The Impact Of Country Of Origin Labeling

which results in healthy cattle. We use our cattle for milk and meat, and you wouldn’t want

The beef industry is an important asset to United States agriculture as a whole. Over a million agricultural entities benefited from the sales of cattle and calves in the year 2000. Gross totals from sales of cattle and calves in 2000 totaled $40.76 billion accounting of 21% of all agricultural receipts making the beef sector the largest single agricultural enterprise. Direct and indirect employment in or related to the production and processing of beef supports over 1.4 million full-time-equivalent jobs in the US as well. Cattle are produced in all 50 states and their economic impact contributes to nearly every county in the nation and they are a significant economic driver (Lawerance and Otto, 2000).

The NCBA continues to fight against the same challenges it has faced in its more than a hundred year history as well as the new challenges of today. As recently as this week, the NCBA has had trouble influencing policy in its favor. The country of origin labeling requirements in the 2014 Farm Bill were not changed to the NCBA’s liking (Farm Press). The new rules require meat products to be labeled with where the cattle was born,

Most people do not take a second thought about where their food came from. Whether it be chicken, steak, or pork, the meat was most likely raised in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). Hundreds to thousands of animals in horrid conditions from birth to slaughter at these factory farms. While damaging animals, CAFOs also damage the environment and the effects of these farms are worsening, with more farms resorting to these methods. Popular brands using these methods include global producers like Smithfield Foods and Tyson Foods. The United States Department of Agriculture defines a CAFO as an Animal Feeding Operation that houses “...more than 1000 animal units...” (nrcs.usda.gov). These “units” are later defined as “...an animal

Most of the meat in grocery stores comes from these companies even though they are stamped “from farm”. This can be very misleading for consumers.

The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was an attempt to regulate the meatpacking industry and to assure consumers that the meat they were eating was safe. In brief, this act made compulsory the careful inspection of meat before its consummation, established sanitary standards for slaughterhouses and processing plants, and required continuous U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection of meat processing and packaging. Yet, the most important objectives set by the law are the prevention of adulterated or misbranded livestock and products from being commercialized and sold as food, and the making sure that meat and all its products are processed and prepared in the adequate sanitary and hygienic conditions (Reeves 35). Imported meat and its various

The top four meatpacking businesses hold 20 percent of the nation’s cattle in company owned feedlots or cattle bought before-hand, sometimes using secret pricing contracts (138). These farmers are doing everything they can to make a living. This includes rotation practices that big companies would never care about.

I am writing to inform you of my concern toward the recent repeal of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. This repeal has negative effects on the men and women who call themselves America’s farmers and ranchers. As a consequence, these men and women are the ones who bare the cost of this decision. In addition American agriculturalist will lose $7.2 billion that this trade agreement will bring. These gains come primarily in the form of lower tariffs. Arguably current tariffs hinder the sale of Missouri agricultural products, and we must view agriculture markets at an international level not just the domestic level.

Approximately eighty percent of food eaten in the United States contains GMOs, but not many people know what they are actually consuming from their food sources (Prah). Genetically modified organism, also known as genetically modified organisms engineered in a lab by scientists that alter the genes of plants and animals. By fixating DNA from other organisms into America’s food sources, they create substances that are detrimental to the health of human beings. In addition to this, these genetically modified organisms are completely foreign to the plants and animals they undergo; their genes can become damaged from inserting the genes of the organisms. This unnatural process can interfere with a metabolic pathway in the plant or animal. In addition, studies have shown that on average forty-four percent of people had the “Round-up Ready” herbicide, glyphosate, which is used on genetically modified crops, found in their bodies (Stonebrook). Both, the genetically modified organisms and the chemicals used on them, cause several problems to occur in humans and other organisms which consume GMOs. These include tumors, damaged immune systems, allergies, and infertility; this is dangerous to the health of humans and to their regular body processes. Americans have the right to know what is going into their bodies and how these man-made GMOs are affecting them. By the government

There are many terms associated with modern agriculture, factory farms, concentrated animal feeding operations, intensive crop farming, and sustainable agriculture. The history of farming in the United States has evolved from families raising their own food with a few larger farms to today's massive crop farms and concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs. The majority of Americans today purchase all their food from a market, but what is the true cost of this convenience? Recent environmental and animal rights studies suggest factory farms should be held to the same strict regulations as other industries because they pose a serious threat to public health, animals often live in horrific conditions and suffer from abuse, and they contribute to significant amounts of pollution.

The Canadian Cattle Identification Program for beef cattle was originally implemented due to the mad cow crisis in 2001. These tags gave the industry a way to track diseases back to their source. Even though the program began in 2001 it was not fully enforced with penalty for not complying until July 2002 (1). Tags are to be applied to the calf/steer before leaving the

Our initial purpose of researching this topic has been inspired by the growing concern for the outbreak of Mad Cow Disease and it's various forms. We believe that it is imperative that we take our research and implement it to others along with facts in order to generate concern for other countries regulations, United States regulations, health concerns and economical awareness.

History is filled with one group of people labeling another group. Why does one group of people feel the need to degrade another group? The reason is quite simply fear. Fear of one group outsmarting, outperforming, or outnumbering another group. One of the most famous historical examples of labeling occurred in Germany. By creating laws, the Nazis restricted the Jews’ behavior.

Four years ago the United States was in a similar situation with Mexico in regards to international meat, rather than pasta. On September 11, 2013, a United States’ district judge refused to stop the government from requiring more specific labels on beef, pork, poultry and lamb products that were sold in the United States (The Pig Site). This served as a victory for defenders of the mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) policy. COOL, is a controversial United States food and agricultural labeling policy that was implemented and deemed mandatory in 2009. The policy requires that fresh foods, most notably meat, must indicate on the label where the product was born, grown, raised and slaughtered (The Pig Project).

The literature on international marketing presents a confrontation between two mainstream schools of thought regarding international marketing. The one supports the standardization approach and argues that multinational companies’ behavior should be uniform to minimize total costs and promote a global corporate image. The other argues for the need for adaptation to fit the unique dimensions of each local market. This research investigates companies’ practical level of adaptation and standardization in international markets. It identifies