Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

foodsafetynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#81

Post by batch12 »

drdaeman wrote: post #25
ldoughty wrote: post #16

I sympathize with US ranchers, but I agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay... M-COOL (Meat Country of Origin Label) is the right solution... and let me give an example why: If I buy a new, real wood, kitchen table, that was imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen -- would that be a product of the USA? I'd say so, and I th…

> Tell me where the meat was born, raised, and slaughtered. This! Can't agree more. In modern economies, something might be a product of few dozen countries (beef born there, raised here, slaughtered somewhere else, beans from that place and pepper imported from another, there's a can and paper label design and printing too, and of course a labor to make those into the final product - which might be distributed), so…

Sure. I can get onboard with that. In this case, the company should not claim that the beef is a product of a single country. The issue I think is that sellers realize that people don't always want food shipped from halfway around the world-- so they obfuscate.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#82

Post by nickff »

batch12 wrote: post #77
ldoughty wrote: post #16

I sympathize with US ranchers, but I agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay... M-COOL (Meat Country of Origin Label) is the right solution... and let me give an example why: If I buy a new, real wood, kitchen table, that was imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen -- would that be a product of the USA? I'd say so, and I th…

This seems all about removing the capacity for a consumer to make an informed choice between products. The label 'Product of USA' should have an unambiguous meaning-- especially for food.

>"The label 'Product of USA' should have an unambiguous meaning..."

And what should that meaning be? I don't understand where you think the line should be.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#83

Post by Dracophoenix »

ldoughty wrote: post #16

I sympathize with US ranchers, but I agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay... M-COOL (Meat Country of Origin Label) is the right solution... and let me give an example why: If I buy a new, real wood, kitchen table, that was imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen -- would that be a product of the USA? I'd say so, and I th…

Why not just follow current immigration policy (jus soli births)?

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#84

Post by reginaldo »

istjohn wrote: post #53
ldoughty wrote: post #16

I sympathize with US ranchers, but I agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay... M-COOL (Meat Country of Origin Label) is the right solution... and let me give an example why: If I buy a new, real wood, kitchen table, that was imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen -- would that be a product of the USA? I'd say so, and I th…

That there isn't an obvious place to draw the line does not in any way justify drawing the line at a patently absurd position like this court has done. Courts constantly make rulings on issues where the boundaries are somewhat blurry. For just one example, take the infamous line about pornography: "I know it when I see it." They have well-established techniques for reasoning about such cases. It's not perfect, but it…

> Courts constantly make rulings on issues where the boundaries are somewhat blurry.

Do you consider that to be a good thing, though? Or, at least, a net good?

My own initial intuition was that it's not OK to add "Product of the USA" to the label if the intention is to mislead the consumer, but there may be other things at play that determine what must or must not be on the label, e.g. tax-related considerations, which, if you ask me, are also frequently arbitrary.

Also, keep in mind that a label with a full history might create information pollution, like with CA Prop 65 labels.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#85

Post by bluGill »

anamax wrote: post #52
Victerius wrote: post #12

Are "Product of USA"-labeled products entitled to beneficial tax treatment or subsidies? Because it would make sense for a business to attempt to minimize its production costs by outsourcing to cheaper foreign sources while reaping fiscal benefits at home.

> Are "Product of USA"-labeled products entitled to beneficial tax treatment or subsidies? The presence/absence of "Product of the USA" label affects some people's buying decisions.

Not very many. Consumers mostly go to the store and grab whatever. Very few even read the label.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#86

Post by twelvechairs »

ldoughty wrote: post #16

I sympathize with US ranchers, but I agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay... M-COOL (Meat Country of Origin Label) is the right solution... and let me give an example why: If I buy a new, real wood, kitchen table, that was imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen -- would that be a product of the USA? I'd say so, and I th…

Australia has a better system on all products 'Made in Australia from at least 98% Australian ingredients' or similar. Meat is treated the same as vegetables, nuts, milk, cereal etc.

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/groceries/country-of-origi...

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#87

Post by KennyBlanken »

ldoughty wrote: post #16

I sympathize with US ranchers, but I agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay... M-COOL (Meat Country of Origin Label) is the right solution... and let me give an example why: If I buy a new, real wood, kitchen table, that was imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen -- would that be a product of the USA? I'd say so, and I th…

I lol'd at this:

> Cattlemen believe it also helps create a level playing field for American ranchers by assisting them to get a fair price.

This is the industry that has fought to make it illegal to publish video from within slaughterhouses, and for regulations that require packages be labeled with disclaimers that imply organic and hormone-free meat and dairy are meaningless.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#88

Post by KennyBlanken »

LegitShady wrote: post #68
thesimon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>beef born there, raised here, slaughtered somewhere else Not rare to see here in Germany. I have seen it for Austrian-grown chicken to be slaughtered in Germany, similarly Argentinian beef is sometimes cut in the Netherlands. EU regulation stipulates: > The term ‘origin’ should be reserved for meat obtained from animals born, reared and slaughtered, and therefore wholly obtained, in one single Member State or third…

I think there are big quality control issues with shipping away cattle to other countries for slaughter as well. Your ability to control the final product is much reduced compared to when everything is regulated locally. I remember reading about a company importing crab and fish from china that on analysis found out what they were receiving wasn’t necessarily what they ordered, and the Chinese themselves were officia…

A massive amount of seafood in the US is intentionally mislabeled, which leads to a lot of problems because tilapia, for example, causes upset stomachs for a lot of people.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#89

Post by sethammons »

Alex3917 wrote: post #44
ldoughty wrote: post #16

I sympathize with US ranchers, but I agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay... M-COOL (Meat Country of Origin Label) is the right solution... and let me give an example why: If I buy a new, real wood, kitchen table, that was imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen -- would that be a product of the USA? I'd say so, and I th…

If you import a sapling from overseas then there's a good chance the government will come to your house, seize and destroy it, and put you in prison. They run sting operations on eBay and similar sites all the time. Why shouldn't the same apply here?

while this may or may not be true, and it is beside the point. We are talking about where to draw the line in the sand for "made somewhere" not if it is/isn't legal to have been made.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#90

Post by cwkoss »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #31

The meat is not really at issue. Neither is the label. It's the need for folks to buy something with a nationalistic label, where the problem begins.

There are many environmental and other moral reasons to prefer more-local food (and other products)
Post reply on HN