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

101–110 of 146 posts

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

#101

Post by talideon »

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…

Here in Europe, you're told everything, not just where it was finally processed/packaged. Produce is labelled not just down to a country level, but to individual farms, and often you'll see meat for sale in shops include not just the code for the farm, but the full name too.

If I were to show you the jar of (blended) honey I have in my cupboard, it lists every country it came from. I haven't looked at any soup I have (granularity with stuff like that is more important when it comes down to food standards in individual blocs), but anything with differing food standards would likely be marked as such. Anything that's a mixed source of raw product has to be labelled as such, such as "Made in Ireland from a blend of EU and non-EU sources".

One of the good things about the EU, though I'm sure some in a particular ex-EU country might debate this, is that any food imports are required to be of the same standard as anything produced within the bloc.

Regarding the term "product of the USA", I think the problem there is down to phrasing: the table is a "product of the USA" if the work done in the US to transform it from the raw material to a table is done in the US. Maybe the solution is to do the same thing as is done in Europe, and have something like "Product of the USA from US and non-US raw materials".

[And if you want complicated, try being somebody working in Northern Ireland right now! Though it's a mixed, mostly positive, blessing for them: they can operate under "made in the UK" (good domestically, less so abroad mostly), or "made in Ireland" (so long as they're sticking to EU rules, and NI is so dependent on agriculture that it's to their benefit, as with tourism, to export under an all-Ireland umbrella), but it makes the paperwork... fun.]

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

#102

Post by AniseAbyss »

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…

There is an infamous example in the EU with "Parmaham". Take pigs from the Netherlands, put them in a truck and drive to Italy.

Presto Italian ham.

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

#103

Post by babyshake »

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…

The easy solution is to allow for something like "Prepared in the USA", and only allowing "Product of the USA" if the animal was slaughtered in the US.

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

#104

Post by katbyte »

babyshake wrote: post #103
istjohn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The easy solution is to allow for something like "Prepared in the USA", and only allowing "Product of the USA" if the animal was slaughtered in the US.

similar to "Assembled in the USA"

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

#105

Post by talideon »

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…

Here in Ireland, our reputation with raw material is important, because what we make is traded as best-of-breed, which in agriculture means any meat is grass-fed and free-range, and any fish we catch is mostly from managed wild stock (important for salmon), or explicitly labelled as farmed.

The big initial scandal around that was around live cattle exports to the Middle East. This was largely down to animal cruelty, because live exports happened because nobody wanted to export halal meat from Ireland. Amongst other things, this eventually lead to the establishment of halal slaughterhouses in Ireland, which, while it didn't entirely eliminate the animal cruelty argument, at least minimised it.

It doesn't hurt that everything in the EU is traceable.

Mind you, then there's the whole horsemeat scandal in the EU. Me, I've no problem with horsemeat, but I'd just prefer it to be labelled as such. It's not all that terribly different from beef.

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

#106

Post by riffraff »

AniseAbyss wrote: post #102
LegitShady wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is an infamous example in the EU with "Parmaham". Take pigs from the Netherlands, put them in a truck and drive to Italy. Presto Italian ham.

Are you sure?

As far as I remember Prosciutto di Parma has a proper disciplinary, the pigs must be bred in Italy, and not even all of it.

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

#107

Post by [deleted] »

phonypc wrote: post #99
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how that works. 'Tilapia' isn't a fish. Its 'any whitefish'

Tilapia certainly does not refer to any whitefish. If tilapia is not "a fish" then neither are salmon or tuna or probably a dozen other common names.

[deleted]

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

#108

Post by ompaLompa »

bluGill wrote: post #85
anamax wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Critically thinking - If that was the case this wouldn't have been fought in court.

A few google searches show the effect is minor to major depending on product category. I wasn't able to find exact numbers. But as a personal note I would never buy meat labeled "Made in China"

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

#109

Post by JoeAltmaier »

phonypc wrote: post #99
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how that works. 'Tilapia' isn't a fish. Its 'any whitefish'

Tilapia certainly does not refer to any whitefish. If tilapia is not "a fish" then neither are salmon or tuna or probably a dozen other common names.

Tilapia certainly does refer to (almost) any whitefish. Over 100 different fish are called 'tilapia'. Because their flesh is white, and they cannot pass as a more valuable fish.

For comparison, there are 8 species of salmon. We eat maybe two of them.

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

#110

Post by dwater »

katbyte wrote: post #104
babyshake wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easy solution is to allow for something like "Prepared in the USA", and only allowing "Product of the USA" if the animal was slaughtered in the US.

similar to "Assembled in the USA"

I'm sure consumers will love "Pork Chops: Designed in Texas, butchered in USA from components sourced in USA and elsewhere".
Post reply on HN