MCOOL

[HAY MAKER]

say OT,do you know anything about Boarders opening up ???????

PS some how that lil dancing banana he uses reminds me of vs
good luck

 

[vs_cattle]

say OT,do you know anything about Boarders opening up ???????

PS some how that lil dancing banana he uses reminds me of vs
good luck

no if you look closer the two are you and OT :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Oldtimer]

say OT,do you know anything about Boarders opening up ???????

PS some how that lil dancing banana he uses reminds me of vs
good luck

Haven't heard anything lately...I see where NCBA/Farm Bureau have really been putting the pressure on USDA to keep them closed until Japan/Korea/Asian markets accept OIE standards- which so far they refuse to recognize....

 

[HAY MAKER]

say OT,do you know anything about Boarders opening up ???????

PS some how that lil dancing banana he uses reminds me of vs
good luck

Haven't heard anything lately...I see where NCBA/Farm Bureau have really been putting the pressure on USDA to keep them closed until Japan/Korea/Asian markets accept OIE standards- which so far they refuse to recognize....

No not that kinda border,the kind ole vs keeps refering to.
good luck
PS say vs are you sure there aint a connection between you and that banana,californians are know to be kinda fruity,see the connection .
what does vs stand for ?

 

[vs_cattle]

Fruity? ask your woman or should I say MAN whos fruity :lol: :lol: :lol: YOU I mean the only thing thats comes out of Texas are steers and queers and you dont have any horns :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[HAY MAKER]

Yup,vs stands for what I thought it did,good bye & good luck

 

[vs_cattle]

ya I knew you would run off VS stands for Vasquez And Sons
but what does R-Calf Really Stand For?
Retarded
Cattle raisiers of
America who
Love to cause problems who
Fail at anything they do
8) :lol2:

 

[Oldtimer]

VS stands for Vasquez And Sons

Well son- does Daddy Vasquez know your playing on the computer using his name :???: ;-)

 

[vs_cattle]

VS stands for Vasquez And Sons

Well son- does Daddy Vasquez know your playing on the computer using his name :???: ;-)

Oh no, daddy gonna get mad ..... Yea Right I'm the boss now but I know you better be careful cuz does your mommy (wife) knows your acting a fool :compute: ? I know when she finds out she is gonna snap her fingers and OT is gonna have to jump right to her like a little puppy (we know the real word OT) :clap:

 

[HAY MAKER]

ya I knew you would run off VS stands for Vasquez And Sons
but what does R-Calf Really Stand For?
Retarded
Cattle raisiers of
America who
Love to cause problems who
Fail at anything they do
8) :lol2:

Oh a meskin californian,son you are fighting with a short stick,
does your mother have horns or is she polled too
good luck

 

[vs_cattle]

Thanks for caring my parents are doing great! They are form Donna and Brownsville Texas. Im From Salinas California 10-15 Mins from Monterey? Central Coast. And H@!! Ya I'm Mexican Im Brown And Proud For Sure!
And about my mom all I can say is she is a better person then your entire family, But you asked a question so let me ask some as well. does your mom even have all her teath or any of your family for that matter? I know your an inbred so I cant point out certain people cuz they have multipule titles MOM/Grandma, Dad/Cusin, Aunt from moms side/Aunt from dads side, Brother/Uncle, Wife/Aunt, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[HAY MAKER]

If they are from Brownsville,they probably worked for me ,I remember the vasquez,sorriest help I ever had,ran their meskin ass off,every damn one of them thought they were owed something for nothing in return..............good luck

 

[vs_cattle]

some stuff I shouldn't have said.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I will tell you what I have told others like you,my name is Joe Stout,I can be easily found in Sisterdale TX,just ask anyone where the Stout ranch is,I have had pups like you yelping for their mamma more than once ;-)
good luck

 

[vs_cattle]

Oh ya? dont worry about me showing up at your place I wont but I got the name so we wil meet one day I know it and once again all you can do is yelp :lol: :lol: Thats all you are is talk me well I guess you will just have to wait and see when we meet you will get the picture :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh your tough wow you put your name on here I got a website with my name, #, address and all so that aint nothing
Isaac Vasquez Chowchilla, Ca near Fresno so if your in the area look me up I'm right of the Hwy I do travel so if your in Cali from LA to Sac look me up

 

[HAY MAKER]

Typical "pelow'' all talk................good luck & good bye.

 

[vs_cattle]

all talk :lol: :lol: :lol: I know who keeps talking so I'm not sweating a thing ;-)

 

[flounder]

Federal Register
33917
Vol. 72, No. 118
Wednesday, June 20, 2007



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 60
[Docket No. AMS–LS–06–0081; LS–04–04]
RIN 0581–AC26
Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling
of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Perishable
Agricultural Commodities, and
Peanuts
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; reopening of
comment period.
SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) is reopening the
comment period for 60 days for the
proposed rule for mandatory country of
origin labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb,
pork, perishable agricultural
commodities, and peanuts that was
published in the Federal Register on
October 30, 2003 (68 FR 61944). AMS
requests general comments on the
proposed rule taking into account that
the Agency has changed corresponding
definitions and requirements in the
interim final rule for fish and shellfish
published in the Federal Register on
October 5, 2004 (69 FR 59708). When
preparing comments on the proposed
rule, AMS asks that interested parties
consider the provisions of the interim
final rule for fish and shellfish and
whether the definitions and
requirements in the interim final rule
can also be applied to beef, lamb, pork,
perishable agricultural commodities,
and peanuts. The interim final rule's
definitions and requirements include,
but are not limited to: Processed food
item definition, country of origin
notification, markings, and
recordkeeping requirements. All
affected persons are hereby given notice
of the opportunity to submit written
data and views concerning the proposed
rule. AMS will review and consider the
submitted comments and information as
it promulgates a final regulatory action
for mandatory COOL for beef, lamb,
pork, perishable agricultural
commodities and peanut covered
commodities. AMS is simultaneously
reopening the comment period for the
interim final rule for the mandatory
COOL program for fish and shellfish
covered commodities.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before August 20, 2007, to be assured
of consideration.
ADDRESSES:......................snip............see full text ;


http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/LSCOOLPRreopen.pdf



AMS NEWS RELEASE

AMS No. 179-07
Billy Cox (202) 720-8998
[email protected]
Jimmie Turner (202) 720-8998
[email protected]

USDA EXTENDS COMMENT PERIOD FOR PROPOSED RULE FOR LIVESTOCK MANDATORY REPORTING

WASHINGTON, Sept. 5, 2007 -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) today announced that it is extending the comment period on the proposed rule for the Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) program. The Sept. 7, 2007, deadline has been extended to Sept. 24, 2007.

"We are extending the comment period to ensure that all those wishing to comment have the opportunity to do so," said AMS Administrator Lloyd Day. "We strongly encourage all interested parties to submit comments."

The proposed rule will be published soon in the Federal Register. Details of the comment period extension will also be published.

Comments may be submitted on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments can be sent to Livestock and Grain Market News Branch, Docket No. LS-07-01, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 2619-S, Washington, DC, 20250-0252, or by fax to (202)-690-3732. Copies of the proposed rule and additional information can be found at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsmarketnews.


http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/179-07.htm



COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN LABELING

NCBA Staff Contact:
Colin Woodall, Executive Director of Legislative Affairs
202-347-0228
[email protected]



Summary

As directed by the 2002 Farm Bill, mandatory country-of-origin labeling will be implemented on September 30, 2008. NCBA is supportive of the concept of country-of-origin labeling, but NCBA has urged that a poorly written law will be harmful to U.S. producers.



NCBA policy adopted in February 2007 directs NCBA to work with Congress and USDA to ensure that a country-of-origin labeling program ensures maximum benefit and minimal market disruption to the U.S. beef industry.



During development of the 2007 Farm Bill, the House Agriculture Committee worked with NCBA and other food groups to make mandatory COOL a little more workable for producers. This language was included in the Farm Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 27, 2007, and NCBA is expecting this language to remain intact as the Senate takes up deliberations on the Farm Bill this fall. While not perfect, these changes represent an improvement to the COOL law currently on the books.



Background:
NCBA has worked with producers, the administration and Congress for many years in support of a labeling program that promotes U.S. beef without overburdening producers. Our work on this issue goes back to 1997 when our Board of Directors met during NCBA's Convention and adopted policy favoring legislation on labeling. In January 2002, at NCBA's 2002 Convention, the Board adopted policy supporting "voluntary" labeling, but in May 2002, the Farm Bill was passed and signed into law containing a provision calling for "mandatory" labeling.



The current compromised worked out during House deliberations of the 2007 Farm Bill calls for the labeling of beef, pork, lamb and goat meat in four separate ways:



Product of the United States: This is product that is born, raised and processed within the United States and is from animals that have never crossed the U.S. border (unless being transported from Hawaii or Alaska to the continental U.S.)

Multiple Countries of Origin: This is product that might have been born in another country but is raised and processed in the United States and will carry a label listing all the countries involved. For example: feeder calves that are imported from Mexico and then fed out and slaughtered within the United States could potentially carry a label that reads "product of the United States from cattle imported from Mexico."

Imported for Immediate Slaughter: This label would include all cattle that are imported into the United States for processing only and would, like those with "Multiple Countries of Origin," carry a label listing all the involved countries. For example: fed cattle imported from Canada and processed in the United States could potentially carry a label that reads "product of Canada and the United States."

Foreign Country of Origin: This label is for all fresh beef that is imported into the United States and will only list the product's country of origin.

Ground beef has also created a dilemma within the labeling debate. How do you label a product that contains components from multiple countries? The language contained within the Farm Bill would allow a label for ground beef, pork, lamb, or goat to simply list all the countries of origin that may be in that product.



Another concern for cattle producers was how to actually verify the origin of their cattle. Under the new legislative language, producers are instructed to use only documents that would be used in the "normal conduct of business" to prove origin. These documents include animal health papers, import or customs documents, and tax documents.



Because it is going to take time to implement COOL, the new language also includes a grandfather clause for all cattle within the United States prior to January 1, 2008. This should exempt all calves entering feedlots this fall and next spring from labeling requirements. However, starting next spring, all new calves will need a paper trail verifying their origins.



NCBA Submits Comments to USDA on MCOOL Rulemaking:

NCBA submitted comments on August 20, 2007, to USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) on the mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law due to be implemented September 30, 2008. In its comments, NCBA:

reinforces producers' belief that, as a marketing program, COOL should be producer-driven and not mandated by the government;
takes issue with the misconception that COOL can somehow offer the consumer extra assurances of food safety;
points out the disparity of exempting food service, processed foods and poultry from complying with mandatory COOL; and
suggests that COOL labels be more visually appealing and recognizable to the consumer as part of the effort to "brand" our product.

NCBA also reiterated its support of the compromise language developed by the House Agriculture Committee as part of the 2007 Farm Bill. While not ideal the compromise language is an improvement over the current law.



In NCBA's comments, NCBA President and North Carolina Cattleman John Queen told USDA, "NCBA looks forward to working with USDA and Congress to ensure that the mandatory country of origin labeling program that is put into place on September 30, 2008 allows for the differentiation of U.S. beef, gives the consumer a choice, and provides a return to American's cattle producers. If this program does not satisfy these three criteria, we will deem mandatory COOL a failure and will work to change the law."



Country-of-Origin Labeling Timeline:

· 1997 NCBA Convention—Policy adopted "favoring" legislation on labeling

· 1997 NCBA Summer Meeting—Task Force appointed to discuss mechanics of a labeling law

· Fall 1997—Task force developed recommendations

· 1998 NCBA Convention—Task force report adopted as NCBA policy

· Spring 1998—Task force report is basis for Johnson-Burns labeling amendment that passes the Senate

· Summer 1998—Johnson-Burns amendment struck from bill in Conference on 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Report language requires USDA study

· April 1999—NCBA testifies on task force report at House Agriculture Committee. Committee urges work on a voluntary labeling approach

· Summer 1999—Report language in 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill instructing USDA to work with groups to implement labeling program

· January 2000—USDA and General Accounting Office release reports citing limited benefits and high costs to mandatory labeling.

· Spring and Summer 2000—NCBA negotiated with American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, National Meat Association, American Meat Institute, and Food Marketing Institute on a voluntary labeling program.

· September 2000—Labeling petition submitted to USDA

· January 2001—USDA publishes receipt of petition in Federal Register

· July 2001—USDA staff instructed to begin implementation of petition

· July 2001—House Agriculture committee rejects mandatory labeling after lengthy debate during markup of Committee Farm Bill.

· 2001 Summer Meeting—NCBA discusses mandatory labeling and the action of the House Agriculture Committee. Meeting of state cattle associations called to discuss labeling policy.

· September 2001—Meeting of state affiliates held in Denver. Recommend interim policy to favor "voluntary" labeling.

· October 2001—NCBA Executive Committee approves voluntary approach.

· November 2001—Senate Agriculture Committee passes farm bill containing mandatory country of origin labeling provision.

· 2002 NCBA Convention—Policy adopted ratifying Executive Committee approval of "voluntary" labeling.

· Spring 2002—House and Senate negotiate 2002 Farm Bill Conference Report.

· May 2002—2002 Farm Bill containing Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling is signed into law.

· October 2002—USDA publishes "Voluntary Guidelines" as required by law

· 2003 NCBA Convention—NCBA asks for Congressional and USDA hearings on law.

· April 2003—Senate Agriculture Committee field hearing in Missouri.

· Spring and Summer 2003—USDA holds twelve "Listening Sessions"

· June 2003—House Agriculture Committee holds labeling hearing.

· June 2003—Provision added to 2004 House Agriculture Appropriations bill to limiting funding for labeling implementation.

· July 2003—Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill passes Subcommittee and full Committee with labeling funding intact

· 2003 NCBA Summer Meeting—Adopt policy to support changes in mandatory law to make the law consistent with NCBA policy of a voluntary market driven program for Country of Origin Labeling

· January 23, 2004—Congress passes the Consolidated Appropriations Bill, delaying implementation of the mandatory law from September 30, 2004 to September 30, 2006.

· June 15, 2004—Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Stenholm introduce H.R. 4576 to amend the labeling law making it a voluntary program.

· July 22, 2004—The House Agriculture Committee passes H.R. 4576 by a vote of 32 to 16.

· September 14, 2004—The Senate Appropriations Committee defeats an amendment to require implementation of mandatory labeling in 2005.

· May 4, 2005 — In the 109th Congress, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Reps. Marion Berry (D-AR) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced the Meat Promotion Act (H.R. 2068) which provides a voluntary country-of-origin labeling program for meat (beef, pork and lamb.)

· June 10, 2005 — The House passed its Ag Approps bill which contains a delay in funding for mandatory country-of-origin labeling until Sept. 30, 2007.

· June 23, 2005 — Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced the Food Promotion Act which covers meat and produce.

· June 29, 2005 — Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark), along with 13 co-sponsors, introduced the Meat Promotion Act (S. 1333) which covers beef, pork and lamb.

· November 3, 2005 — The Ag appropriations bill achieves final passage and contains a delay in funding for implementation for the current mandatory country-of-origin labeling program for 2 years (until 2008). NCBA believes this will give industry and government time to work together on a solution, possibly within the 2007 Farm Bill.

· January 26, 2007 — Senator Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) introduced legislation in the 110th Congress that would expedite the implementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef and other products to begin on September 30, 2007. Thomas said producers and consumers of seafood are already enjoying the benefits of labeling and further delays for beef and other products are not warranted. S. 404, the "Country of Origin Labeling Act of 2007" has 8 co-sponsors including Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

· February 2007 — NCBA members passed policy directing NCBA to work with Congress and USDA to ensure that a country-of-origin labeling program ensures maximum benefit and minimal market disruption to the U.S. beef industry.

· July 27, 2007 — The U.S. House of representatives passes its 2007 Farm Bill which contains legislative language amending the mandatory COOL law to ease the burden on food producers.

· August 20, 2007 — NCBA submits comments to USDA on the COOL rulemaking supporting the compromise language worked out in the House Farm Bill.

· September 2007 — The U.S. Senate begins deliberations on its version of the Farm Bill.


http://www.beefusa.org/goveCOOL.aspx


http://www.r-calfusa.com/COOL/cool.htm


http://www.countryoforiginlabel.org/pressroom.html



Consumers Union's Comments on
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
Interim final rule on Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Fish and Shellfish,
Docket No. AMS-LS-06-0166; LS-03-04; AMS-LS-07-0098
August 20, 2007
Prepared by
Michael Hansen, PhD
Senior Scientist


Summary

Consumers Union (CU) welcomes the opportunity to comment on USDA's interim final rule for mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for fish and shellfish. Although the interim final rule may be seen as a step forward—since a law requiring COOL for fish and shellfish, meat (beef, pork, lamb), perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts was passed in 2002 with full implementation by 2004, yet only fish and shellfish COOL has been implemented so far—there are still problems with it that result in large numbers of products being excluded from mandatory COOL.

The basic problem is that the definitions of "retailer" and "processed food item" in the interim final rule are so broad as to exclude a large number of retail products from mandatory COOL. In fact, the definition of retailer excludes fish markets! AMS has no control over the definition of "retailer," which is spelled out in the law (Public Law 107-1712). However, AMS did define "processed food item" in a way that was overly broad and lead to the exemption of many retail items from mandatory COOL.

We believe that the interim final rule on mandatory COOL for fish and shellfish should be as expansive as possible and cover as many items as possible as it is clear that consumers desire to know where there food is coming from. Thus, we think that AMS should redefine "processed food item" to make clear that cooking, canning, freezing, and smoking are not considered forms of processing.

Background

There are two basic arguments for COOL. First, three studies conducted this year have found that consumers overwhelmingly desire COOL and believe they have a right to know such information. For example, a poll of 1,000+ people conducted by Consumers Union in early June, 2007, found that 92% thought that imported food should be labeled as to its country of origin . Another poll from earlier this year, conducted for Food and Water Watch, found that 82% of 1000 people polled in early March, 2007, supported mandatory COOL . Most recently, a poll of more than 4,500 people, conducted in mid-July, 1997 by Zogby Interactive, found that 88% of those polled said all retail food should have COOL. More importantly, some "94% believe that consumers have a right to know the country of origin of the foods they purchase." Thus it is clear from these polls that an overwhelming majority of consumers want their foods to have COOL.

Second, COOL can also serve as a risk management measure. Developing countries such as China or India, which may not have as stringent food safety regulations and/or have not implemented/enforced those regulations as rigorously as the US, may export hazardous food products. COOL could allow consumers to avoid such food items as the need arose. For example, in 2003, there was an outbreak of hepatitis that killed 3 people and sickened more than 600 people and was linked to green onions from Mexico . Since there was no required COOL for fruits and vegetables in 2003, concerned consumers had to refrain from buying all green onions for a while. If COOL had been in effect, consumers could have simply avoided green onion from Mexico. More recently, in June, 2007, FDA announced that they would detain imports of all farm-raised shrimp, catfish, basa, dace (type of carp) and eel from China until they can be shown to be free of residues of four drugs unapproved for use in farm-raised seafood; three of the drugs (gentian violet, nitrofuran and malachite green) have been shown to be carcinogenic in animal studies . Although FDA did not issue a recall for these farm-raised Chinese seafood imports, consumers that are concerned about consuming such products could potentially avoid them as COOL for fish and shellfish was implemented for large retailers in 2004.

Consumers agree that COOL can serve as a risk management measures. The Zogy Interactive poll—conducted in mid-July, 2007—found that 90% of those polled "believe knowing the country of origin will allow consumers to make safer food choices."

We are concerned that certain clauses in the law mandating COOL allow many products to be excluded. The law stated that, for purposes of COOL, the terms "retailer" and "processed agricultural commodity" should "have the meanings given the terms in section 1(b) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act [PACA] of 1930." As AMS noted, "Under PACA, a retailer is any person who is a dealer engaged in the business of selling any perishable agricultural commodity solely at retail when the invoice cost of all purchases of produce exceeds $230,000 during a calendar year. This definition excludes butcher shops, fish markets, and small grocery stores that sell fruits and vegetables at a level below this dollar volume threshold or do not sell any fruits and vegetables at all" (68 FR 61946, October 30, 2003). Unfortunately, this definition of retailer does not conform to what the average consumer thinks of as a retailer. It completely excludes stores that do not sell fruits and vegetables, such as a large fish market, even though fish are covered by the interim final rule. In fact, it covers only very large supermarkets. To compensate for these significant exclusions, we urge USDA to resolve any ambiguities in a way so as to maximize the number of food items with mandatory COOL.

Processed Food Item

One important issue is that the law (Public Law 107-1712) explicitly exempted food items from needing COOL when the covered commodity is an "ingredient in a processed food item" from mandatory COOL, but did not define what is meant by "processed food item." In the 2004 interim final rule for COOL for fish and shellfish, USDA used a two-step approach and defined a "processed food item" as a retail food item "that has undergone specific processing resulting in a change in the character of the covered commodity, or that has been combined with at least one other covered commodity or other substantive food components (e.g. breading, tomato sauce)," and then gave examples of the types of processing (e.g. cooking, curing, smoking and restructuring) that would cause a product to be considered a "processed food item" (69 FR 59708; October 5, 2004).

CU believes that the definition of "processed food item" used in the interim final rule for fish and shellfish is overly broad and results in the exclusion of too many products. A year before publication of the interim final rule for fish and shellfish, USDA published a proposed rule for COOL for all covered commodities (68 FR 61944 et seq; October 30, 2003), that defined processed food more narrowly, but used the same basic two-part definition of "processed food item" as was ultimately used in the interim final rule. However, in the earlier proposed rule, AMS made clear that "a change in the character of the covered commodity" meant that the food item had "undergone a physical or chemical change such that they no longer retain the characteristics of the covered commodity thus consumers would not use the items in the same manner as they would the covered commodities" italics added (68 FR 61946, October 30, 2003). AMS made clear that cooking, canning and breading would not be considered as forms of processing that would change the characteristics of the covered commodity enough to cause consumers to use it in a different way than usual, while restructuring, smoking and curing would: "All fish and shellfish, whether chilled, frozen, raw, cooked, breaded or canned would be subject to these regulations unless they are an ingredient in a processed food item. . . . restructured shrimp or fish sticks and smoked and cured products would be considered processed food items because they no longer retain the characteristics of the covered commodity and thus consumers would not use them in the same manner as they would the covered commodity" bold added (68 FR 61948, October 30, 2003). In addition, USDA considered breading, seasonings and preservatives to be "non-substantial" ingredients that, by themselves do not constitute making a food item a "processed food item." By the time the interim final rule was published a year later, USDA weakened their own proposed definition of "processed food item" so that cooking, canning or breading would turn a fish or shellfish into a "processed food item," which would then be exempt from mandatory COOL.

Not only is the definition of "processed food item" in the interim final rule too narrow, it is also internally inconsistent with the notion of "substantial transformation," which is used by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to indicate country of origin and is used in the interim final rule as a synonym for processing. The law (Public Law 107-1712) (and interim final rule) states that to get a US country of origin label, farmed fish must be hatched, raised, harvested and processed in the US, while wild fish must be harvested and processed in US, a territory of the US, or a State including the waters thereof . We support this portion of the law.

In the 2003 proposed rule on COOL, AMS proposed requiring either labeling of the production steps that happened in the US or other countries, or a simplified label that would state where the product was imported from, followed by the production steps performed in the US. Thus, a farm-raised fish that was hatched, raised, and harvested in country X and processed in the US could be labeled as "Imported from country X, processed in the US." A farm-raised fish that was hatched, raised and harvested in the US but processed in country X, would be labeled either "Product of country X" or "Product of country X, born, raised and harvested in the US."

In the 2004 interim final rule on COOL for fish and shellfish, AMS simplified provisions that dealt with "labeling imported products that have not undergone substantial transformation in the United States," and "labeling imported products that have subsequently been substantially transformed in the United States," (e.g. §60.200(f),(g), respectively). The basic simplification was that only the information of where the product was imported from and whether it was processed in the US would be on the label, so that information on where all the production steps occurred doesn't need to be on the label. Thus, if a product had not undergone a "substantial transformation" (as defined by US Customs and Border Protection), then the product's country of origin would simply be the origin declared to the US Customs and Border Protection. If the product had been imported from country X and had been "substantially transformed" in the US, it would simply be labeled "From [country X], processed in the United States." If the product had been hatched, raised, and harvested in the US, but was processed (e.g. undergoes substantial transformation) in country X, it would simply be labeled "From country X."

Thus, AMS is using "substantially transformed" as a synonym for processing. However, the US CBP has made a number of rulings which make it clear that neither cooking nor smoking, by themselves, constitutes processing. For example, in a ruling in May 1989, CBP (in HQ 731763) stated that "cooking does not change the fundamental character of the imported shrimp [and] . . . does not constitute a substantial transformation." In 1988, CPB (in HQ 729256) "ruled that the smoking of raw salmon did not result in a substantial transformation for purposes of marking. The smoking process involves the introduction of smoke to the product to alter the taste and render it ready for eating."

Since AMS uses CBP's definition of "substantially transformed" in lieu of "processing" for imported fish and shellfish, we think AMS should be internally consistent. Since CBP believes that neither cooking nor smoking, by themselves, constitutes "substantial transformation," we feel that AMS should delete cooking and smoking from their list of "specific processing that results in a change in the character of a covered commodity." In addition, we agree with AMS' argument in the 2003 proposed rule on COOL that neither cooking, breading, nor canning should be considered forms of processing that result "in a change in the character of a covered commodity." We believe that cooking, canning, smoking and breading should not be considered forms of "processing" that result in a fish or shellfish product being exempt from mandatory COOL.

Blended or Mixed Products

In defining country of origin for blended or mixed products in the voluntary COOL guidelines published in 2002 (67 FR 63367) AMS proposed requiring country of origin for each raw material source of the mixed or blended retail item by order of predominance by weight. AMS did this because it recognized that it would be misleading to consumers if a blended or mixed product (bag of lettuce, bag of shrimp) listed US ahead of other countries if only a small percentage of the covered commodity had US as country of origin. Thus if a bag of lettuce contained 5% lettuce that was exclusively produced in the US and 95% of the lettuce came from Mexico, it would be misleading if the country of origin was listed as: US, Mexico. By the time of the 2003 proposed rule on COOL, AMS had weakened this provision further to simply say that the country of origin declaration for mixed or blended products comprised of the same covered commodity would list alphabetically all the countries of origin for all the raw materials. We oppose an alphabetical listing, as potentially highly misleading to consumers.

By the time of the 2004 interim final rule on COOL for fish and shellfish, AMS had weakened/simplified the country of origin labeling provision for blended or commingled products comprised of the same covered commodity (such as a bag of shrimp) from more than one country of origin even further. In the 2004 interim final rule on COOL, AMS stated that the declaration on such a bag of shrimp could either list "the countries of origin contained therein or that may be contained therein" italics added.

We would prefer that companies label the actual country of origin for each of the commingled covered commodities, and that they would list the percentage for each of the countries of origin. A bag of shrimp which consists of 95% shrimp from country X and 5% from US and a bag of shrimp consisting of 95% shrimp from US and 5% from country X, would be labeled the same under the interim final rule, despite the fact that consumers may see a big difference between the two products. Alternatively, we could support the position which AMS proposed in the voluntary COOL guidelines published in 2002 (67 FR 63367) which required country of origin for each raw material source of the mixed or blended retail item by order of predominance by weight.

We are further concerned about an ambiguity in the approach for blended or commingled products laid out in the 2004 interim final rule on COOL (e.g. §60.200(h)). This section states that "When the retail product contains imported covered commodities that have subsequently undergone substantial transformation in the United States commingled with other imported covered commodities that subsequently undergone substantial transformation in the United States) and/or US origin covered commodities, the declaration shall indicate the countries of origin contained therein or that may be contained therein" (69 FR 59711). It is unclear whether in such a commingled commodity whether an imported covered commodity that is "substantially transformed" in the US could also list the US as a country of origin. On the one hand, CBP considers the country where the product undergoes "substantial transformation" to be the country of origin. On the other hand, section §60.200(g) of the 2004 interim final rule for COOL for fish and shellfish clearly states that an imported product that was imported from country X and "substantially transformed" in the US cannot list the US as a country of origin; such a product must be labeled "From [country X], processed in the United States." We think that AMS should make it very clear that in the case of blended or commingled products, listing US as one of the countries of origin should only be allowed for US origin covered commodities, as defined in the law (Public Law 107-1712). US country of origin should not be permitted if the product is only "substantially transformed" in the US; in such blended cases AMS should follow the rule as laid out in §60.200(g), e.g. such products could only say that the product was "processed in the US." Thus, a bag of shrimp consisting of shrimps that were imported from country X and country Y and that were substantially transformed in the US, should be labeled "From country X, country Y and processed in the United States."

Fraudulent labeling of "wild" fish

We are also concerned about fraudulent labeling of fish and shellfish as to whether they have been farm-raised or wild caught. Although fish stores do not have to label fish and shellfish as to whether they are wild or farm-raised, if they do choose to label, the label must be accurate. Since wild-caught fish sell for more money than farm-raised fish of the same species, there is an economic incentive to potentially mislabel farm-raised fish as wild caught. We have uncovered evidence that this is happening. In November and December, 2005—during the off-season for wild caught salmon—we bought 17 salmon labeled wild and tested them for the presence of a synthetic coloring agent fed to farmed salmon to turn their flesh pink-orange as found in wild salmon . We found that 7 or the 17 salmon were farmed. Although the sample was small, we noted that supermarkets were more likely to label wild salmon correctly than fish markets. In another shopping trip in March, 2006 that focused on the stores that incorrectly labeled wild salmon as "farm-raised," we sampled 6 "wild" salmon and all turned out to be mislabeled. Thus, only 10 of 23 "wild" salmon fillets bought in November and December 2005 and March 2006 were correctly labeled. Since the price of wild salmon is often more than twice as expensive as "farm-raised," such mislabeling costs consumers a significant amount. Thus, we would like to see AMS take more enforcement action against such fraudulent practices.

The exclusion of fish markets from mandatory COOL may also be giving such retailers the impression that they need not be truthful in their labeling. We urge AMS to enforce truthful labeling at both and exempt establishments.


http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_ ... 04826.html



WHAT ABOUT M-ROOL ??? i.e. Mandatory Ranch OF Origin Labeling ???



* GAO-05-51 October 2004 FOOD SAFETY (over 500 customers receiving
potentially BSE contaminated beef) - TSS 10/20/04


October 2004 FOOD SAFETY
USDA and FDA Need
to Better Ensure
Prompt and Complete
Recalls of Potentially
Unsafe Food

snip...

Page 38 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
To examine the voluntary recall of beef products associated with the
December 2003 discovery of an animal infected with BSE, we analyzed the
distribution lists USDA collected from companies and the verification
checks it conducted to develop a diagram illustrating the location and
volume of recalled beef that reached different levels of the distribution
chain. We compared the distribution lists and verification checks to
identify how many customers listed on the distribution lists did not
receive
the recalled beef and the number of customers not listed on distribution
lists that received the recalled beef. We interviewed USDA and FDA staff
involved with the recall to understand the timing of recall actions and the
challenges encountered during the recall.
To develop information on the 2002 recall of ground beef by a ConAgra
plant in Greeley, Colorado, we reviewed USDA s recall file and other
documents on the recall. We also met with the department s Office of
Inspector General and reviewed the Inspector General s September 2003
report.1
We conducted our review from May 2003 through August 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Great
Plains Region Audit
Report: Food Safety and Inspection Service: Oversight of Production
Process and Recall at
ConAgra Plant (Establishment 969), Report No. 24601-2-KC (September 2003).
Page 39 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE Appendix II
On December 23, 2003, USDA announced that a cow in the state of
Washington had tested positive for BSE commonly referred to as mad
cow disease. This appendix describes the actions USDA took to recall the
meat and the actions FDA took with respect to FDA-regulated products,
such as animal feed and cosmetics, made from rendered parts of the
animal.
Beef Recall Was
Triggered by a BSEPositive
Sample from
One Cow
On December 9, 2003, the recalling company slaughtered 23 cows. USDA,
in accordance with its BSE surveillance policy at the time, took a
sample of
1 cow that was unable to walk, although the condition of the tested cow is
now disputed. USDA did not process the sample in its Ames, Iowa National
Veterinary Services Laboratory in an expedited manner because the cow
did not show symptoms of neurological disorder. USDA test results
indicated a presumptive positive for BSE on December 23, 2003.
Recall Begun in
December 2003 Was
Completed in March
2004
On December 23, 2003, after learning about the positive BSE test, USDA
headquarters notified the Boulder District Office, which is the field
office
with jurisdiction over the recalling firm. The Boulder District began
gathering information about the recalling company s product distribution.
Field staff telephoned the recalling company and were on-site at 7:00 p.m.
The Boulder District initially thought 3 days of the recalling company s
production would have to be recalled, but further examination of facility
cleanup and shipping records revealed that it was only necessary to
recall 1
day of production. USDA recall staff convened at 9:15 p.m. and discussed
the science related to BSE and whether the recalling company s cleanup
practices were sufficient to limit the recall to 1 day of production.
Following USDA s determination to conduct a Class II recall that is, the
beef posed a remote possibility of adverse health consequences USDA
contacted the recalling company to discuss recall details and the press
release. The press release and Recall Notification Report were released
that evening.
On December 24, 2003, USDA s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
sent inspectors to the recalling company s primary customers to obtain
secondary customer distribution lists and product shipping records. USDA
conducted 100 percent verification checks for this recall it contacted
every customer that received the recalled meat. This level of verification
checks is well above the percentage of checks conducted by USDA district
offices for the Class I recalls we reviewed.
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 40 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
On December 26, 2003, USDA began checking the primary and secondary
customers of the recalling company that it was aware of, although the
entire product distribution chain was unknown. During the checks, USDA
tried to determine if the product was further distributed, and it used
verification checks to acquire distribution lists for secondary and
tertiary
customers of the recalling company.
Verification checks continued until February 25, 2004. Three USDA
districts conducted these verification checks. The Boulder District
coordinated the checks and assigned checks to the Minneapolis District
Office for customers in Montana and to the Alameda District Office for
customers in California. USDA required that 100 percent of the primary
checks, 50 percent of the secondary checks, and 20 percent of the tertiary
checks be conducted on-site. According to USDA, more than 50 percent of
the secondary checks were actually conducted on-site. FDA officials
helped conduct verification checks. According to USDA, the recall took a
long time to complete because USDA contacted each customer at least
twice. USDA first contacted each customer to conduct the check and again
to verify product disposition.
On February 25, 2004, the Boulder District concluded that the recall was
conducted in an effective manner. On March 1, 2004, USDA s Recall
Management Division recommended that the agency terminate the recall,
and USDA sent a letter to the recalling company to document that USDA
considered the recall to be complete.
Recall Was
Complicated by
Inaccurate Distribution
Lists and Mixing of
Potentially
Contaminated and
Noncontaminated Beef
USDA used distribution lists and shipping records to piece together where
the recalled product was distributed. According to USDA, one of the
recalling company s three primary customers was slow in providing its
customer list. USDA could not begin verification activities for that
primary
customer without this list. Furthermore, some customers of the recalling
company provided USDA with imprecise lists that did not specify which
customers received the recalled product. As a consequence, USDA could
not quickly determine the scope of product distribution and had to take
time conducting extra research using shipping invoices to determine which
specific customers received the product.
Even when USDA determined the amount and location of beef, the agency
still had trouble tracking the beef in certain types of establishments,
such
as grocery store distributors. USDA could not easily track the individual
stores where those distributors sent the beef because of product mixing
Appendix II
Federal Actions Associated with the
Discovery of an Animal in the United States
Infected with BSE
Page 41 GAO-05-51 Food Recall Programs
and the distributors record-keeping practices. Generally, distributors
purchase beef from multiple sources, mix it in their inventory, and lose
track of the source of the beef they send to the stores that they
supply. To
deal with this problem, USDA first identified the dates when recalled beef
was shipped to the distributors and then asked for a list of the stores
that
were shipped any beef after those dates. Consequently, some stores were
included in the recall that may never have received recalled beef.
The recall was also complicated by repeated mixing of recalled beef with
nonrecalled beef, thereby increasing the amount of meat involved in the
recall. The recalling company slaughtered 23 cows on December 9, 2003,
and shipped those and 20 other carcasses to a primary customer on
December 10, 2003. The recalling company s carcasses were tagged to
identify the slaughter date and the individual cow. The primary customer
removed the identification tags and mixed the 23 recalled carcasses with
the 20 nonrecalled carcasses. Because the carcasses could not be
distinguished, the recall included all 43 carcasses at the primary
customer.
After one round of processing at the primary customer, the meat from the
carcasses was shipped to two other processing facilities. Both
establishments further mixed the recalled meat from the 43 carcasses with
meat from other sources. In all, the mixing of beef from 1 BSE-positive cow
resulted in over 500 customers receiving potentially contaminated beef.
Imprecise distribution lists and the mixing of recalled beef combined to
complicate USDA s identification of where the product went. Specifically,
on December 23, 2003, USDA s initial press release stated that the
recalling
company was located in Washington State. Three days later, on December
26, 2003, USDA announced that the recalled beef was distributed within
Washington and Oregon. On December 27, 2003, USDA determined that one
of the primary customers of the recalling firm distributed beef to
facilities
in California and Nevada, in addition to Washington and Oregon, for a total
of four states. On December 28, 2003, USDA announced that some of the
secondary customers of the recalling company may also have distributed
the product to Alaska, Montana, Hawaii, Idaho, and Guam, for a total of
eight states and one territory.
On January 6, 2004, over 2 weeks from recall initiation, USDA determined
that the beef went to only six states Washington, Oregon, California,
Nevada, Idaho, and Montana and that no beef went to Alaska, Hawaii, or
Guam. To reach that conclusion, USDA used ...................snip...full text ;


REPORTS

1. Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and Complete
Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food. GAO-05-51, October 7.tss
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-51
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0551high.pdf


Date Filed: March 5, 2004
Court: King County Superior Court (Washington)
Location: Seattle
Ticker Symbol: NYSE:KR

Join This Suit
Tell a Friend


Consumers filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Quality Food Centers
(QFC), a subsidiary of Kroger (NYSE: KR), claiming the grocery store chain
should have used information gathered through its customer loyalty program
to warn those who purchased beef potentially tainted with ?mad cow disease.?
The USDA issued a recall notice for the meat on December 23, 2003. QFC sold
the meat through its approximately 40 stores across Washington.

The suit claims that even though QFC had the ability to quickly warn every
customer who purchased the potentially deadly meat if they used the QFC
Advantage Card at the time of purchase, the grocery store neglected to do
so.

The suit seeks to represent every consumer in Washington state who purchased
the recalled meat from QFC.

Recent Updates

June 14, 2004 - the King County Superior Court gave the green light to a
suit claiming QFC didn't do enough to warn customers about beef potentially
tainted with 'mad cow disease,' finding enough questions about the beef and
QFC's responsibility to explore in the courtroom.

Read the court order.


http://www.hagens-berman.com/frontend?c ... suitId=653



Do Stores That Offer Loyalty Cards Have a Duty to Notify Customers of
Product Safety Recalls?
A Recent Suit Raises This Novel Question
By ANITA RAMASASTRY
----

Thursday, Aug. 05, 2004

An interesting new Washington state court suit raises an important question:
If a retailer benefits from collecting personally identifiable information
about its customers, does it have a corresponding duty to use such data to
alert its customers that products they've bought have been recalled for
health or safety reasons? And if so, could turning over private data to
companies actually create benefits, as well as privacy risks, for the
consumer?

In the suit, consumer Jill Crowson is suing her grocery store -- Quality
Food Center (QFC), a subsidiary of Kroger -- for negligent infliction of
emotional distress and disregard of a "duty to warn" under the Washington
Product Liability Act. Crowson alleges in her complaint that QFC failed to
alert her family that ground beef it had sold them had been recalled in
December's mad-cow scare.

Yet, Crowson says, QFC easily could have done so through information it
maintained connected with her Advantage card - a "loyalty card" that meant
QFC had Crowson's name, address and purchasing information. According to her
complaint, QFC tracks every purchase made by consumers presenting the
Advantage Card, including product description, date of purchase, store of
purchase and the price, and saves that data alongside customer contact
information.

Now, Crowson says, her family members "feel like walking time bombs" knowing
they may be infected with the human form of mad-cow disease which the
complaint states may have an up-to-30-year incubation period. And they are
not the only ones: Crowson is seeking class action status for herself and
what she believes are "hundreds" of similarly-situated Washington customers
at QFC's approximately 40 stores in the state.

Some lawyers think Crowson's suit is a stretch. Federal law does not impose
on companies a specific duty to notify consumers when tainted meat is
recalled under the direction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
as was the case here. Also, Crowson and her family, and the class she seeks
to represent, are suing based on fear (and possible future harm), not
current illness. Moreover, the chance they will actually get Mad Cow Disease
some time in the future are apparently remote.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit has strong intuitive appeal: QFC could have saved
the Crowsons and others like them a lot of worry, and perhaps sleepless
nights, with what appears would have been minimal effort, using information
at its digital fingertips. And the court has already once refused to dismiss
it - finding that there were sufficient factual questions about the beef and
about QFC's responsibility to the Crowsons, to merit further exploration of
the evidence, through discovery and in the courtroom.

Regardless of the outcome of Crowson's suit, it underscores the need for
retailers and policymakers to examine what sort of responsibilities come
with private data gathering under loyalty card schemes.

The Lawsuit: The Chronology of Facts Alleged, and the Loyalty Card at Issue

On December 22 and 23, 2003, Crowson bought ground beef from a QFC store.
Also on December 23, 2003, the USDA recalled Washington beef after it
confirmed that a cow slaughtered in Washington had been infected with Mad
Cow Disease. But Crowson says QFC did not pull the affected meat from its
shelves until December 24, and did not post signs in its stores announcing
the recall until December 27. By then, the Crowson family had eaten the
meat.

Crowson states that she only learned of the recall by reading an article in
her local newspaper. She said she subsequently called the supermarket chain,
then faxed QFC a letter asking that her purchase be traced through her QFC
Advantage card. On January 10, she was notified that her ground beef
purchase was indeed from the recalled batch.

Crowson says that what QFC allegedly did in response to the recall - pulling
the beef from shelves the next day, and posting signs three days after
that -- was far from enough. She says it should have immediately warned
customers who had bought possibly tainted meat through newspaper, radio and
television advertising -- and by contacting individually those who, like
her, had Advantage cards. Its failure to do so, she says, is what makes the
company liable to her and other shoppers.

The Advantage Card is known in the retail industry as a customer "loyalty
card" - providing discounts on specific items, in exchange for consumer
information that will aid in better tailoring the company's marketing
efforts. Combining the data from one's loyalty card application with data
from other commercial databases or public records (for examples, mortgage
records, or court filings) can often allow a very specific profile of each
consumer.

Some states limit the types of information that a grocery store can collect
from you when you register for a loyalty card. For example, California state
law prohibits a grocery store from requiring that you turn over your social
security or your driver's license number.

Companies, of course, stress the potential savings that might result from
use of a loyalty card. Consider, for instance, the sales pitch on the QFC
website it reads: "If you don't have a QFC Advantage Card, you're missing
out! The Advantage Card is a powerful new way to save on the groceries you
buy every day. It gives you the best of all possible worlds: premium
quality, superb service and lower prices. That's something no other grocery
store can match. So make sure you take advantage of the big savings."

Privacy advocates complain that loyalty cards result in the improper use -
and, often, sale to third parties - of customers' private information. QFC
apparently doesn't sell customers' data to third parties, however. Its
website promises that "QFC will not release your name to any list service or
manufacturer, and that such information will be held in the strictest of
confidence-even within our company."

Privacy advocates also warn, however, that even if third-party sales of data
are not allowed, the data compiled can always be accessed with a subpoena or
warrant and used against the customer in court proceedings. Meanwhile,
consumer advocates claim that certain loyalty cards don't really offer the
savings they promise. Nevertheless, numerous stores employ loyalty cards.

Turning the Privacy Debate on Its Head: With Great Information, Comes Great
Responsibility?

The Crowson lawsuit turns the privacy debate on its head. Typically, privacy
advocates ask retailers to safeguard the personal information they collect
about their shoppers. In this case, in contrast, plaintiff is asking that
QFC delve into its database to notify her about a meat recall.

QFC does this very thing if a consumer loses his or her keys with an
Advantage Card attached to them - returning the keys free of charge. So
Crowson's attorney, Steve Berman, asks: "If they can contact you over a lost
set of car keys, why couldn't they contact you and tell you that the beef
you purchased could kill you?"

According to some news reports, QFC was reluctant to call customers
regarding the recall based on privacy concerns. But in this case, the
concerns seem misplaced. No privacy law is violated when a consumer
communicates with the customer herself regarding private information -
indeed, every offer the customer receives is, in a sense, this kind of
communication. When the customer is receiving personalized discounts based
on her purchase history, why can't she receive personalized health and
safety warnings based on that history, too?

Was There a Duty to Warn Here?

From the law's perspective, the question will be not whether QFC ideally
should have warned the Crowsons - of course it should have. The question
will be if it had a legal duty to do so. Such a duty would come from either
the common law of torts, which allows claims where there is a duty to behave
reasonably to prevent foreseeable harm to others. . Or it might come from
the Washington product liability statute - which, as noted above, creates a
"duty to warn" in certain situations.

And of course, if there is no current duty, the legislature may see fit to
pass a statute creating such a duty. :It may seem more prudent, however, for
retailers to voluntarily assume such a responsibility. When companies
benefit from collecting customer information, shouldn't they also assume a
duty to protect customers from known risks associated with that very
information? Some risks, of course, may be a matter of opinion. But this one
was not: The fact of the risk was acknowledged by the USDA recall of the
meat. With this kind of clear notice of the risk, it seems that QFC either
does - or ought to - have a duty to protect customers from this risk.

Of course, should a retailer not wish to take on this responsibility, it can
also change its loyalty program. QFC and other retailers could still track
consumer purchases without asking them for personally identifiable
information.


http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/ramas ... 40805.html


FindLaw's Writ - Ramasastry: Mad Cow in the USA

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/ramas ... 31230.html


Family to sue grocery chain

A Seattle family that ate beef linked to the US's only known case of BSE has filed a classaction

lawsuit against the grocery chain QFC, claiming the company negligently exposed

them and others to "highly hazardous" meat and did not properly notify them that they had

bought it.34 The suit contends that Jill Crowson and her family bought and later ate ground

beef from their local QFC that was part of a batch processed at Vern's Moses Lake Meats on

9 December 2003 and included meat from the diseased Holstein. The beef was later shipped

to wholesalers and retailers in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.

After government scientists confirmed on 23 December that the Holstein was infected with

BSE, businesses began pulling potentially affected beef from store shelves under a voluntary

recall. But, the family's suit claims, although QFC was aware of the recall, the store did not

begin pulling the beef from about 40 of its stores until 24 December. The company also did

not try to warn customers about the recalled beef until 27 December – and only then with

small, inconspicuous signs inside the stores, the suit claims. The family only learned QFC had

9

sold any of the beef in question after reading a news story on 10 January about a man who

discovered his family had eaten affected beef that he bought at a local QFC store, Crowson

said. She later called QFC and faxed the company a signed letter asking that it track

purchases made on her QFC Advantage Card, and on 12 January the company notified

Crowson that the beef she bought and served to her family was, in fact, part of the recalled

batch, she said.

The family seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress and medical monitoring costs.

Crowson said her reason for bringing the lawsuit is not about money. "The more I've thought

about this, the angrier I've gotten," she said. Neither the company nor its parent corporation,

Kroger, have commented.


http://www.which.net/campaigns/food/saf ... ep0304.pdf


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Pennsylvania Firm Recalls Ground Beef Patties Due To Mislabeling
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:01:19 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: [email protected]


Pennsylvania Firm Recalls Ground Beef Patties Due To Mislabeling

Recall Release CLASS III RECALL
FSIS-RC-028-2004 HEALTH RISK: NONE

Congressional and Public Affairs
(202) 720-9113; FAX: (202) 690-0460
Steven Cohen

WASHINGTON, DC - July 28, 2004 - Quaker Maid Meats, Inc., a Reading,
Penn., firm, is voluntarily recalling approximately 170,000 pounds of
ground beef patties due to mislabeling. The beef patties were partially
made from Canadian product that was mislabeled and ineligible for import
to the U.S.

Products subject to recall include:

* 5-pound boxes of "PHILLY-GOURMET, 100% PURE BEEF, HOMESTYLE
PATTIES" with a packaging code of 1974 or 2024.
* 3-pound boxes of "PHILLY-GOURMET, 100% PURE BEEF, HOMESTYLE
PATTIES" with a packaging code of 1974 or 2024.
* 3-pound boxes of "The Philly Homestyle Beef Patty" with a
packaging code of 1984 or 2014.


The products also bear the "Est. 2748" inside the USDA mark of
inspection. The patties were produced on July 15, 16, 19 and 20 and were
shipped to distribution centers and retail stores in Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin and
Maine.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall may contact company
General Manager Todd Bray at 610-376-1500, ext. 114.

Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat
and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (l-888-674-6854). The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4
p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages
are available 24 hours a day.
Product label photos:
Label of 5-pound boxes of PHILLY-GOURMET, 100% PURE BEEF, HOMESTYLE PATTIES
Label of 3-pound boxes of The Philly Homestyle Beef Patty
Label of 3-pound boxes of PHILLY-GOURMET, 100% PURE BEEF, HOMESTYLE PATTIES
#


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/ ... /index.asp


> Recall Release CLASS III RECALL
> FSIS-RC-028-2004 HEALTH RISK: NONE


IF there is NO risk, why the recall? why the ban?

Of all the species exposed naturally to the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) agent, the greater kudu (Tragelaphus
strepsiceros), a nondomesticated bovine from Africa, appears to be
the most susceptible to the disease. We present the results of mouse
bioassay studies to show that, contrary to findings in cattle with
BSE in which the tissue distribution of infectivity is the most
limited recorded for any of the transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSE), infectivity in greater kudu with BSE is
distributed in as wide a range of tissues as occurs in any TSE. BSE
agent was also detected in skin, conjunctiva, and salivary gland,
tissues in which infectivity has not previously been reported in any
naturally occurring TSE. The distribution of infectivity in greater
kudu with BSE suggests possible routes for transmission of the
disease and highlights the need for further research into the
distribution of TSE infectious agents in other host species.

snip...

FULL TEXT;

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no6/pdfs/03-0615.pdf



Subject: Cross-sequence transmission of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
creates a new prion strain

Date: August 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm PST



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.ex ... =0&P=21267



TSS

 

[hillsdown]

Thanks Flounder you have officially shut down the thread.

 

[flounder]

Thanks Flounder you have officially shut down the thread.

facts and the truth generally do...............flounder