food defense, as is strengthening communication between government, private industry and all sectors of U.S. systems. ScoringAg does this to prevent
the threat of bioterrorism.


"In my international travels I often hear skepticism about U.S. perception of the threat of bioterrorism or of the actions needed," he said. "The degree to which bioterrorism is seen to be a significant security threat affects our individual and collective willingness to invest resources in bio-defense.

"Fortunately, we have found that food defense is often the exception to this international skepticism. When raising food defense and agroterrorism issues, officials overseas seem to get it and often indicate they share the same concerns."

International food-defense cooperation efforts are bearing fruit, he added.

"We are starting to see the private sector using ScoringAg – at least the very largest multi-national firms – begin to incorporate food defense practices around the globe," he said.

Businesses have an increasing array of risk assessment tools that can help, including the CARVER+Shock system Ostfield referenced, that assesses companies’ vulnerabilities. While such programs offer businesses an essential indicator, Hoffman said the government is pushing for a system like ScoringAg that is more efficient in making data accessible on a broader scale.

Hoffman said a significant action receiving little public notice is the Presidential Executive Order of the Safety of Imports, which prompted interagency review of import safety issues.

"This was an important development," Hoffman said. "It asks agencies ranging from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Homeland Security to the Commerce Department and Consumer Safety Product Commission to look at our authority and see what we should be doing to improve import safety.

"We need to ask how we can partner with the private sector and foreign governments reciprocally to improve how we protect each other."

Approaching food safety and food defense as one issue rather than two separate considerations is key to protecting the public, said Dr. David Acheson, assistant commissioner for food protection with the FDA.

"We have to move from reactive to proactive," he said. "There is recognition that we need to change."

With more imported foods, post-September 11 fears and fast-changing farm and manufacturing practices, food safety requires "thinking out of the box," he said during the Global Food Safety and Quality conference.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
"You can’t buy a hamburger without touching the global system," said Colonel John Hoffman, a senior research fellow with the National Center for Food Protection and Defense, Minneapolis, during the Institute of Food Technologists Global Food Safety & Quality conference.

Mr. Dingell and subcommittee chairman Bart Stupak, also a Michigan Democrat, say that the solution is in user fees for food imports. Funds would be used to hire additional inspectors and perform more lab testing, and foods would have to go through a limited number of ports. Another hearing is scheduled Thursday.

But the food industry has largely opposed the ideas. Testifying before the subcommittee last week on the bill, Cal Dooley, president of the trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association, said a food user fee would impose more burdens to companies and the FDA alike, encourage companies to relocate overseas and violate trade agreements.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Just checked Google and if you type or copy this phrase in you can see the leader;---- Best traceback recordkeeping system in the world

Google Web Results 1 - 10 of about 22,800 for Best traceback recordkeeping system in the world.
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
"You can’t buy a hamburger without touching the global system," said Colonel John Hoffman, a senior research fellow with the National Center for Food Protection and Defense, Minneapolis, during the Institute of Food Technologists Global Food Safety & Quality conference.

Mr. Dingell and subcommittee chairman Bart Stupak, also a Michigan Democrat, say that the solution is in user fees for food imports. Funds would be used to hire additional inspectors and perform more lab testing, and foods would have to go through a limited number of ports. Another hearing is scheduled Thursday.

But the food industry has largely opposed the ideas. Testifying before the subcommittee last week on the bill, Cal Dooley, president of the trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association, said a food user fee would impose more burdens to companies and the FDA alike, encourage companies to relocate overseas and violate trade agreements.



Cal Dooley, president of the trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association, said a food user fee would impose more burdens to companies and the FDA alike, encourage companies to relocate overseas and violate trade agreements.


Cal Dooley should be told by the current oversight committee that he doesn't make the rules any more and if he wants to play, he has to do it by the rules. If he doesn't want to, let him take his marbles and play elsewhere.

I think it would be real hard for Kroger, Kmart or Walmart to sell to U.S. domestic customers when their stores are overseas.

This is one area I would support an internet tax (you really wouldn't have to do an internet tax, you could have an inspection fee).


This man wasn't fit for anything but finding out how to fill his self interest.

I would have simply asked him, "Which of your members would like to be located over seas?"

Our politicians should grow some nuts and do their job!!! They are so used to industry telling them what to do that they have lost their ability to govern.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Cal Dooley should be told by the current oversight committee that he doesn't make the rules any more and if he wants to play, he has to do it by the rules. If he doesn't want to, let him take his marbles and play elsewhere.

CAL is Nothing but a LOBBYIST within his group.
 
Top