Interesting article in NYT saying the cost of the new mandatory food
labels will cost an additional $4 billion-applies to meat, fish, some
veggies and peanuts. Food is a tiny part of my living expense but to
some lower income large families, it is a very significant part of
their living expenses and here we go raising their food cost. Yeah it
would be nice to know my beef brisket came from a cow raised in Keokuk
IA, processed in Ames IA and so forth but at the cost of $ 4
billion-wow we could build 400 really snazzy schools (@ $10 million
each) for $ 4 Billion-now wonder which would do more good.

For those who subscribe (it's free) to the NYT-great food colums-here
is the article's address.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...od-Labels.html

butch burton wrote:
>
> Interesting article in NYT saying the cost of the new mandatory food
> labels will cost an additional $4 billion-applies to meat, fish, some
> veggies and peanuts. Food is a tiny part of my living expense but to
> some lower income large families, it is a very significant part of
> their living expenses and here we go raising their food cost. Yeah it
> would be nice to know my beef brisket came from a cow raised in Keokuk
> IA, processed in Ames IA and so forth but at the cost of $ 4
> billion-wow we could build 400 really snazzy schools (@ $10 million
> each) for $ 4 Billion-now wonder which would do more good.
>
> For those who subscribe (it's free) to the NYT-great food colums-here
> is the article's address.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...od-Labels.html

That labelling has been in effect in the European Union for many years.
No one even noticed the penny or two it added to food items in the
beginning. That's only an initial cost. People there want to know where
the food comes from, so they can make informed choices.

In any event that 'extra' money if labelling didn't go into effect would
disappear into thin air. No schools or other essential services would be
implemented anyway. So don't sweat it.

butch burton wrote:

> Interesting article in NYT saying the cost of the new mandatory food
> labels will cost an additional $4 billion-applies to meat, fish, some
> veggies and peanuts. Food is a tiny part of my living expense but to
> some lower income large families, it is a very significant part of
> their living expenses and here we go raising their food cost. Yeah it
> would be nice to know my beef brisket came from a cow raised in Keokuk
> IA, processed in Ames IA and so forth but at the cost of $ 4
> billion-wow we could build 400 really snazzy schools (@ $10 million
> each) for $ 4 Billion-now wonder which would do more good.
>
> For those who subscribe (it's free) to the NYT-great food colums-here
> is the article's address.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...od-Labels.html

Yeah, yeah, for four billion your can build 400 snazzy schools. But like
most school districts, you would then be out of money for the teachers.


The whole idea of proper food labeling is to educate people regarding,
well, food. Seems to me that there are enough fat people rolling around
in this country that have not a clue about what's in what they are
eating. For example, big manufacturers label that says NO FAT, only
points out in fine print that it is high in calories. Education in food
is just as important as in the classrom.
--
Alan

"If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the religion, and
avoid the people, you might better stay home."
--James Michener

"alzelt" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> butch burton wrote:
>
> > Interesting article in NYT saying the cost of the new mandatory food
> > labels will cost an additional $4 billion-applies to meat, fish, some
> > veggies and peanuts. Food is a tiny part of my living expense but to
> > some lower income large families, it is a very significant part of
> > their living expenses and here we go raising their food cost. Yeah it
> > would be nice to know my beef brisket came from a cow raised in Keokuk
> > IA, processed in Ames IA and so forth but at the cost of $ 4
> > billion-wow we could build 400 really snazzy schools (@ $10 million
> > each) for $ 4 Billion-now wonder which would do more good.
> >
> > For those who subscribe (it's free) to the NYT-great food colums-here
> > is the article's address.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...od-Labels.html
>
> Yeah, yeah, for four billion your can build 400 snazzy schools. But like
> most school districts, you would then be out of money for the teachers.
>
>
> The whole idea of proper food labeling is to educate people regarding,
> well, food. Seems to me that there are enough fat people rolling around
> in this country that have not a clue about what's in what they are
> eating. For example, big manufacturers label that says NO FAT, only
> points out in fine print that it is high in calories. Education in food
> is just as important as in the classrom.
> --
> Alan
>

I agree, that 4 bil isn't a lot to spend on education. Besides, if not
spent here it will go to fuel the war effort, aka Halliburton.

Jack 'raq

On 27 Oct 2003 14:30:52 -0800, (butch burton)
wrote:

>Interesting article in NYT saying the cost of the new mandatory food
>labels will cost an additional $4 billion-applies to meat, fish, some
>veggies and peanuts. Food is a tiny part of my living expense but to
>some lower income large families, it is a very significant part of
>their living expenses and here we go raising their food cost. Yeah it
>would be nice to know my beef brisket came from a cow raised in Keokuk
>IA, processed in Ames IA and so forth but at the cost of $ 4
>billion-wow we could build 400 really snazzy schools (@ $10 million
>each) for $ 4 Billion-now wonder which would do more good.
>
>For those who subscribe (it's free) to the NYT-great food colums-here
>is the article's address.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...od-Labels.html

How that number does grow. I've heard or read four different stories
about this so far and the numbers range from the low hundred millions
to this four billion figure. Much phog coming out here I do believe.

Personally, I want to see country of origin labeling. Could be a real
shock to a lot of people where much of our food comes from.

With the exception of foods that we may not produce of high quality in
the U.S. I prefer to buy American grown/produced food when I can.

......Alan.


--
Curiosity killed the cat -
lack of it is killing mankind.

"A.T. Hagan" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Oct 2003 14:30:52 -0800, (butch burton)
> wrote:
>
> >Interesting article in NYT saying the cost of the new mandatory food
> >labels will cost an additional $4 billion-applies to meat, fish, some
> >veggies and peanuts. Food is a tiny part of my living expense but to
> >some lower income large families, it is a very significant part of
> >their living expenses and here we go raising their food cost. Yeah it
> >would be nice to know my beef brisket came from a cow raised in Keokuk
> >IA, processed in Ames IA and so forth but at the cost of $ 4
> >billion-wow we could build 400 really snazzy schools (@ $10 million
> >each) for $ 4 Billion-now wonder which would do more good.
> >
> >For those who subscribe (it's free) to the NYT-great food colums-here
> >is the article's address.
> >
> >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...od-Labels.html
>
> How that number does grow. I've heard or read four different stories
> about this so far and the numbers range from the low hundred millions
> to this four billion figure. Much phog coming out here I do believe.
>
> Personally, I want to see country of origin labeling. Could be a real
> shock to a lot of people where much of our food comes from.
>
> With the exception of foods that we may not produce of high quality in
> the U.S. I prefer to buy American grown/produced food when I can.



I wasn't familiar with this issue and the NYT article was somewhat
ambiguous. I couldn't at first determine whether this labeling is simply
meant to distinguish imported food products from those that are domestically
produced or whether it will require disclosure of precise origins for
domestic products. After visiting the USDA web site, I see that the
requirement calls for labels that will indicate the *Country of Origin* for
most meat, fish, seafood, perishable agricultural products and for peanuts.
In addition, country of origin labels for fish and shellfish must also
disclose whether it is wild or farm-raised.

The main objection being raised from the food processing industry is that it
will be an awesome task to keep accurate track of identifying and
separating imported livestock which are now slaughtered, butchered and
processed right along with domestically produced livestock. And the expense
won't be a one-time cost. It will be an ongoing cost, although it may be
less after the first year. Not mentioned is how much it will cost the
government to oversee and enforce this requirement.

In spite of the cost, I definitely believe this kind of information should
be made available to the consumer. I can see some value in knowing where the
food I buy is coming from.

USDA web site article:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/226-03.htm

"Sam D." wrote:
>
> "A.T. Hagan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 27 Oct 2003 14:30:52 -0800, (butch burton)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Interesting article in NYT saying the cost of the new mandatory food
> > >labels will cost an additional $4 billion-applies to meat, fish, some
> > >veggies and peanuts. Food is a tiny part of my living expense but to
> > >some lower income large families, it is a very significant part of
> > >their living expenses and here we go raising their food cost. Yeah it
> > >would be nice to know my beef brisket came from a cow raised in Keokuk
> > >IA, processed in Ames IA and so forth but at the cost of $ 4
> > >billion-wow we could build 400 really snazzy schools (@ $10 million
> > >each) for $ 4 Billion-now wonder which would do more good.
> > >
> > >For those who subscribe (it's free) to the NYT-great food colums-here
> > >is the article's address.
> > >
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...od-Labels.html
> >
> > How that number does grow. I've heard or read four different stories
> > about this so far and the numbers range from the low hundred millions
> > to this four billion figure. Much phog coming out here I do believe.
> >
> > Personally, I want to see country of origin labeling. Could be a real
> > shock to a lot of people where much of our food comes from.
> >
> > With the exception of foods that we may not produce of high quality in
> > the U.S. I prefer to buy American grown/produced food when I can.
>
> I wasn't familiar with this issue and the NYT article was somewhat
> ambiguous. I couldn't at first determine whether this labeling is simply
> meant to distinguish imported food products from those that are domestically
> produced or whether it will require disclosure of precise origins for
> domestic products. After visiting the USDA web site, I see that the
> requirement calls for labels that will indicate the *Country of Origin* for
> most meat, fish, seafood, perishable agricultural products and for peanuts.
> In addition, country of origin labels for fish and shellfish must also
> disclose whether it is wild or farm-raised.
>
> The main objection being raised from the food processing industry is that it
> will be an awesome task to keep accurate track of identifying and
> separating imported livestock which are now slaughtered, butchered and
> processed right along with domestically produced livestock. And the expense
> won't be a one-time cost. It will be an ongoing cost, although it may be
> less after the first year. Not mentioned is how much it will cost the
> government to oversee and enforce this requirement.
>
> In spite of the cost, I definitely believe this kind of information should
> be made available to the consumer. I can see some value in knowing where the
> food I buy is coming from.
>
> USDA web site article:
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/226-03.htm

ROTFL! So the rest of the world can manage to keep track of the origins
of food consumed in their own countries and the US will find it
difficult?

"A.T. Hagan" wrote:
>
> On 27 Oct 2003 14:30:52 -0800, (butch burton)
> wrote:
>
> >Interesting article in NYT saying the cost of the new mandatory food
> >labels will cost an additional $4 billion-applies to meat, fish, some
> >veggies and peanuts. Food is a tiny part of my living expense but to
> >some lower income large families, it is a very significant part of
> >their living expenses and here we go raising their food cost. Yeah it
> >would be nice to know my beef brisket came from a cow raised in Keokuk
> >IA, processed in Ames IA and so forth but at the cost of $ 4
> >billion-wow we could build 400 really snazzy schools (@ $10 million
> >each) for $ 4 Billion-now wonder which would do more good.
> >
> >For those who subscribe (it's free) to the NYT-great food colums-here
> >is the article's address.
> >
> >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...od-Labels.html
>
> How that number does grow. I've heard or read four different stories
> about this so far and the numbers range from the low hundred millions
> to this four billion figure. Much phog coming out here I do believe.
>
> Personally, I want to see country of origin labeling. Could be a real
> shock to a lot of people where much of our food comes from.
>
> With the exception of foods that we may not produce of high quality in
> the U.S. I prefer to buy American grown/produced food when I can.
>
> .....Alan.
>

Precisely! When I was living in the UK I was allowed to make those
choices because I had that information. It was easy to avoid foods
produced under conditions that weren't acceptable to me.