Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
The Future of Beef
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MikeC" data-source="post: 310134" data-attributes="member: 1604"><p>Producers, Processors Ask USDA To Extend Definition Of 'Natural'</p><p></p><p>Mack Graves, chief executive of Panorama Grass-Fed Meats, Vina, Calif., testified on Tuesday at a hearing conducted by the Food Safety and Inspection Service concerning the definition of the term "natural" in meat marketing.</p><p></p><p>Graves was among dozens of food industry attendees, including Hormel Foods, Premium Standard Farms, Sanderson Farms and others who addressed the topic. Many in the meat industry want to expand the definition from a purely post-mortem process, in which meats are minimally processed with no artificial ingredients, to a process that takes into account how the animals were raised, fed and medicated.</p><p></p><p>Graves testified that the 24-year-old definition was "vague" and "confusing to consumers," who assume the animals used in the process are also "natural." "The use of the term "natural" must be clearly defined for meat and poultry as from conception to consumption," Graves said.</p><p></p><p>APHIS has set a deadline of Jan. 11 for comments on any proposed changes to the definition, but Graves and others asked that the deadline be extended.</p><p></p><p>The Agricultural Marketing Service is working separately on a definition of what exactly constitutes "naturally raised." Some worry that an overly broad definition will allow factory farming of "naturally raised" beef, pork and poultry.</p><p></p><p>By Pete Hisey on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 </p><p></p><p>**************************************</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MikeC, post: 310134, member: 1604"] Producers, Processors Ask USDA To Extend Definition Of ’Natural’ Mack Graves, chief executive of Panorama Grass-Fed Meats, Vina, Calif., testified on Tuesday at a hearing conducted by the Food Safety and Inspection Service concerning the definition of the term “natural“ in meat marketing. Graves was among dozens of food industry attendees, including Hormel Foods, Premium Standard Farms, Sanderson Farms and others who addressed the topic. Many in the meat industry want to expand the definition from a purely post-mortem process, in which meats are minimally processed with no artificial ingredients, to a process that takes into account how the animals were raised, fed and medicated. Graves testified that the 24-year-old definition was “vague“ and “confusing to consumers,“ who assume the animals used in the process are also “natural.“ “The use of the term “natural“ must be clearly defined for meat and poultry as from conception to consumption,“ Graves said. APHIS has set a deadline of Jan. 11 for comments on any proposed changes to the definition, but Graves and others asked that the deadline be extended. The Agricultural Marketing Service is working separately on a definition of what exactly constitutes “naturally raised.“ Some worry that an overly broad definition will allow factory farming of “naturally raised“ beef, pork and poultry. By Pete Hisey on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 ************************************** [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
The Future of Beef
Top