AFF Sentinel Vol.5#32
Activists
Asking Government To Go Easy On Them Now
Activist groups significantly responsible for
America's upcoming disruptive mandatory Country-of- Origin Labeling (mCOOL)
program have sent a letter to a federal agency asking it to adhere to
amendments other groups pleaded for in mitigating damage from the
regulatory juggernaut.
The groups asked the Office of Management &
Budget (OMB) to keep the "spirit and intent of Congress' new amendments"
in USDA-AMS regulations due soon. The irony is, the 2008 amendments to the
original 2002 mCOOL law were designed to soften damage from the 2002 law these
very groups supported in its strictest form. R- CALF, National Farmers
Union, Consumer Federation of America and Food and Water Watch sent the plea to
OMB. OMB is involved in the rulemaking process with USDA-AMS. Suddenly, the
groups are concerned about "burdensome or stringent" regulations.
Coming from those who asked the government for these regulations and
costs, that's fascinating.
Meanwhile, the nation's food industry is living
through a perfect demonstration of why these groups' pet government solution
---mCOOL - will do little to solve the food safety problems they
claim to be concerned about. After 14 weeks of investigation, the FDA has yet
to be able to definitively allocate blame for salmonella infections among
tomatoes, peppers (one known guilty pepper from Mexico but no confirmation of
where it was infected) or some other produce. A label indicating which country
any of the produce came from would not have helped anything.
The mCOOL labeling on meat packages will be nearly
worthless in food safety terms, because it will not identify individual
animals, nor identify when and where an animal could have
been exposed to infectious animals or diseases. Yet the proponents of
mCOOL legislation - both inside and outside the government - are misleading
consumers into thinking a country label on a piece of meat will provide
them with useful, protective food safety information.
Incredibly, to make an irrelevant law even weaker
and the practicality more ridiculous, the activist groups are actually
proposing that the government accept the lack of a brand identifying an animal
as from a foreign country as sufficient proof that it is of U.S. origin,
without documentation. The letter requested that "farmers and ranchers be
allowed to attest to the presence or absence of import markings as evidence of
their animal's origin" and animals without a foreign import marking "should
be presumed to have a U.S. country of origin." That should mightily
help disease investigators.
Do you suppose groups like R-CALF and NFU are
starting to get questions from producers and feeders about what information
and paperwork packers and retailers are going to have to require of
feeders when animals are sold? Retailers - and their lawyers and insurance
carriers - are not likely to take the substantial risk of mislabeling meat sold
to consumers with such casual assurances as, "Yep, he doesn't have
a `CAN' or `MEX' on him, so he must be U.S." Neither will USDA. Yet, the
activists supporting this fiasco are already backtracking on the burden on
producers.
The "powerful opponents" the news
release refers to as opposing the original 2002 mCOOL language really refers to
businessmen throughout the food production chain who truly understood
the worthlessness of mCOOL as a food safety tool. These people
understood the huge disruptions and costs such a pervasive system would
impose on everyone in the animal food production chain - both inside and
outside America. R-CALF maintained this law would cost cattlemen
nothing, while actually hoping to profit from the cost and
compliance foreign livestock producers would incur -- a perfect example of cutting
your nose off to spite your face. R-CALF doesn't understand that costs will
be passed back to producers.
USDA officials told us the regulations will be no
more burdensome than the law requires. The agency realizes the law will do
little for food safety and certainly will punish livestock industries
already suffering from high fuel and feed costs and softened demand from
economically stressed consumers. There are people within this USDA who do understand
the food production business - the kind of people the activists promoting
mCOOL have consistently berated as unfit for government service because
they had real-world agribusiness experience.
The activist producers concerned about the mCOOL burden
can likely be confident the officials they have complained about will mitigate
what damage they can. But no one can save the animal food production
chain -- nor really help consumers' food safety information -- with
the mCOOL law on the books.
Email your comments to the author {mos_sb_discuss:08}
|