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

Vilsack Prioritizes Food Safety

PORKER

Well-known member
The U.S. government’s final rule on mandatory Country-of-origin labelling (COOL) for foods - including fruit and vegetables, fresh and frozen - will go back to new agriculture secretary for review.

Newly elected President Barack Obama’s has directed U.S. federal officials to delay for 60 days the effective date of regulations passed in the Bush administration’s final days that haven’t yet taken effect, the Reuters news service reported. Regulations under review will include the COOL rules, which passed on 15 January.
The U.S. legislation, which requires food products sold to U.S. consumers to carry labels listing the products’ Countries of origin, has been criticized for years by observers as a costly trade barrier dressed as a consumer information tool.
But the final COOL rules, scheduled to take effect March 16, instead have come under fire from several of COOL’s early supporters within the U.S.

U.S.’ labelling requirements on fruit and vegetables exceed those required by the European Union’s latest sales reform - which established that the products can be displayed for sale “on condition that the retailer shows aside the products indication of the Country of origin”.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
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.

"I am hopeful that this new Administration will work with Congress to ensure U.S.A.-exclusive product is labeled as such. I introduced my first meat labeling bill sixteen years ago, and I will continue to fight until this program is implemented properly," Johnson said.

"Congress wants a labeling program that will provide consumers with accurate information about the source of meat products they eat. There have been significant developments in labeling, but we need this Administration to finish as soon as possible what we started so long ago," said Enzi. "I am looking forward to working with the new Administration in implementing the labeling law that supports our farmers, ranchers and consumers."
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
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.

"I am hopeful that this new Administration will work with Congress to ensure U.S.A.-exclusive product is labeled as such. I introduced my first meat labeling bill sixteen years ago, and I will continue to fight until this program is implemented properly," Johnson said.

"Congress wants a labeling program that will provide consumers with accurate information about the source of meat products they eat. There have been significant developments in labeling, but we need this Administration to finish as soon as possible what we started so long ago," said Enzi. "I am looking forward to working with the new Administration in implementing the labeling law that supports our farmers, ranchers and consumers."

This whole COOL thing has been played out by the meat industry for some time and is a big joke. We have argued longer over whether or not the law should be enforced instead of actually making the executive branch do its job in enforcing the law. This has allowed the executive branch (and Senators like Thad Cochrane, r-MS) to sell itself out to big business. I don't understand why anyone like Grassley or Enzi would support such an administration in all the other ways. We need politicians to stand up and make their power in office be known instead of having no consequence when their party sells out its ideology and morals to the highest bidder.
 

hambone

New member
Food safety agenda has a lot to do with the HSUS and their lobbying efforts to end all animal ownership. Remember HSUS and the "cruelty" cases regarding beef.
HSUS is not the fluffy pet,farm animal, saving agency people think it is. They are strictly a lobbying agency to liberate all animals back to the wild, so in the end we can enjoy a veggan world. Do not be fooled by HSUS.

I would rather see my animal euthanized than think if it starving but what would I do if there was no where to sell it and no market, could not transport long distance easily, and no slaughter house to sell it to and it be euthanized.

Since they have lobbied against horse transport and slaughter houses it has led to people in many states that are hard hit by the economy in having to set the horses free who can not feed or sell them. Many are starving that are set free, but what are people to do. Who in the end is to blame for this. If you care about your farm animals please see the web site below regard the real agenda of HSUS.

I think the article from Brownfield says it all.


http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=9D66881F-FC76-FC82-FE98558C74965DF3

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136
 

Tex

Well-known member
Also at the news conference, Vilsack said USDA's decision to use $3.2 million, originally set aside for the specialty crop block-grant program, to enforce mandatory country-of-origin labeling would be reversed and the block-grant program would receive the funds as Congress intended. There was no further indication what is next for the COOL program. The Obama administration has taken the position to halt and review many of the final rules for programs published in the Federal Register during the last month or so of the Bush presidency.

They need to take money out of NAIS to fund COOL. Whoever is responsible for pushing NAIS over COOL needs to be branded and fired. The brand is necessary to not allow them into government service again where they can abuse government power for their packers policies.


We need to identify these people and follow them to not ever allow them back in any government authority position and to track who is supporting them in government. If we do not do this, we may have to go through this all over again.

What a headache!!!
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Tex said:
Also at the news conference, Vilsack said USDA's decision to use $3.2 million, originally set aside for the specialty crop block-grant program, to enforce mandatory country-of-origin labeling would be reversed and the block-grant program would receive the funds as Congress intended. There was no further indication what is next for the COOL program. The Obama administration has taken the position to halt and review many of the final rules for programs published in the Federal Register during the last month or so of the Bush presidency.

They need to take money out of NAIS to fund COOL. Whoever is responsible for pushing NAIS over COOL needs to be branded and fired. The brand is necessary to not allow them into government service again where they can abuse government power for their packers policies.


We need to identify these people and follow them to not ever allow them back in any government authority position and to track who is supporting them in government. If we do not do this, we may have to go through this all over again.

What a headache!!!


Tex be careful. Branding people could be deemed racist. As liberal as you are I guess your friends would excuse it. :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tex said:
Also at the news conference, Vilsack said USDA's decision to use $3.2 million, originally set aside for the specialty crop block-grant program, to enforce mandatory country-of-origin labeling would be reversed and the block-grant program would receive the funds as Congress intended. There was no further indication what is next for the COOL program. The Obama administration has taken the position to halt and review many of the final rules for programs published in the Federal Register during the last month or so of the Bush presidency.

They need to take money out of NAIS to fund COOL. Whoever is responsible for pushing NAIS over COOL needs to be branded and fired. The brand is necessary to not allow them into government service again where they can abuse government power for their packers policies.


We need to identify these people and follow them to not ever allow them back in any government authority position and to track who is supporting them in government. If we do not do this, we may have to go through this all over again.

What a headache!!!


Tex be careful. Branding people could be deemed racist. As liberal as you are I guess your friends would excuse it. :roll:


BMR I don't believe when you substitute protecting the rights of a group of rich people over everyone else that it is "liberal" unless you believe the word "conservative" strictly means you believe in a system where this has come to pass and you don't want it to change.

When the meaning of the term conservative turns into liberal and liberal into conservative, it isn't me who has changed, it is the meaning of the words.

As far as "free trade" is concerned, one requirement I would have is that the people my country is trading with have people that are free.

I believe we need to hold those in government accountable for their actions and we need to identify them to do it. "Branding" with perception is what I meant. We don't need corporate representatives running our country. We need people who believe real democracy (not as in party) and the rule of law, not the rule of money.

Thanks for the warning, BMR but racism is where you discriminate in thinking against someone based on race, not politics. I guess you are one of those who wish to change the meaning of words without letting anyone know it.

Have you thought about running for office in Canada?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Tex said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tex said:
They need to take money out of NAIS to fund COOL. Whoever is responsible for pushing NAIS over COOL needs to be branded and fired. The brand is necessary to not allow them into government service again where they can abuse government power for their packers policies.


We need to identify these people and follow them to not ever allow them back in any government authority position and to track who is supporting them in government. If we do not do this, we may have to go through this all over again.

What a headache!!!


Tex be careful. Branding people could be deemed racist. As liberal as you are I guess your friends would excuse it. :roll:


BMR I don't believe when you substitute protecting the rights of a group of rich people over everyone else that it is "liberal" unless you believe the word "conservative" strictly means you believe in a system where this has come to pass and you don't want it to change.

When the meaning of the term conservative turns into liberal and liberal into conservative, it isn't me who has changed, it is the meaning of the words.

As far as "free trade" is concerned, one requirement I would have is that the people my country is trading with have people that are free.

I believe we need to hold those in government accountable for their actions and we need to identify them to do it. "Branding" with perception is what I meant. We don't need corporate representatives running our country. We need people who believe real democracy (not as in party) and the rule of law, not the rule of money.

Thanks for the warning, BMR but racism is where you discriminate in thinking against someone based on race, not politics. I guess you are one of those who wish to change the meaning of words without letting anyone know it.

Have you thought about running for office in Canada?

Just thought i had better warn you as Soapweed got chastised for calling his Angus cows" black".
 

Tex

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tex said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Tex be careful. Branding people could be deemed racist. As liberal as you are I guess your friends would excuse it. :roll:


BMR I don't believe when you substitute protecting the rights of a group of rich people over everyone else that it is "liberal" unless you believe the word "conservative" strictly means you believe in a system where this has come to pass and you don't want it to change.

When the meaning of the term conservative turns into liberal and liberal into conservative, it isn't me who has changed, it is the meaning of the words.

As far as "free trade" is concerned, one requirement I would have is that the people my country is trading with have people that are free.

I believe we need to hold those in government accountable for their actions and we need to identify them to do it. "Branding" with perception is what I meant. We don't need corporate representatives running our country. We need people who believe real democracy (not as in party) and the rule of law, not the rule of money.

Thanks for the warning, BMR but racism is where you discriminate in thinking against someone based on race, not politics. I guess you are one of those who wish to change the meaning of words without letting anyone know it.

Have you thought about running for office in Canada?

Just thought i had better warn you as Soapweed got chastised for calling his Angus cows" black".

I think that is okay just as long as you don't get caught calling your wife, whatever color, a cow.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Obama pledges ‘complete review’ of FDA
By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 03-Feb-2009
Related topics: Legislation

President Obama has said in a televised interview that his administration will conduct a complete review of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent future lapses in food safety.

The pledge comes in the midst of a salmonella outbreak linked to peanut products from a processing plant in Georgia that has sickened more than 500 people, and may have caused eight deaths.

“The FDA has not been able to catch some of these things as quickly as I would have expected them to catch them, so we’re going to be doing a complete review of its operations,” Obama told the Today Show on Sunday. “At a bare minimum, we should be able to count on our government keeping our kids safe when they eat peanut butter.”

The FDA is currently being run by an acting commissioner, but a White House spokesperson told reporters at a press briefing on Friday that Obama was expected to announce a new agency chief “in the next few days.”

Industry calls for reform

Obama’s assurance that the FDA will be put under the microscope will be seen as a positive step by many organizations representing food manufacturers, as well as consumer groups and the Government Accountability Office, which have all been calling for an overhaul of the FDA. A group of ten major food industry organizations, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association among others, recently wrote letters to Congress which said: “We urge Congress to quickly enact food safety reforms that will give FDA new powers to reduce the risk of food-borne illness.”

FDA Globalization Act

Then last week, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to tackle food safety reform, which includes proposals to give additional powers to the FDA to issue mandatory recalls and carry out more frequent inspections of food and drug manufacturing facilities. Under the proposed legislation, manufacturers would pay fees to fund the additional inspections, to take place once every four years for food manufacturers, and every two for drug manufacturers.

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rep. Bart Stupak, said: “Since January 2007, my Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has held 16 hearings on the FDA’s failure to protect Americans from unsafe food and drugs. The Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act addresses many of the problems we have identified through our hearings, providing the regulatory tools and financial resources for the FDA to protect American families from unsafe food and drugs.”

Although a spokesperson for the Grocery Manufacturers Association broadly welcomed the news that the legislation had been put forward, he criticized the proposal that industry should pay for plant inspections. He told FoodNavigator-USA.com: “We believe that food safety is a right that all Americans have…and that it should be paid for by Congress appropriating general funds.”
 

Tex

Well-known member
PORKER said:
Obama pledges ‘complete review’ of FDA
By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 03-Feb-2009
Related topics: Legislation

President Obama has said in a televised interview that his administration will conduct a complete review of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent future lapses in food safety.

The pledge comes in the midst of a salmonella outbreak linked to peanut products from a processing plant in Georgia that has sickened more than 500 people, and may have caused eight deaths.

“The FDA has not been able to catch some of these things as quickly as I would have expected them to catch them, so we’re going to be doing a complete review of its operations,” Obama told the Today Show on Sunday. “At a bare minimum, we should be able to count on our government keeping our kids safe when they eat peanut butter.”

The FDA is currently being run by an acting commissioner, but a White House spokesperson told reporters at a press briefing on Friday that Obama was expected to announce a new agency chief “in the next few days.”

Industry calls for reform

Obama’s assurance that the FDA will be put under the microscope will be seen as a positive step by many organizations representing food manufacturers, as well as consumer groups and the Government Accountability Office, which have all been calling for an overhaul of the FDA. A group of ten major food industry organizations, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association among others, recently wrote letters to Congress which said: “We urge Congress to quickly enact food safety reforms that will give FDA new powers to reduce the risk of food-borne illness.”

FDA Globalization Act

Then last week, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to tackle food safety reform, which includes proposals to give additional powers to the FDA to issue mandatory recalls and carry out more frequent inspections of food and drug manufacturing facilities. Under the proposed legislation, manufacturers would pay fees to fund the additional inspections, to take place once every four years for food manufacturers, and every two for drug manufacturers.

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rep. Bart Stupak, said: “Since January 2007, my Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has held 16 hearings on the FDA’s failure to protect Americans from unsafe food and drugs. The Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act addresses many of the problems we have identified through our hearings, providing the regulatory tools and financial resources for the FDA to protect American families from unsafe food and drugs.”

Although a spokesperson for the Grocery Manufacturers Association broadly welcomed the news that the legislation had been put forward, he criticized the proposal that industry should pay for plant inspections. He told FoodNavigator-USA.com: “We believe that food safety is a right that all Americans have…and that it should be paid for by Congress appropriating general funds.”

Why is the GMA asking for someone else to pay for the policing they obviously need? Perhaps a 1 penny tax on food from large processors could pay for these inspections. They are right that food safety is a right that all Americans have. The "....and" part is asking for a hand out. If prices are just pushed through the economy to the consumers as businesses claim, there should be no problem with this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PORKER said:
The Food Mafia doesn't want to pay for their mistakes. Go BART Stupak !

Yep- they (big industry/food mafia/multinational importers) were given deregulation and self oversight- and they proved they are like little kids finding the cookie jar- they can't eat just one-they have to clean out the cookie jar with their greed, and leave a mess doing it--- so now they need rules and regs- and babysitters looking over their shoulders....
 

Tex

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I cannot believe this. Of course the food industry should pay for inspections.

but, but, but reader, the American people deserve safe food ........and the gov. needs to pay for what the people deserve......:shock:

These people have so much gall that they can't keep it in their bladder. I want to know who gives them their ear so they can be weeded out too.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
In a free market society, if you do not feel that the company is watching food safety, you would not buy from them.

Reader thinks that it should be taken off the producer's pay!
 

Tex

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
In a free market society, if you do not feel that the company is watching food safety, you would not buy from them.

Reader thinks that it should be taken off the producer's pay!

In a total free market, there would be free information flow so you would know not to buy it. Unfortunately things just don't work that way. Inspections are there to protect everyone from a larger harm.
 

Tex

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
So, this stuff is in the stimulus package, right? Offering more inspection jobs, while allowing for increased food safety?

Who knows what is in the stimulus package. Some of these kind of things need to have well thought out parameters and the right people carrying out those parameters or the agencies will just spend it on their pet projects like the USDA did with NAIS instead of spending money on MCOOL.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
I still say that MCOOL is a food safety program as MCOOL has traceback built into the law if it was enforced. In Japan I read that the 3 largest ingredients in a product have to have full traceback and country of origin. The crew at ScoringAg has been working on that new law as we have been informed to find US companys that ship there.
 
Top