llGib

Recommendations

Info

equired country of origin information is currently conveyed along the supply chain. Benefits Summary of Comments: Some commenters expressed their support for the proposed rule on the grounds that the proposed labeling requirements provide consumers with information they need to make informed choices about the source of food and how it was raised. The commenters stated that there is increased consumer demand to know where and how food is produced. Some commenters stated that consumer confidence benefits can accrue just as a result of having the information available, even if the consumers do not read the labels’ information. In the opinion of some commenters, mandatory labels address concerns of market failure and fraudulent labeling and help investigators trace-back foodborne illness outbreaks. A commenter referenced a 2005 survey that found that nearly two- thirds of consumers (60 percent) preferred country of origin labeling to be administered by a government policy rather than by companies marketing the meat. Some commenters stated their belief that consumers can differentiate various attributes of competing products and will increase demand, and price, for those attributes they view favorably, including the perceived higher quality of meat 46
derived from animals born, raised and slaughtered in one country rather than another country. Other commenters provided additional rationale and references to studies indicating consumers benefit from food origin information. The commenters noted there have been numerous polls and studies demonstrating that consumers value origin information regarding the food that they buy, including meat, including a national poll in 2007 that found that 94 percent of those surveyed believed that consumers have a right to know the country of origin of the foods that they purchase, and 85 percent of consumers say knowing where their food comes from is important. Commenters also referenced a study showing that consumers are willing to pay more for a more precise, country-specific label than for a less precise, mixed-origin label. The commenters noted that mixed-origin labels may be affixed to exclusively U.S. origin product due to the commingling flexibilities in the current program and that eliminating the commingling flexibility and ensuring that single-origin product is accurately labeled will therefore benefit consumers who value being able to purchase products with more precise label information. Other commenters noted that the Agency did not offer an estimate of any additional benefits from the proposed rule, 47
Page 1 and 2: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultu
Page 3 and 4: FR 2658), which took effect on Marc
Page 5 and 6: The estimated number of firms that
Page 7 and 8: end. Given that the Agency believes
Page 9 and 10: designations for chicken muscle cut
Page 11 and 12: Commingling This final rule elimina
Page 13 and 14: “The United Kingdom of Great Brit
Page 15 and 16: support or opposition to the rule w
Page 17 and 18: to require labeling of specific pro
Page 19 and 20: must identify the origin of categor
Page 21 and 22: signage to convey origin informatio
Page 23 and 24: With regard to chicken products, th
Page 25 and 26: spent in another country, i.e., cou
Page 27 and 28: that it is as broad as possible. Th
Page 29 and 30: necessitated by the proposed rule w
Page 31 and 32: to the new labels. The Agency furth
Page 33 and 34: Several commenters stated their bel
Page 35 and 36: With respect to additional operatio
Page 37 and 38: would cause the processing industry
Page 39 and 40: Another commenter that supplies ind
Page 41 and 42: the country(ies) of origin of the c
Page 43 and 44: does not have concerns that this ru
Page 45: supports the creation of jobs in th
Page 49 and 50: the existing limited demand for suc
Page 51 and 52: consumers with information upon whi
Page 53 and 54: One beef packer commented that 2009
Page 55 and 56: costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
Page 57 and 58: conclusion that the final rule’s
Page 59 and 60: COOL regulations. The revised cost
Page 61 and 62: Commenters to the notice of propose
Page 63 and 64: could potentially be commingled, wh
Page 65 and 66: impact analysis (hereafter, 2009 RI
Page 67 and 68: Assuming an 800 pound average carca
Page 69 and 70: steaks and roasts). While a small a
Page 71 and 72: multiplying by the per-head cost es
Page 73 and 74: are applied to arrive at the lower,
Page 75 and 76: information to currently required C
Page 77 and 78: that is unlikely, because it requir
Page 79 and 80: objective of this rulemaking is to
Page 81 and 82: clubs, and superstore firms operate
Page 84 and 85: The 2007 Economic Census data provi
Page 86 and 87: The 2007 Economic Census 16 provide
Page 88 and 89: cattle or hogs. The number of small
Page 90 and 91: steps occurred, by using signs or p
Page 92 and 93: AMS considered the potential civil
Page 94 and 95: States to comply with the DSB recom
Page 96 and 97:
§65.240 Retailer. Retailer means a
Page 98:
location information related to pro
show all

llGib

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?