|2010 Journal Citations
wonders." (June 2010) Prepared Foods. (179)
6:40. The 2010 Consumer Food Safety Survey by Deloitte LLC found that consumer
concern for food safety issues has fallen 17% since 2008. 65% of survey participants
report concerns about the safety of their food, and 90% perceived that food recalls were
on the rise. Other consumer behaviors tracked in the survey include: noted
country-of-origin-labeling (51%); frequently read ingredient list (53%); understood over
75% of the ingredient list (45%); understood half of less of ingredients on list (55%).
Includes a chart entitled "Making the Recall: Entities responsible for communicating
product recall information."
2009 Journal Citations
Stephan. Vilsack asks industry to comply with voluntary COOL guidance. (March
2009) Food Traceability Report. (9)3:1.9-10. Description of the
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's letter to meat processors asking them to
"voluntarily comply with congressional intent in country-of-origin labeling (COOL)
legislation." Despite the Obama administrations freeze of regulatory actions,
Vilsacks Feb. 20 letter announced that COOL regulations would take effect on March
16, 2009. This correspondence includes additional measures for meat suppliers, not
required by the COOL rules in which he asks for voluntary compliance. The letter and news
release can be viewed at www.ams.usda.gov/cool.
Clapp, Staphan & Huffman, Jason. (February 2009) Food Traceability Report. (9) 2:1,9-10.
Obama administration released a memo on Inauguration Day which put on hold impending
regulatory changes, including the COOL regulation until further review. The memo states
"regulatory agencies must at least temporarily withdraw all proposed or final
regulations that have yet to be sent to the Federal Register." Article also
summarizes the criticism of COOL regulation by the Consumer Federation of America and Food
& Water Watch, which cites "serious loopholes" in the final rule for Cool.
COOL isnt cool. (February/March 2009) Food Quality. (16)1:16-17.
final details on the COOL program were announced on January 12, 2009 by the FDA. Some
criticized the limitations of the COOL regulation, especially the exemptions of mixed
foods, cooked/cured/smoked foods, and products from food service organization. "A
retail product containing two different types of covered commodities- a bag of peas and
carrots, for example- will be considered a processed food item and, therefore, not subject
to mandatory COOL."The final
ruling on COOL can be accessed at www.ams.usda.gov.
Nachay, Karen. Commodities get cool.
(March 2009) Food Technology.(63)
labeling, or COOL, requires food processors to provide more information to consumers about
certain commodities. Some controversy surrounds this mandatory labeling reform, as
processors and retailers claim that this will significantly increase food costs. Includes
detailed explanation of the COOL regulations concerning: perishable agricultural
commodities, nuts and ginseng; ground meat; fish and shellfish; and commingled
commodities. The USDA will issue civil penalties up to $1000 per violation to
retailers/suppliers not in compliance with COOL regulations. "The individuals
interviews in the article emphasize that COOL is not a food safety system and does not
indicate that products from one country are safer than ones from another country."
Sec. Vilsack to change COOL labels.
(February 23, 2009) Food Institute
Report. (82) 8:11-12.
Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that country of origin labeling requirements proposed
under the Bush administration will be adapted. Vilsack has asked the meat industry to
voluntarily follow stricter guidelines. If they refuse, new regulations will be created.
Food retailers have criticized the Obama administrations plan to increase COOL measures,
which they insist will create higher prices.
2008 Journal Citations:
Abkes, John. COOL compliance making you sweat?
(August/September 2008) Food Quality. (15) 4:46-47.
30, 2008 marks the deadline for fresh produce and meat products to be country of origin
labeling (COOL) compliant. While the food industry has protested these drastic changes,
consumers prefer COOL meat 75% and most are willing to pay more for such a label. This
article discusses the challenges of accurate origin codes, data exchange, tracking and
documentation. The current legislation requires that food retailers and manufacturers:
inform consumers of the country of origin for muscle cuts of beef, lamb, and pork;
farm-raised fish and shellfish; wild fish and shellfish; fruits, vegetables, and peanuts
via a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the covered
commodity, or on the package, display, holding unit, or bin containing the commodity at
the final point of consumption."
Fair Assessment. (February 2008)Prepared Foods. (177) 2:11.
products with fair trade positioning is becoming increasingly important, increasing 900%
since 2003. Article includes chart of new product with fair trade positioning, the most
numerous in chocolate confectionery, coffee, and iced tea products.
Erin. Going local. (January/February 2008) Bakers Journal. (68) 1:24-26.
Green Movement has highlighted the importance of local production of foods, and
"every large grocery chain is working on a strategy to highlight local
products." Another reason for this trend is ingredient traceability, in this time of
concern regarding international food safety standards.
Nachay, Karen. COOL now mandatory.
(November 2008). Food Technology. (62)11:10.
of Origin Labeling (Cool) regulations took effect on Sept. 30, 2008. The regulations apply
to the following products: "muscle cuts of beef, lamb, chicken, goat, and pork;
ground beef, lamb, chicken, goat, and pork; fish and shellfish; fresh and frozen fruits
and vegetables; peanuts, pecans, and macadamia nuts; and ginseng."
Sjeveren, Jay. Ohio
Senator Stumps for Food Traceability Bill. (September 16, 2008) Food Business News (4) 16: 34.
Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio
introduced the Food Tracking Improvement Act. The act would allow
tainted food products to be traced to the source. If passed the bill would make available
$40 million dollars that would be
used to establish a national traceability program and would establish and 13-member
advisory committee that would included consumer advocates and industry leaders. Highlights
key points of the bill.
Toops, D. Ingredients from where?
(February 2008) Food Processing. (69) 2:22-27.
increasing amount of ingredients are being imported, but "Food labels must indicate
the list of ingredients and where the end product is made, but there's no requirement to
list the country of origin of the ingredients." This article outlines what
regulations exist on imports, and the lack of FDA authority, and how many any which type
of products are examined before entering the country. Responsibility for the safety of
ingredients imported falls on the shoulders of the food processors. Article explains what
the costs would be for an improved system.
Comment Period Extended. (2004)Food
Technology (58) 1:17.
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has extended their deadline from October 30, 2003 to
February 27, 2004 for the proposed rule for mandatory country of origin labeling program.
Law Declared Costly. (2004)Food
Product Design (13) 10:25.
a conference called Agriculture at the Crossroads that was sponsored by
AgRelations Council, the senior vice president of regulatory affairs and general counsel
for the American Meat Institute, Mark Dopp, reported that the mandatory country of origin
labeling is expensive. It
also does not have benefits and is intellectually dishonest. He estimates that the first year costs
for the USDA would be $3.9 billion for all commodities. The costs
outweigh the potential benefits. Until
September 30, 2004, the labeling program is voluntary at which time it will be required
for fresh red-meat products, seafood, produce, and peanuts.
Calls For Voluntary Country-of-Origin Labeling. (2004) Food Technology (58) 3:8.
are calling for a plan to develop a program for providing country of origin labeling for
produce, beef, pork, and seafood. The
group is made of United Fruit and Vegetable Association, National Cattlemens Beef
Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Fisheries Institute, Food Marketing
Institute, and National Grocers Association. Congress delayed the law
Labeling Delayed Two Years. (2004) Food Processing (65) 2:14.
Senate decided to delay the country of origin labeling rule by two years. This means that it will not go into
effect for most foods until September 30, 2006. Farm-raised and wild-caught fish must
start labeling September 30, 2004. Food
and grocery associations were happy about the delay so that they can have time to repeal
Industry Chafes at Latest Plan for Country-of Origin Labeling Rules. (2003: November
11) Milling & Baking News (82) 37: 37.
Food industry groups do not feel the
USDAs proposed country of origin labels are a good thing. The cost for implementing the labels is
stabled to be $3.9 billion in the first year and could cost as much as $500 million
annually according to estimates reported from the USDA. The final problem with
the proposed rules would be the September 2004 implementation date.
Reportedly Preparing Beef Label for Japan Exports. (2003) CongressDaily7/14/2003:5.
wants the U.S. to put country-of-origin labels on meat being imported into Japan to ensure
that the meat did not come from Canada. The
Agricultural Department is currently working on the plan to meet this demand. Canada recently found a cow with mad cow
disease and Japan is worried about the disease being imported into its country. Japan gave the U.S. a deadline of
September 1, 2003. By value, the U.S. is Japans top beef importer. The Bush administration is currently
opposed to labeling meat with the country of origin. Meat producers are saying that this is
impossible because of all the meat that they imported from Canada. The Agricultural Department is currently
working on the entire situation.
Chuck and Tim Aughenbaugh. Verifying Product and Process
Authenticity. (2003) Food Technology(57) 6:32-36.
difference between an Identity Preservation (IP) program and authenticity testing is that
an IP program is designed to make sure that the production and process systems will
deliver authentic material while authenticity testing is used to determine at the end of
the line that a product label is accurate. The
IP program and authenticity testing have created a new field called authenticity
management. The Farm
bill now requires retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling for all covered
include genetics, planting, growing, inspections, environment, harvest, storage,
processing, and to the retailer. The
retailer gets all of this information so that they can accurately display the
Reception for Country of Origin Labeling. (2003)Food Processing (64) 11:17-18.
of Origin Labeling is not a new concept but the way it is being applied is new. Country
of Origin Labeling is being required on certain food products and comes from the 2002 Farm
Bill. There are
exceptions to this rule such as foods that are natural products that are in their natural
state are exempted such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, berries, live or dead animals. The
rule does not apply to produce that is not packaged but produce that is packaged must have
the country of origin label. Foods
that go under substantial transformation are exempted also such as grapes that are made
into jelly. The author
believes that the reason to have the labeling requirement is to discriminate against
imported goods. The
bill does require that beef, lamb, pork, fish, peanuts, and perishable agricultural
commodities have the country of origin labeling. This law applies to
domestic and imported foods.
Meatpackers Fight Law to Label Origin of Foods. (2003) The Wall Street Journal (241) 124:B1, B7.
U.S. Department of Agriculture created a rule that passed in the 2002 farm-subsidy law
that says by September 2004, the nation's supermarkets must label the country of origin of
beef, pork, lamb, fish, produce, and peanuts. A fine for mislabeling would be $10,000. The food industry is opposing this. Congress
is also fighting over this law and if they should repeal the mandate. The House Appropriations Committee
already voted to block some funding that would help implement the labeling rule. Supermarkets are importing more to
satisfy consumer's growing interest in variety. The labels would help consumers to stay
away from food from countries with poor health regulations or who are having a food scare. The Bush administration also does not
like the new regulation because it could affect trade and relations with other countries.
Klie, Leonard. Country
of Origin Labeling. (2003) Food Logistics 63:8-9.
The author includes reactions to the new federal law that will
require the U.S. food industry to include country-of-origin labeling. The labeling will be included on all
meat, seafood and produce and will be effective October 2003. The author discusses possible effects
that this law will have on consumers and the estimated cost of mandatory records and
labeling that will be required to be given to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S congressmen, grocery chains, and
wholesalers have already issued responses and taken actions to the country of origin
labeling. The article
also includes an inset that is titled, Food Industry Unprepared for Bioterrorism
Trade Coalition Unveils New Website. (2003) Food Product Design(13) 5:25.
The Food Industry Trade Coalition has created a new web site a twww.countryoforiginlabel.org. The
site will contain information about the laws and how they will impact different sectors of
agriculture and food production. The
FITC does report that they hope the country of origin labeling will be appealed and a
voluntary program will be put in its place.
Wary of Mad Cow, Japan Asks U.S. to Label Its Beef. (2003) The Wall Street Journal (241) 119:A12.
officially asked the U.S. to label its beef with a country of origin label by July 1 for
the U.S.'s beef it exports to Japan. Japan wants to ensure that none of
the beef is from Canada or other countries that have reported that they have found cows
with the mad-cow disease. U.S.
packers report that they will have little chance of making the deadline since the U.S. has
no uniform trace back system in place.
updated March 26, 2013
to obtain sources for reprints of articles cited