# Do you support country of origin labeling on food?



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

With the problems of the past from adulterated or contaminated food should food items have a label showing the country of origin?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Absolutely! We did not do it with our last President and look what happened!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Absolutely! We did not do it with our last President and look what happened!


There goes the thread! :smack:


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

We already have COOL on many food items(in fact, since the 1930 law)--except meat cuts--which is the controversy...

geo


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

I'd like to see GMO labelling as well... will it happen ? Not Likely as the 4 big Food Monopolies (yes 4 "entities" own the vast majority of all food brands, globally) have too many highly paid Lobbyists protecting the precious monopolies.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Yes I want the country of origin labeling (COOL).


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

geo in mi said:


> We already have COOL on many food items(in fact, since the 1930 law)--except meat cuts--which is the controversy...
> 
> geo


 True but what we don't need is this gmo stuff labeling cause it is already there as well. Ready Labels is all that is needed. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Steve_S said:


> I'd like to see GMO labelling as well... will it happen ? Not Likely as the 4 big Food Monopolies (yes 4 "entities" own the vast majority of all food brands, globally) have too many highly paid Lobbyists protecting the precious monopolies.


You can easily find lists of all the "GMO" crops on the market.
Just compare the list to the ingredients, and there's no need for labeling.

At best you would see "MAY contain GMO's" on all processed food products.

It's not about protecting monopolies.
It's about logistics and the impracticality of trying to keep track of all the commodities, or trying to keep them separate.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> True but what we don't need is this gmo stuff labeling cause it is already there as well. Ready Labels is all that is needed. LOL



Never mind....

geo


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

Yes, and look EVERY TIME you purchase a product, even if you've purchased the same product for years.

For example, the bags of already peeled garlic cloves you buy at Wal-Mart in the produce department are product of USA. However, the large bag from the same company you buy at Sam's Club........product of China!


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can easily find lists of all the "GMO" crops on the market.
> Just compare the list to the ingredients, and there's no need for labeling.
> 
> At best you would see "MAY contain GMO's" on all processed food products.
> ...


I still want it labeled. Might be easier to get what is not GMO labeled. Also I do not want food from China or Japan. The Japanese can eat their own radioactive food. I do not want Oranges from California when they are grown here. I no longer trust food supply. We have lobbyist deciding what is safe for us to eat. It is about protecting monopolies because they buy off congress.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ed/La said:


> I still want it labeled. Might be easier to get what is not GMO labeled. Also I do not want food from China or Japan. The Japanese can eat their own radioactive food. I do not want Oranges from California when they are grown here. I no longer trust food supply. We have lobbyist deciding what is safe for us to eat. It is about protecting monopolies because they buy off congress.


If you want "non-GMO" buy only foods labeled "organic".


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you want "non-GMO" buy only foods labeled "organic".


I do buy organic. I walk in huge supermarket and there is small section in produce that is organic. There might be a small shelf with a few things to choose elsewhere is store. Not good enough. I do not think it is to much to ask to label our food. GMO food, Non GMO food. Country of origin. Consumers can vote with their money. People want to know ,look at informal poll up top.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ed/La said:


> I do buy organic. I walk in huge supermarket and there is small section in produce that is organic. There might be a small shelf with a few things to choose elsewhere is store. Not good enough.
> 
> * I do not think it is to much to ask to label our food*.
> 
> GMO food, Non GMO food. Country of origin. Consumers can vote with their money. People want to know ,look at informal poll up top.


The majority disagrees with that.
Internet polls are meaningless, and the one above is saying we need something we already have had for many years.


http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/default.asp



> GM Crops List
> 
> Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
> Apple (Malus x Domestica)
> ...


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

double post


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The majority disagrees with that.
> Internet polls are meaningless, and the one above is saying we need something we already have had for many years.
> 
> 
> http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/default.asp


It's interesting that you feel people should have personal freedoms, like when it comes to abortion and guns, yet figure us common folk don't deserve to know exactly what's in their food- without having to walk around with a computer to google each product while grocery shopping. What's wrong with giving people options.

And your list is misleading. Those products have non GMO and GMO options. Most corn and most soy are GMO (unless organic) while most apples are non GMO. A few letters on a sticker won't cost anything, even though the industry claims hardship.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think the thread drift away from the OP and onto GMO makes this the wrong section. GMO topics are not general chat.

While I favor COOL, the US has thousands of exports that will be threatened when we start restricting Canadian beef.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> It's interesting that you feel people should have personal freedoms, like when it comes to abortion and guns, yet figure us common folk don't deserve to know exactly what's in their food- without having to walk around with a computer to google each product while grocery shopping. What's wrong with giving people options.
> 
> And your list is misleading. Those products have non GMO and GMO options. Most corn and most soy are GMO (unless organic) while most apples are non GMO.


You don't have to Google each product.

You just need to check the list I gave against the ingredients *already on the label*

I believe you have the personal freedom to educate yourself enough so no one has to label everything for you. You've always had that option.

But as was pointed out, this thread and poll really isn't about GMO's at all.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't have to Google each product.
> 
> You just need to check the list I gave against the ingredients *already on the label*
> 
> ...



That list cant tell you if the apple or potato are gmo it just generalizes. Most are not.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

Bearfoot I am not going to check your list to go shopping. Just put a label on it for all to see. Consumers have the right to ask for that. I think asking for food labeling is reasonable. If it is to much trouble for big business tough u know what


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ed/La said:


> Bearfoot I* am not going to check your list* to go shopping. Just put a label on it for all to see. Consumers have the right to ask for that. I think asking for food labeling is reasonable. If it is to much trouble for big business tough u know what


It makes no difference to me if you check it or not.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

What does GMO have to do with Country of Orign? Nothing. 

The reason the organic and non-GMO section in the store is tiny is because there is a tiny interest in organic and non-GMO. Really easy to understand.

If you want to know why products are not labeled "GMO", start a thread on it. Best if you go to the dark pages, since GMO is a topic too hot for General Chat.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> Absolutely! We did not do it with our last President and look what happened!


No more Hawaiians for president!!


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

haypoint said:


> What does GMO have to do with Country of Orign? Nothing.
> 
> The reason the organic and non-GMO section in the store is tiny is because there is a tiny interest in organic and non-GMO. Really easy to understand.
> 
> If you want to know why products are not labeled "GMO", start a thread on it. Best if you go to the dark pages, since GMO is a topic too hot for General Chat.


Fair enough. Yes I went off topic. I figured if we are labeling lets get it all labeled. Ok I am done with this topic


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Yes. I do want to know where my food comes from. I appreciate it when there is enough of a label to give me that information. Sometimes, it is more helpful than others.

FWIW, I have been known to put products back on the shelf when I felt unable to get an idea of just where the came from. Such terms as "Packaged in ______" don't really tell me a whole lot and aren't much better than no label at all.

To each their own. I prefer the information on the package... and vote with my wallet, as does every other customer. Apparently there are enough people wanting to know such things as there are quite a lot of labels showing up with terms like "Non-GMO", "Produced in the USA", "USDA Organic". I realize that the labeling isn't perfect but I appreciate the effort on behalf of those who do it well enough to spend more on products that I feel better informed about.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

haypoint said:


> What does GMO have to do with Country of Orign? Nothing.
> 
> The reason the organic and non-GMO section in the store is tiny is because there is a tiny interest in organic and non-GMO. Really easy to understand.


Conversations are ever evolving but fair enough. 

Where I shop the organic section got so big they just started putting organic beside conventional, avocados/bananas etc etc. no organic section anymore as its completely mainstream. 

Surprised (or not!) that some places have such narrow options for grocery shopping. And I live 3 hrs from a city.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> Conversations are ever evolving but fair enough.
> 
> Where I shop the organic section got so big they just started putting organic beside conventional, avocados/bananas etc etc. no organic section anymore as its completely mainstream.
> 
> Surprised (or not!) that some places have such narrow options for grocery shopping. And I live 3 hrs from a city.


I'm not clear on what you just wrote.

Are you saying that at the store where you shop the organic fruits and vegetables have overtaken standard fruits and vegetables to the point that all the fruits and vegetiales are organic?

If every person in Moose Jaw wanted organic carrots, they would have organic carrots. If one person comes to buy groceries from 3 hours away and is the only person that wants organic bananas, I doubt the selection will provide that. The lack of organic vegetables is due to the low demand.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I'm not clear on what you just wrote.
> 
> Are you saying that at the store where you shop the organic fruits and vegetables have overtaken standard fruits and vegetables to the point that all the fruits and vegetiales are organic?
> 
> If every person in Moose Jaw wanted organic carrots, they would have organic carrots. If one person comes to buy groceries from 3 hours away and is the only person that wants organic bananas, I doubt the selection will provide that. The lack of organic vegetables is due to the low demand.


Fortunately, we have a growing portion of the population that's becoming aware of what the massive corporations are doing to their food supply and demanding better, healthier farming, processing, and preparation practices. A popular health food store I frequent has opened up 5 additional stores in a nearby town in recent years - growing faster than conventional markets in fact!


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

fireweed farm said:


> Conversations are ever evolving but fair enough.
> 
> Where I shop the organic section got so big they just started putting organic beside conventional, avocados/bananas etc etc. no organic section anymore as its completely mainstream.
> 
> Surprised (or not!) that some places have such narrow options for grocery shopping. And I live 3 hrs from a city.


I understand what you're sayimg just fine, and I'm seeing a bit of the same thing in some stores. 

In many stores, before a lot of people heard about the "organic" stuff, it got a little section over by the place where they rent the carpet cleaners or some other out of the way place all by itself where "eccentric" and "new name brand nobody ever heard of" stuff went. There may have only been a handful of items. 

Not so much now. In several Walmarts I frequent, if you want organic ketsup, it's right beside the regular ketsup. If you want organic milk, its right beside the regular milk. If you want organic rasin bran cereal, it's right beside the regular rasin bran cereal.

Walmart isn't making political statements or dictating anything. They're in business to make money. The offering of organic and similarly labeled foods is significant enough that it's no longer nearly as much of a fringe element of their products. It's a real demand and they were not going to ignore or belittle it. Enough people sought that organic label that Walmart listened. 

That might not be the case in every location. But the trend seems to be moving in that direction.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Fortunately, we have a growing portion of the population that's becoming aware of what the massive corporations are doing to their food supply and demanding better, healthier farming, processing, and preparation practices. A popular health food store I frequent has opened up 5 additional stores in a nearby town in recent years - growing faster than conventional markets in fact!


I have no idea what fake reports you've been reading that lead you to believe this country does not already have better, healthier farming and processing practices. 

This growing concern away from current food supply chains has lead to these health food stores having far more recalls of tainted food. But, I understand it makes you feel you are doing something good and gives you a cause to rail against capitalism.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I have no idea what fake reports you've been reading that lead you to believe this country does not already have better, healthier farming and processing practices.
> 
> This growing concern away from current food supply chains has lead to these health food stores having far more recalls of tainted food. But, I understand it makes you feel you are doing something good and gives you a cause to rail against capitalism.


You believe whatever you want. I'll take food that hasn't been sprayed with pesticides, herbicides, and hasn't had the soil damaged with chemical fertilizers. Organic animal farming also reduces the use, and need for, animal antibiotics and natural methods of things like fly control wind up working better than just dousing the farm with toxic chemicals.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> You believe whatever you want. I'll take food that hasn't been sprayed with pesticides, herbicides, and hasn't had the soil damaged with chemical fertilizers. Organic animal farming also reduces the use, and need for, animal antibiotics and natural methods of things like fly control wind up working better than just dousing the farm with toxic chemicals.


 You believe whatever you want. *As I expect youâll believe what you want.*
 I'll take food that hasn't been sprayed with pesticides, herbicides, and hasn't had the soil damaged with chemical fertilizers. *Iâll take food that doesnât have worms, grubs, fly eggs, fungus and mold spores. You do know there is a list of toxic chemicals allowed on your organic food, right? Crop production depletes the soil of certain nutrients, mainly N, P and K. To keep the soil healthy and balanced, those chemicals are added in manure or granules. But the chemical elements are identical. But there isnât enough manure available to fertilize all crop land. Also, manure is not balanced to meet the soilâs requirements. No-Till farming saves top soil and reduces soil compaction from previous plowing and cultivation. No-Till is only possible through safe herbicides. The soilâs increased health is shown in record setting harvests year after year.*
 Organic animal farming also reduces the use, and need for, animal antibiotics and natural methods of things like fly control wind up working better than just dousing the farm with toxic chemicals.* Organic farming does not, in itself, reduce disease or infections. Denying the animalâs treatment to retain status is prolonging ill health. The mistaken belief that alternative products treat health issues and mythical beliefs that harmful parasites can be eliminated by herbal treatments like garlic, tobacco, cinnamon or DE, cause these animals to needlessly suffer. I favor real healing treatments that actually work and appropriate withdrawal times to protect the public from unwanted chemicals. *


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Heritagefarm View Post
> You believe whatever you want. I'll take food that hasn't been sprayed with pesticides, herbicides, and hasn't had the soil damaged with chemical fertilizers. Organic animal farming also reduces the use, and need for, animal antibiotics and natural methods of things like fly control wind up working better than just dousing the farm with toxic chemicals.


You're just parroting all the buzzwords.
None of that has anything to do with COOL.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

: Originally Posted by Heritagefarm View Post
You believe whatever you want. I'll take food that hasn't been sprayed with pesticides, herbicides, and hasn't had the soil damaged with chemical fertilizers. Organic animal farming also reduces the use, and need for, animal antibiotics and natural methods of things like fly control wind up working better than just dousing the farm with toxic chemicals. You're just parroting all the buzzwords.
None of that has anything to do with COOL. 
... Sure it does. Some countries have different farming practices then we do. Some better some worse. Nice to know what is being sprayed by who and decide if we want to feed it to our children. Many consumers do not care where their food comes from but some do. As consumers we have little say on our food supply except with our pocket book. The op does not seem to mind the evolving discussion. Do you?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

ed/La said:


> : Originally Posted by Heritagefarm View Post
> You believe whatever you want. I'll take food that hasn't been sprayed with pesticides, herbicides, and hasn't had the soil damaged with chemical fertilizers. Organic animal farming also reduces the use, and need for, animal antibiotics and natural methods of things like fly control wind up working better than just dousing the farm with toxic chemicals. You're just parroting all the buzzwords.
> None of that has anything to do with COOL.
> ... Sure it does. Some countries have different farming practices then we do. Some better some worse. Nice to know what is being sprayed by who and decide if we want to feed it to our children. Many consumers do not care where their food comes from but some do. As consumers we have little say on our food supply except with our pocket book. The op does not seem to mind the evolving discussion. Do you?


What is allowed to be sprayed on crops in Canada that is not allowed in the US? How about Mexico? China? 

Out of all the chemicals that are sprayed on crops, what chemical remains at harvest time? What applied chemical is absorbed and exists in fruits and vegetables?

You are right, we get to express ourselves by buying what we prefer. In numerous studies, 40 to 60% of consumers say they prefer organic. Ironically, fewer than 4% actually buy the higher priced organic produce. 

Do you prefer potatoes grown in organic manure or grown in mineral based fertilizer? Carrots?

At my local grocer, COOL exists on all the fruit and fresh vegetables. Doesn't seem to matter to anyone.

Do you prefer fresh apples in mid-Winter, from South Africa or apples from Oregon, stored in carbon dioxide for 6 months?

For awhile, they were doing COOL with the meat. They just labeled it "Beef from Mexico, USA or Canada."


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

For 50 plus years, fast food and local grocers bought boxes of Bull meat from Australia or New Zeeland to mix into the fatty scraps of US beef. Still do. You need to know this why?


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

haypoint said:


> What is allowed to be sprayed on crops in Canada that is not allowed in the US? How about Mexico? China?
> 
> Out of all the chemicals that are sprayed on crops, what chemical remains at harvest time? What applied chemical is absorbed and exists in fruits and vegetables?
> 
> ...


Um, yes, it does matter to someone. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean you speak for every other person who buys produce. Dude, lighten up. We've all entitled to our own opinions. But that doesn't mean we have the right to force our opinions on everyone around us. And insinuating that everyone who disagrees is an idiot gets a little old.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ed/La said:


> :
> ... Sure it does. Some countries have different farming practices then we do. Some better some worse. Nice to know what is being sprayed by who and decide if we want to feed it to our children. Many consumers do not care where their food comes from but some do. As consumers we have little say on our food supply except with our pocket book. The op does not seem to mind the evolving discussion. Do you?


COOL labeling is already the law.

I was required to add this even when selling live lambs:



> Country of Origin Affidavit
> 
> I attest that all livestock referenced by this document and transferred are of UNITED STATES origin.
> 
> ...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bellyman said:


> Um, yes, it does matter to someone. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean you speak for every other person who buys produce. Dude, lighten up. We've all entitled to our own opinions. But that doesn't mean we have the right to force our opinions on everyone around us. And insinuating that everyone who disagrees is an idiot gets a little old.


Let me explain it better. The grocers sell equal amounts of blueberries grown in south America as they do grown in Indiana. If there were strong "buy American", the US stuff would out sell the imported. Imported grapes slightly nicer looking than US (often the case this time of year) out sell US products. 
Since the produce is marked with COOL and sale of inventory shows no preference, I'd say it doesn't matter to most folks. 

This a topic that has interested me for nearly 50 years. I have friends and relatives in wholesale and retail fruit and vegetable sales. Michigan has the highest variety of fruits and vegetables in the nation (California is right up there). I marketed fruits and vegetables many years ago, before standardized organic standards.

When studies show a public preference to organic or grown locally, but sales show no statistical preference, I see that we want organic or we want locally grown, but when grocery shopping, we look for value. 

If I were wrong, the organic section would be huge. The grown in the USA would be huge. That the grocers market their meat "from Mexico, US or Canada" shows the majority of the public buy it without question.

OK, it matters to you. Most stores are willing to source a product when there is a demand. 15 years ago, Kroger supplied grass finished beef. There had been requests and it sort of looked like the next food fad. 

They supplied grass finished beef to their stores nation wide. Kroger tracks food purchases with that little Kroger card on your key chain. After a few months, sales dropped off and they don't carry grass finished beef nationally any more. In some stores they do promote their beef with " pasture raised" flags in the meat case.

Out of all the grass finished beef they sold, under 1% sold to the same customer twice. Lots of people tried it, once. Repeat sales weren't there for that product.

The products in your grocery store are not there because ConAgra or Tyson or Smithfield force their products on them. Inventory reflects consumer purchases.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> You believe whatever you want. *As I expect youâll believe what you want.*
> I'll take food that hasn't been sprayed with pesticides, herbicides, and hasn't had the soil damaged with chemical fertilizers. *Iâll take food that doesnât have worms, grubs, fly eggs, fungus and mold spores. You do know there is a list of toxic chemicals allowed on your organic food, right? Crop production depletes the soil of certain nutrients, mainly N, P and K. To keep the soil healthy and balanced, those chemicals are added in manure or granules. But the chemical elements are identical. But there isnât enough manure available to fertilize all crop land. Also, manure is not balanced to meet the soilâs requirements. No-Till farming saves top soil and reduces soil compaction from previous plowing and cultivation. No-Till is only possible through safe herbicides. The soilâs increased health is shown in record setting harvests year after year.*
> Organic animal farming also reduces the use, and need for, animal antibiotics and natural methods of things like fly control wind up working better than just dousing the farm with toxic chemicals.* Organic farming does not, in itself, reduce disease or infections. Denying the animalâs treatment to retain status is prolonging ill health. The mistaken belief that alternative products treat health issues and mythical beliefs that harmful parasites can be eliminated by herbal treatments like garlic, tobacco, cinnamon or DE, cause these animals to needlessly suffer. I favor real healing treatments that actually work and appropriate withdrawal times to protect the public from unwanted chemicals. *


I'm aware of quite a few harmful and negative farming practices... and the game's changed since I got out a few years ago. We've got farmers using GPS nav systems on their tractors to apply pinpoint fertilizer and pesticides, radically reducing their usage. Computers can track leaf color and apply pinpoint pesticides. Soil tests are now dirt cheap. 

What is actually even more important than organic farming is sustainable farming. Look at these CAFOs. They consume a prodigious amount of grain and crops that could be planted with crops that could feed people directly. We're eating too many cows, their methane is contributing to GHG emissions. The lagoons from mega dairies are releasing tons of methane, as well. It's not sustainable.

We've also got a lot of toxic pesticides still in use. Some people use antibiotics preventively. The chicken feed I used to buy was permanently antibiotic laced. Many chicken farmers bought it as well, as a preventive measure. Now you have superbugs that have built up resistance. Adaptation works fast. 

You've got farmers still using chemical fertilizers improperly. NPK fertilizers are not very damaging when applied properly. Many farmers don't know how to read soil tests, but many are getting better. The notion that you don't need higher education to farm is becoming archaic as farming becomes more about science, technology, and adaptability. No till with organic farming is certainly a thing. You've got this idea that organic farming is done by these dumb, star eyed peasants who are afraid of toxeek cheemikills. Not so. 

Sustainable farming is the next big thing, even more than organic and conventional. Conventional kills the land and people. Organic is labor intensive and costly. Sustaible balances ecology, economics, and health. Farmers need to adapt or get left in the soil....


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I'm aware of quite a few harmful and negative farming practices...
*Well then, let&#8217;s roll them out, one at a time and see if we each might learn a thing or two.*
 and the game's changed since I got out a few years ago. We've got farmers using GPS nav systems on their tractors to apply pinpoint fertilizer and pesticides, radically reducing their usage. Computers can track leaf color and apply pinpoint pesticides. Soil tests are now dirt cheap. 
*So, we agree that crop farming has gotten better?*

What is actually even more important than organic farming is sustainable farming. 
*I don&#8217;t know when you &#8220;got out a few years ago&#8221;, but 40 years ago this nation&#8217;s best farm ground lost tons per acre of precious top soil each season. That has stopped in most areas. It stopped because modern farmers embrace sustainable agricultural practices. No-Till is the foundation of that method. Instead of plowing under all plant residue and leaving the soil prone to wind and water erosion, instead of frequent cultivation to eradicate weeds, that leaves the soil prone to wind and water erosion, not to mention the additional deep soil compaction and fuel to cultivate, a post emergence spray of a safe, quick to decompose weed killer saves the soil. Prior to widespread adoption of No-Till, the loss of top soil was proof of non-sustainable agriculture. *
Look at these CAFOs. They consume a prodigious amount of grain and crops that could be planted with crops that could feed people directly. 
*Most CAFOs are feed lots, mega dairies and egg factories housing a half million in each building. Most do not grow crops, simply buying on the open market. They exist because there is a demand for their products and economy of scale makes them economical. If you feed grain to your chickens, you are consuming more grain per egg than the CAFOs, because they are more efficient. All of your farm animals consume a higher rate of feed compaired to production than the CAFOs. If you and ten thousand other small farmers gave up animals and grew vegetables, you&#8217;d have a greater effect than a commercial layer house or 12,000 head dairy.*
We're eating too many cows, their methane is contributing to GHG emissions. The lagoons from mega dairies are releasing tons of methane, as well. It's not sustainable.
*Who is going to tell North America to stop eating beef? It is a sort of freedom thing we do in this country.*
* Before we can go on, please admit that you know cows do not fart methane? Whew!*
*Most small farms do not have the same investment power, scale of economy to afford methane digesters. Guess which size dairy is far more likely to have methane digesters and turn that gas into electricity, reducing their purchased building energy needs to zero? Guess what size operation is more likely going to have the machine that knifes manure slurry into the soil, reducing both smell and out gassing? *

We've also got a lot of toxic pesticides still in use. 
*Yes we do. Not so much in the field crops. GMO has cut pesticide use in corn to nearly zero. Through plant breeding, many crops are resistant to insect pests.*
*In orchards, well timed pesticides are required. Actual use of pesticides could be reduced in commercial orchards if it were not for the untended fruit trees, either growing wild or in some homeowner&#8217;s back yard. These trees act as a reservoir of insect pests, year after year re-infecting commercial orchards. Sort of like an untended dandelion infested yard next to a golf course. Thankfully we understand pesticides well and limit their use and make sure the product is long gone prior to harvest. *
*Without pesticides, bees would be overwhelmed by mites, etc. *
Some people use antibiotics preventively. The chicken feed I used to buy was permanently antibiotic laced. Many chicken farmers bought it as well, as a preventive measure. Now you have superbugs that have built up resistance. Adaptation works fast. 
*You are right, in the past antibiotics were added to chicken feed. Some super bugs have built up resistance. But we need to be careful with segmented statements. Nearly all antibiotics use in animals are not the same as human antibiotics. There use in animals has not caused resistance in humans. Human resistance is almost exclusively caused by humans that fail to complete the time prescribed. Even in the rare cases where the same class of antibiotic is used on animals, the drug has left the animal long before it gets to the slaughter house. I&#8217;ve discussed this with the CEO of a major egg producer. He cannot give his hens any antibiotic without a prescription from a vet and pulling every bird out of production. That is costly to such a business, so strict bio security standards are kept, preventing illness and eliminating any need for antibiotics.* 

You've got farmers still using chemical fertilizers improperly. NPK fertilizers are not very damaging when applied properly. Many farmers don't know how to read soil tests, but many are getting better. The notion that you don't need higher education to farm is becoming archaic as farming becomes more about science, technology, and adaptability. No till with organic farming is certainly a thing. You've got this idea that organic farming is done by these dumb, star eyed peasants who are afraid of toxeek cheemikills. Not so. 
*Farmers that improperly use chemical fertilizers or can&#8217;t understand a soil test don&#8217;t stay farmers for long. Too costly to waste. I&#8217;ve farmed in the Lake Michigan watershed, Lake Superior watershed and the Lake Huron watershed. I know the importance of proper application of chemicals. Most farmers do a good job. As proof, more chemical fertilizer pollution and herbicide pollution occurs from golf courses and suburban homeowners than farmers, despite the vast differences in acreages.*
*I might have a different view of these star eyed folk you mention if the mention of chemicals didn&#8217;t weaken their knees. I think every farmer strives to understand the plants, soil, weather and prefers to use the least amount of any chemical as possible. Sort of like an organic gardener that also understands the compounds that can protect his land, water and crops, so that he is willing and able to use the whole tool box at his disposal.*

Sustainable farming is the next big thing, even more than organic and conventional. Conventional kills the land and people. Organic is labor intensive and costly. Sustaible balances ecology, economics, and health. Farmers need to adapt or get left in the soil....
*Yup, stainable is the next big thing, started in about 1978 and starting to catch on, includes about 95% of all corn, 94% of all soybean, 100% of all canola, 88% of all sugar beet and 85% of all cotton. Yields from no-Till, while stopping the erosion of top soil and agricultural chemicals, have allowed farmers to consistently increase yields. *
*&#8220;Conventional kills the land and people&#8221; is the most &#8220;crazy talk&#8221; thing I&#8217;ve read from you, that says a lot, too.*


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I'm aware of quite a few harmful and negative farming practices...
> *Well then, letâs roll them out, one at a time and see if we each might learn a thing or two.*
> and the game's changed since I got out a few years ago. We've got farmers using GPS nav systems on their tractors to apply pinpoint fertilizer and pesticides, radically reducing their usage. Computers can track leaf color and apply pinpoint pesticides. Soil tests are now dirt cheap.
> *So, we agree that crop farming has gotten better?*
> ...


Ugh. You know your font tags show up in the quote box and make it impossible to read, right?

1. Organic farmers are just as capable of no-till as conventional farmers. Show me otherwise, or it's just hype.

If we really want to talk about a problem practice, let's talk about heavy equipment. Driving a tractor over a field compacts soil noticeably 30 years later by reducing available air pore space.

2. Really? Animals in CAFOs eat less food? That's news for me! Those must be some amazing GMO animals! I'm so glad I know that CAFO animals are special. Whoa! LOL. Like I said already, using that cropland for crops that could feed people would be incredibly more efficient than feeding it to animals and then to people. That was my main point.

3. Huh. Now your basic scientific knowledge is just totally lacking. Please review cows farts vs bow belches: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2569

4. What a bunch of bull fart. Indiscriminate Pesticide use is what is suspected to be the main cause for the massive decline in bee colonies around the country.

5. That would seem to be at odds with the amount of times the commercial birds get sick from something and die off in droves, driving egg prices up. CHickens are far healthier in a natural environment. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that stuffing millions of birds into cages in fluorescent metal buildings isn't natural. And there's never any comparison between farm eggs from chickens raised on pasture, bugs, etc. and commercial chickens. Thin shells, pale yolks, yuck.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ugh. You know your font tags show up in the quote box and make it impossible to read, right?
> 
> 1. Organic farmers are just as capable of no-till as conventional farmers. Show me otherwise, or it's just hype.
> 
> ...


1. No Till organic? Give up cultivation and herbicides and the weeds overtake. Sure, on a 2 acre garden you can reduce weeds with bats of straw, but impractical in agriculture. Show me a successful organic no till of over 100 acres. 

Soil compaction is a concern for No Till, conventional and organic. Repeated trips across the field in plowing, disking and then cultivation causes soil compaction. No Till eliminates the plowing and cultivation trips across the field. Overall, fewer trips over the soil, less fuel used. Many Big Ag now use tracked vehicles that reduce soil compaction.

2. CAFO cows and chickens consume a more efficient amount of feed in relation to the product produced. You do not get to choose that people eat less eggs, milk and meat and more field crops.

3. Fart is such a tiny part of this discussion to be worthy of discussion. A lot of methane can be captured and turned into fuel, reducing fossil fuel use while reducing the amount of methane released and reducing the emissions from the fuel the methane replaces. I don't see many small farms capturing methane from a manure storage digesters. Belching is universal for both back yard cattle and cattle at CAFO. 

4. Only fringe groups still cling to blaming agriculture on CCD. Those at the cutting edge of this research conclude it to be stress related and many factors can contribute.

5. Yoke color or shell thickness is not an indicator of health or happiness. It is a reflection of production. Contrary to what you wish were true, chicken mortality is higher in cage free environments. Managing the temperature, airflow, in a bio secure environment creates greater health than most chicken tractor setups. What you call "natural environment" exposes chickens to pathogens, bacteria and a variety of soil or airborne diseases. 
When a 500,000 barn catches a disease it is far more newsworthy than when 500 individual places with 1,000 hens die. Because of this truth, many countries are currently restricting free range chickens.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

Haypoint you are obviously a better debater then most but that does not make you right. I am sure you could argue the other side and win debate, The fact is many do not trust the federal government or big business. Our government is bought off by big business. It does not matter how good your talking points are. We believe what we believe. Also on your #4 Only fringe groups still cling to blaming agriculture on CCD. I disagree, most bee keepers blame big agriculture for CCD. Not a fringe group. Have a nice day


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ugh. You know your font tags show up in the quote box and make it impossible to read, right?
> 
> 1. Organic farmers are just as capable of no-till as conventional farmers. Show me otherwise, or it's just hype.
> 
> ...



Most tracked vehicles especially AG only put out 6-8psi average person is putting 8 so stop walking through my fields your packing my soils more than my tacked tractor that only puts down 5.13 psi, good effort blaming the equipment but as you put it it is a bull fart argument.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Most tracked vehicles especially AG only put out 6-8psi average person is putting 8 so stop walking through my fields your packing my soils more than my tacked tractor that only puts down 5.13 psi, good effort blaming the equipment but as you put it it is a bull fart argument.


A discussion about soil compaction, largely caused by large machinery, how to diagnose it, and what to do about it. I suggest, as a farmer, brushing up on your knowledge of soil compaction. It will improve your crop productivity, overall.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex13331

Also see the attached image for a comparison of compacted vs. non-compacted soil.
Image credit:


> 3-D images of the macropore system in 10 cm-diameter, 8 cm-high soil cores taken from a heavy clay soil in Finland. Left: Control (non-compacted) soil. Right: Soil from plots where heavy machinery drove over the ground in an experimental treatment 29 years earlier. Images obtained from x-ray, computed tomography (CT) scans by Mathieu LamandÃ© (www.agronomy.org) 1/20/2014)


So it was from just one tractor pass. Whew!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> A discussion about soil compaction, largely caused by large machinery, how to diagnose it, and what to do about it. I suggest, as a farmer, brushing up on your knowledge of soil compaction. It will improve your crop productivity, overall.
> 
> http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex13331
> 
> ...


Yeah I know how it works, hence the reason for tracks that a 66000 lbs tractor fully ballasted puts down 5.13 psi where the average human is putting down 8psi. My yields have increased just about every year had a few bad ones but overall been doing great. So once again please by all means come up with a better arguement. The US produces more AG products that are grown in fields than anyone else in the world. Can it be cause of concern? Debatable. When you find a way to plant and harvest without some form of soil compaction let me know I'll invest because you will make us billionaires. Until then I'll keep doing it the only way there is to plant and till 1800 acres.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Why sure there is way less footprint by todays equipment. But the hyped up so called back to nature followers never will admit that they are wrong they just rely on one sided views of those sites that spew out false data day in and day out.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

In the unlikely event we can ever get back to the topic at hand, here
s a bit of news that might interest you:

 State COOL Legislation Fails in South Dakota
By NAFB/Tri-State Livestock News

KTICradio.com

February 27, 2017





The South Dakota legislature has stopped a move to require country-of-origin labeling on beef sold within the state.



Only 13 senators voted in favor of rewriting the state's COOL law, according to online publication Meatingplace. While those in favor of the law say consumers have the right to know, voters against the bill say federal regulations would supersede an amended South Dakota law.



South Dakota's State Cattlemen's Association also said the measure would not be enforceable. The U.S. repealed COOL in December 2015 after Canada and Mexico convinced the World Trade Organization that the rule was discriminatory and violated international trade laws.



The South Dakota Stock Growers Association supported the measure, along with the South Dakota Farmers Union.



While the original bill called for an actual label, some organizations worried that this would violated federal rules for meat labeling that require federal labeling to pre-empt state labeling so the Senate State Affairs committee amended the bill to require a placard in grocery stores' meat coolers or shelves rather than individual labels on meat.





Full text:

http://kticradio.com/agricultural/218390/


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

ed/La said:


> Haypoint you are obviously a better debater then most but that does not make you right. I am sure you could argue the other side and win debate, The fact is many do not trust the federal government or big business. Our government is bought off by big business. It does not matter how good your talking points are. We believe what we believe. Also on your #4 Only fringe groups still cling to blaming agriculture on CCD. I disagree, most bee keepers blame big agriculture for CCD. Not a fringe group. Have a nice day


 Thanks, but it isn't that I'm better at debate, just I have the unfair advantage of having facts on my side. I am also painfully aware that mere facts are no match for your feelings.

I once embraced the beliefs you seem to hold dear. I still want those things to be true. But, I am also a realist. That you or many believe in the boogyman does not make it more real. That the government or big business is trying to undermine your operation's three pigs, a goat and a dozen hens is laughable. They are not out to get you. No one is spying on you. There is no such thing as chem trails. 

I see the efforts that land grant universities go to providing information on backyard poultry, small scale commercial gardening. Michigan recently removed food inspection requirements for small operations enabling them to sell food items at roadside markets and farmers markets.

Countries that ban insecticides have CCD. Areas with lots of insecticide use have seen no CCD. There is no real connect the dots proof that agricultural chemicals cause any CCD. You mentioned "most bee keepers". Are you talking about the Chinese, since the vast majority of honey sold in the US comes from China? Perhaps you are referencing the folks with a couple dozen glass jars shaped like a honey bear, at your local farmers market?

I'm sure, in your tiny circle of local bee keepers, there could be the mistaken belief that CCD is not a combination of factors, and that might lead you to conclude that there is a consensus.


----------



## rockgrove (Jan 31, 2017)

I have not read all post, but yes I want to know where my food is from, the gov. wants me to report what and where I grow stuff, why should I expect any different


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

rockgrove said:


> I have not read all post, but yes I want to know where my food is from, the gov. wants me to report what and where I grow stuff, why should I expect any different


Unless you are growing for commercial reasons or income producing the gooberment could care less that you have a 1 acre garden and sell it at your local farmers market as long as you report your income correctly. I don't tell anyone where my corn or beans come from but then again if I deliver to an elevator in Texas then by God it must have been produced in USA. If you want to know where your food came from buy stuff that is labeled where it's from, it ain't a difficult task. Why add more regulations to food importers so we can sink more money we don't have into yet another senseless program, this driving your prices higher and then you'll whine about that. Grow your own or quit whining what difference does it make where it came from? Are you against buying fruit from Ecuador because someone making pennies on the dollar picked it because there's plenty of migrant workers in the states picking apples and oranges for 3 bucks an hour! Is that ok though?


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

I applaud manufacturers/retailers that provide COO. However, I don't agree that it should be mandantory. Consumers will tell the market if it is important and that will (long term) drive manufacturer/retailer behavior.

Personally, when I shop the produce section, knowing it is local is important for two reasons. First I like to support local growers. Second, seeing that an orange came from Chile bothers me from a carbon footprint standpoint.


----------



## rockgrove (Jan 31, 2017)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Unless you are growing for commercial reasons or income producing the gooberment could care less that you have a 1 acre garden and sell it at your local farmers market as long as you report your income correctly. I don't tell anyone where my corn or beans come from but then again if I deliver to an elevator in Texas then by God it must have been produced in USA. If you want to know where your food came from buy stuff that is labeled where it's from, it ain't a difficult task. Why add more regulations to food importers so we can sink more money we don't have into yet another senseless program, this driving your prices higher and then you'll whine about that. Grow your own or quit whining what difference does it make where it came from? Are you against buying fruit from Ecuador because someone making pennies on the dollar picked it because there's plenty of migrant workers in the states picking apples and oranges for 3 bucks an hour! Is that ok though?


sorrie to ruffle your feathers, I was simply answering a question ask, I guess your rights trump mine


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

It's got nothing to do with rights. It's common sense. More regulations equal more cost on producer which is transferred to you. That's the problem everyone wants something they think is good and then when the cost rises they complain like it's unfair and they caused the problem. Common sense and simple economic understanding goes a long way. Buy what's labeled and leave the rest not too hard if you ask me.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

I would simply like to point back to the poll at the beginning of the thread. Maybe the results of that could be an indication that just maybe, more people care than some would like to think.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bellyman said:


> I would simply like to point back to the poll at the beginning of the thread. Maybe the results of that could be an indication that just maybe, more people care than some would like to think.


Off of 65 people? Hardly a decent sample especially from a majority liberal forum. I wouldn't count that survey as being anywhere near accurate to the rest of the population.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Off of 65 people? Hardly a decent sample especially from a majority liberal forum. I wouldn't count that survey as being anywhere near accurate to the rest of the population.


This forum is clearly majority conservative.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

OK, I'll agree, 65 people isn't a large sample. But even if only HALF of people want to see labels, that's a lot of people. You speak as though only a very small percentage of people care and that's just not the case. Do some googling.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

If you really want COOL, don't rely on the govt to do it for you. Buy food from the producer or raise it yourself. Expecting mass produced food in the mega grocery Mart to be grown to the same standards you would use in your back yard, is the ultimate in having your cake and eating it too. Buy a beef from a local who meets your standards. Hit the farmers market or Roadside stand, etc.

I still want COOL for things like seafood since I'm a long long way from any ocean.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I fully support COOL. I like knowing where stuff comes from. And I can guarantee you, after years of working in and around the packaging department of a major global food/feed supplier, changing a label is no big deal, and is done all the time. IAny reputable company knows darn well where they are sourcing their ingredients. And I do believe the American consumer is getting more and more demanding when it comes to knowing whats in thier foods. And for those who oppose it, perhaps we can just label all edible things in the supermarket 'FOOD' and let you guess whats in there.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> This forum is clearly majority conservative.


You can't really believe that I hope. Then again if you do it proves my point.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

greg273 said:


> I fully support COOL. I like knowing where stuff comes from. And I can guarantee you, after years of working in and around the packaging department of a major global food/feed supplier, changing a label is no big deal, and is done all the time. IAny reputable company knows darn well where they are sourcing their ingredients. And I do believe the American consumer is getting more and more demanding when it comes to knowing whats in thier foods. And for those who oppose it, perhaps we can just label all edible things in the supermarket 'FOOD' and let you guess whats in there.


That's pretty much how it is now anyway, if you buy any kind of frozen food it's a crap shoot what's in there anyway. What's IN your food and WHERE it comes from are two totally different things. For the most part I grow my own and I buy local for what I can't, either way I did my research and I know where my food comes from. Stop being lazy and wait for the gooberment to make things mandatory so you don't have to do anything in seeing where your food comes from.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> You can't really believe that I hope. Then again if you do it proves my point.


This is gauged from personal experience. Maybe you're just so prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with you that any presence of opposition at all indicate this vast horde of devil-worshipping liberals. And people call liberals "snowflakes?"



Texaspredatorhu said:


> That's pretty much how it is now anyway, if you buy any kind of frozen food it's a crap shoot what's in there anyway. What's IN your food and WHERE it comes from are two totally different things. For the most part I grow my own and I buy local for what I can't, either way I did my research and I know where my food comes from. Stop being lazy and wait for the gooberment to make things mandatory so you don't have to do anything in seeing where your food comes from.


What's lazy about expecting to know where your food came from? It takes quite a bit of effort to get the government to exert forces against companies, especially the food industry. If you don't know where your tuna came from, you might wind up buying it from the poison laced Chinese fisheries. Ugh. No thanks.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> This is gauged from personal experience. Maybe you're just so prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with you that any presence of opposition at all indicate this vast horde of devil-worshipping liberals. And people call liberals "snowflakes?"
> 
> Not prejudice against those who don't think like me. Don't care if you worship the devil either. Most liberals have the mindset of something for nothing and what can be done for me not what can I do to earn this. So yeah I guess that defines lazy.
> 
> ...


Don't buy fish I catch it, raise fruits and veggies, raise my beef, chicken, and pork, hunt all other meat I want or need. I understand not everyone can do this but you can buy pretty much all of it local and figure out how to preserve it. Quite a bit of effort on the gooberment? Obama signed executive orders ever 12 minutes because he couldn't get congress to do anything. On a serious note though why should the government waste more money ensuring that companies label where it's from when someone can look it up themselves? Hence the laziness.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Don't buy fish I catch it, raise fruits and veggies, raise my beef, chicken, and pork, hunt all other meat I want or need. I understand not everyone can do this but you can buy pretty much all of it local and figure out how to preserve it. Quite a bit of effort on the gooberment? Obama signed executive orders ever 12 minutes because he couldn't get congress to do anything. On a serious note though why should the government waste more money ensuring that companies label where it's from when someone can look it up themselves? Hence the laziness.


Incorrect. If the company does not tell you where it came from, how are you supposed to figure it out?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Incorrect. If the company does not tell you where it came from, how are you supposed to figure it out?


Once again just because it's not on the package does not mean you CANT do your own research. You have internet and phone and customer service numbers are generally posted on websites also you have the ability to email. Once again.....don't be lazy.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Once again just because it's not on the package does not mean you CANT do your own research. You have internet and phone and customer service numbers are generally posted on websites also you have the ability to email. Once again.....don't be lazy.


So instead of the government simply telling companies to place country of origin on their label, you want me to dial the customer service number of every product in the store and talk to some East Indian about where the product came from? Dude, you're a hoot.


----------



## Thumper38 (Mar 4, 2017)

Found this thread particularly interesting eventhough Ive never worried too much about where the food comes from. But meh. Im not one for government intervention. I rather the market takes care of it. If you convince enough folks not to buy food that doesnt lable where it came from companies see a decline in their profits. Figure out why and start to lable their stuff. Problem solved without calling for more government intervention in the market.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> So instead of the government simply telling companies to place country of origin on their label, you want me to dial the customer service number of every product in the store and talk to some East Indian about where the product came from? Dude, you're a hoot.


I'm a hoot because I don't want the gooberment controlling even more than they already do? How is the US government going to control what a company headquartered in another country does anyway? Like I said some will quit importing driving the prices up. Simple economics. You would be what they call a loyalist, what can the government do to make my life easier and allow me to do less and get more in return? Do you care where the tires on your truck came from? Do you care where the components of your self defense ammo were produced? What about the seeds you grow your own food with? What about the run off that goes into the stock ponds used to raise store bought fish? You are more concerned with where it came from and less about everything else about it.

Keep begging for government help sooner or later you'll be disappointed.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I'm a hoot because I don't want the gooberment controlling even more than they already do? How is the US government going to control what a company headquartered in another country does anyway? Like I said some will quit importing driving the prices up. Simple economics. You would be what they call a loyalist, what can the government do to make my life easier and allow me to do less and get more in return? Do you care where the tires on your truck came from? Do you care where the components of your self defense ammo were produced? What about the seeds you grow your own food with? What about the run off that goes into the stock ponds used to raise store bought fish? You are more concerned with where it came from and less about everything else about it.
> 
> Keep begging for government help sooner or later you'll be disappointed.


On the contrary. I am quite concerned about where my water goes. I will not do unto other what I would not have them do unto me. I am concerned about rules and regulations that provide the greatest justice, peace, and harmony for the least amount of input. As efficiency is desired in machinery, so also should it be desired in regulatory ethics. I do not allow my cows to poor in the stream because I care about the field and fish downstream. Yes, I may eventually fish there. Probably not. 

1. We already have country of origin labeling. It is a very easy thing to do.
2. Yes. I buy US tires because we have better manufacturing and environmental laws.
3. Yes. I buy ammo and guns made in US because we have better manufacturing and environmental laws.
4. I care greatly about that. I buy local heirloom seed varieties. 
5. I buy wild fish with sustainability certificates. This insures the fish population there remains healthy.

Are there any other points I can address?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yes we may have it already but how is the US going to make it law for a non-US headquartered company? They can't and they can go elsewhere, it's not a big deal. 

As for 2-5 I really don't care what you do you are probably one of the few on this forum that might actually contemplate those things but I guarantee there are not many others.


----------



## Thumper38 (Mar 4, 2017)

Heritagefarm said:


> On the contrary. I am quite concerned about where my water goes. I will not do unto other what I would not have them do unto me. I am concerned about rules and regulations that provide the greatest justice, peace, and harmony for the least amount of input. As efficiency is desired in machinery, so also should it be desired in regulatory ethics. I do not allow my cows to poor in the stream because I care about the field and fish downstream. Yes, I may eventually fish there. Probably not.
> 
> 1. We already have country of origin labeling. It is a very easy thing to do.
> 2. Yes. I buy US tires because we have better manufacturing and environmental laws.
> ...


Actually we have some insanely strict manufacturing laws. Laws that actually hinder quality and cost effectivness. Insanely strict does not mean better.

How do you suggest we require foreign based companies to lable their products the way you want? Tell them that if they dont lable their products they cant sell them here? So they decide fine. You cant sell your stuff here. We are more dependant on exports than we are imports. So that would be bad for us.

So how about instead you educate people and encourage them to not buy foods that arent labled? You get what you want without hurting us.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Thumper38 said:


> Actually we have some insanely strict manufacturing laws. Laws that actually hinder quality and cost effectivness. Insanely strict does not mean better.
> 
> How do you suggest we require foreign based companies to lable their products the way you want? Tell them that if they dont lable their products they cant sell them here? So they decide fine. You cant sell your stuff here. We are more dependant on exports than we are imports. So that would be bad for us.
> 
> So how about instead you educate people and encourage them to not buy foods that arent labled? You get what you want without hurting us.


Yes, some of our laws are absurd and should be written off. However, country of origin is extremely easy to do and yes, if foreign companies want to sell here, they should be required to place a country or origin on their label. If we want to talk about absurdly restrictive laws, we can talk about those. A line of print on a label is not an absurd law.


----------



## Thumper38 (Mar 4, 2017)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, some of our laws are absurd and should be written off. However, country of origin is extremely easy to do and yes, if foreign companies want to sell here, they should be required to place a country or origin on their label. If we want to talk about absurdly restrictive laws, we can talk about those. A line of print on a label is not an absurd law.


Did you miss how we are more dependant on being able to export than we are on inporting? You failed to address what happens when companies from other countries refuse to follow a regulation they dont agree with. Cant sell here anymore? They will likely bar us from selling there. You also failed to explain why you dont want to let the free market handle things.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Thumper38 said:


> Did you miss how we are more dependant on being able to export than we are on inporting? You failed to address what happens when companies from other countries refuse to follow a regulation they dont agree with. Cant sell here anymore? They will likely bar us from selling there. You also failed to explain why you dont want to let the free market handle things.


1. Yes. But this is relevant to other companies wanting to sell to us for our country of origin labeling.
2. That is one plausible scenario. If they can't follow ur regulation, they can't sell here, or vice versa. Many times there's room for an exemption, anyways.
3. Because the free market is uncertain and does not protect the consumers, only the producers. It requires a certain amount of intervention.


----------



## Thumper38 (Mar 4, 2017)

Heritagefarm said:


> 1. Yes. But this is relevant to other companies wanting to sell to us for our country of origin labeling.
> 2. That is one plausible scenario. If they can't follow ur regulation, they can't sell here, or vice versa. Many times there's room for an exemption, anyways.
> 3. Because the free market is uncertain and does not protect the consumers, only the producers. It requires a certain amount of intervention.


You are confusing chrony capitalism (not the same as capitalism) with the free market. In a free market the consumer is protected by their dollar. 

Look at what happened with BPA laqours in the food can industry. No federal regulation was needed to get can makers to move toward BPA free laqours for their inside coatings. Just enough people who refused to buy it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Thumper38 said:


> You are confusing chrony capitalism (not the same as capitalism) with the free market. In a free market the consumer is protected by their dollar.
> 
> Look at what happened with BPA laqours in the food can industry. No federal regulation was needed to get can makers to move toward BPA free laqours for their inside coatings. Just enough people who refused to buy it.


In fact I haven't. There are certain inherent problems with a total free market. Mostly the consumers suffer due to a lack of oversight, and eventually unfair competition results, as well. A total free market racketeer will assert that there is no such thing as unfair competition, and that monopolies can be toppled by customers. But what we see is that eventually companies reach a too-big-to-fail point, and especially if they're monopolized. They may control so much of the market system that they can charge whatever they want for a basic necessity and people will pay it. 

And yes, what happened with the BPA was great. However, we knew about that for quite a while, and the government could have been much more effective at protecting the public by immediately placing a ban on the stuff. However, the government doesn't care much more than the large companies.


----------



## Thumper38 (Mar 4, 2017)

Heritagefarm said:


> In fact I haven't. There are certain inherent problems with a total free market. Mostly the consumers suffer due to a lack of oversight, and eventually unfair competition results, as well. A total free market racketeer will assert that there is no such thing as unfair competition, and that monopolies can be toppled by customers. But what we see is that eventually companies reach a too-big-to-fail point, and especially if they're monopolized. They may control so much of the market system that they can charge whatever they want for a basic necessity and people will pay it.


What you are describing is again not a free market. Once again chrony capitalism. Even with our heavily regulated market and largely because of it we ended up with exactly what you described.



> And yes, what happened with the BPA was great. However, we knew about that for quite a while, and the government could have been much more effective at protecting the public by immediately placing a ban on the stuff. However, the government doesn't care much more than the large companies.


Thing is. BPA aint really a bad thing when it comes to food cans. See once they go through the IBO (My company makes IBOs and inside spray machines by the way) its cured. Would drinking BPA laqour hurt ya? Sure would. So would drinking BPA free laqour. But once its been sprayed and ran through an IBO set with the proper oven curve it dont come off easily. As a matter of fact for you to see effects you would need to eat 45 cans of food that had sat on the shelves in adverse conditions past the expiration date every day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty five days a year for 23 years for there to be a cumulative effect.

But yeah. Your outrage on BPA laqours made companies like mine possible. To offset the loss of going to BPA free laqours these companies looked to people like me.

BTW. Do ya know what the minimum safe shelf life for a food can sprayed with 10Q laqour when filled with tomato paste (tomato is about the most corrosive human food that goes into a food can and can cause explosive failures from its reaction to the metal in the can (Expesically if you use crappy American steel, another unintended concequence of government regulation) is? 36 months. And a 307x407mm can only required 235 mg of laqour. Know what the shelf life of PPG 4553115 (the BPA free variant) is? 18 months and requires 337 mg of laqour for coverage on the same can with the same contents.

Meaning changing from BPA laqours not only raised the cost per can but it also increased the amount of non-hazardous solid waste mixed with flamable hazardous liquids these companies produce.

A hundred and two Mg per can might not seem like a lot. But it adds up when a company is making five or eight million cans a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty five days a year.

But hey. Unintended concequences. Kinda like the food for fuel crap that has caused a nitrogen run off scare in the midwest.

But. Thanks for your buisness. Its made me a lot of money.

Do you see yet how unintended concequences pertains to the topic of the thread?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Like I said earlier simple economics.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Just chiming in to say that I too favor labeling food what it is and where it comes from. To me, any resistance to this by the people producing it, implies that something they are doing/selling is suspect and they are afraid if they do label it, it won't sell as well. 

My absolute favorite is to buy food that is local. Supports local economy, lessons fossil fuels it takes to get to me, fresher = more nutritious. Tastes better too!
The winter farmers market I attend is packed - a huge crowd - all ages - the large parking lot is full before it even opens. There is a line of people waiting for the doors to open. So the idea that folks don't want organic/local food is not true where I am.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Just chiming in to say that I too favor labeling food what it is and where it comes from. To me, any resistance to this by the people producing it, implies that something they are doing/selling is suspect and they are afraid if they do label it, it won't sell as well.
> 
> My absolute favorite is to buy food that is local. Supports local economy, lessons fossil fuels it takes to get to me, fresher = more nutritious. Tastes better too!
> The winter farmers market I attend is packed - a huge crowd - all ages - the large parking lot is full before it even opens. There is a line of people waiting for the doors to open. So the idea that folks don't want organic/local food is not true where I am.


Off topic. Just curious what are they selling in the middle of winter in Maine?

On topic. On fruits and veggies. I esp like labels. I am more likely to buy the produce if is not grown in the US. It is less likely that the veggies are coated in a corn based wax or cleaning agents. Each to their own as it is nice as the produce guys at hy-vee get tired of calling their distributors for me(they won't give me the numbers).


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Just chiming in to say that I too favor labeling food what it is and where it comes from. To me, any resistance to this by the people producing it, implies that something they are doing/selling is suspect and they are afraid if they do label it, it won't sell as well.
> 
> My absolute favorite is to buy food that is local. Supports local economy, lessons fossil fuels it takes to get to me, fresher = more nutritious. Tastes better too!
> The winter farmers market I attend is packed - a huge crowd - all ages - the large parking lot is full before it even opens. There is a line of people waiting for the doors to open. So the idea that folks don't want organic/local food is not true where I am.


Lessens fossil fuels? Your 1 person not buying something that's shipped in and someone else will. Your not easing the fossil fuel consumption by not buying something at a store. That would be like saying I'm going to buy from my feed store instead of tractor supply for my cattle cubes but both were shipped in one from out of state and the other made here in Texas and my pickup burning fuel to get it. No logic in that statement.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Lessens fossil fuels? Your 1 person not buying something that's shipped in and someone else will. Your not easing the fossil fuel consumption by not buying something at a store. That would be like saying I'm going to buy from my feed store instead of tractor supply for my cattle cubes but both were shipped in one from out of state and the other made here in Texas and my pickup burning fuel to get it. No logic in that statement.


I think what they were saying is that they would prefer to buy local foods grown locally. It wouldn't have been shipped in from the other side of the country or the other side of the world if it were grown within a very short distance of where it was being sold, potentially right on the same farm it was grown on. At least that's what I was reading into what was said. I could be wrong.

Maybe one person buying local doesn't make much difference. But if one does, then another, then another, it starts to make a small difference when the numbers reach into the thousands of people doing it. And honestly, I don't think buying local is a bad thing. Granted, not everything we Americans have become accustomed to having at our convenience will be able to be had local. Some of it will. And when there's a market for such, enterprising individuals will rise to fill the need.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bellyman said:


> I think what they were saying is that they would prefer to buy local foods grown locally. It wouldn't have been shipped in from the other side of the country or the other side of the world if it were grown within a very short distance of where it was being sold, potentially right on the same farm it was grown on. At least that's what I was reading into what was said. I could be wrong.
> 
> Maybe one person buying local doesn't make much difference. But if one does, then another, then another, it starts to make a small difference when the numbers reach into the thousands of people doing it. And honestly, I don't think buying local is a bad thing. Granted, not everything we Americans have become accustomed to having at our convenience will be able to be had local. Some of it will. And when there's a market for such, enterprising individuals will rise to fill the need.


Not arguing about buying local because I try to as much as possible as well I was referring the the fossil fuel part. More and more vehicles hit the road daily so it's negligible at this point.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

A long while ago, when acorn squash were imported from California and selling in Michigan for 39 cents a pound, I took an interest into transportation costs. Seemed obvious that buying local would save the planet with reduced fuel costs. But, as with most of my "back to the land" beliefs, this was also false.

Apparently, a few hundred small farmers hauling a few bags of squash to the local farmer's market, use more fuel than a semi trailer making a single long trip across country.

So, you'll need a different reason to buy local.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Listen Texas predator - the arguing is for another forum here. I didn't post to get snapped at because you don't agree with me.

Thank you Bellyman for being reasonable - you got what I was saying.

And Haypoint. I wasn't looking for your permission to tell me why I should buy local or anything

Seriously- what is wrong with some of you people?
Go argue in the proper forum.

And to the person who wants to know what's at the farmers market in winter in maine. Root crops, eggs, meat, greens, sprouts, honey, fiber products, beer, bread, preserved foods, cheeses.
lots of stuff. 
seacoasteatlocal.org


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> *Listen Texas predator - the arguing is for another forum here. I didn't post to get snapped at because you don't agree with me.*
> 
> Thank you Bellyman for being reasonable - you got what I was saying.
> 
> ...


First off I didn't snap at you, second, I ain't arguing, third, I said your logic was flawed because it's all going to ship whether YOU buy or not therefore not making a dang bit of difference in fossil fuel consumption. Don't get me wrong I'm all about buying local because it helps the economy I live in. Lastly, I ain't your son, grandson, great grandson or any of the unlisted kin so please refrain from say "listen" like I'm going to care if we agree or disagree, I was speaking on your logic and giving you some insight. Have a blessed day.


----------



## rockgrove (Jan 31, 2017)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Once again just because it's not on the package does not mean you CANT do your own research. You have internet and phone and customer service numbers are generally posted on websites also you have the ability to email. Once again.....don't be lazy.


OK why not just put a a simple # like 46 on a can, no other writing or pic on a can, then all you have to do is go home and search the interweb to see what you bought, no need to know if it is a can of corn or a can of beans, that way you wont be LAZY


----------



## therunbunch (Oct 5, 2009)

Darren said:


> With the problems of the past from adulterated or contaminated food should food items have a label showing the country of origin?


I mean... why on earth wouldn't you want to know where your food comes from? You can't force personal responsibility, but it would be great if people did care where their food is sourced from.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

rockgrove said:


> OK why not just put a a simple # like 46 on a can, no other writing or pic on a can, then all you have to do is go home and search the interweb to see what you bought, no need to know if it is a can of corn or a can of beans, that way you wont be LAZY


Some manufacturers do label where their stuff is from, good for them. Others don't, so how hard is it to pull out your phone and search it if it's really that important to you? If you really want to just do numbers on canned food I'm good with it, I grow my own anyway. So in ending simple economics will explain why making it mandatory isnt worth the hassle or gooberment intervention and with that goes the fact America cannot force any other country to do it they can just stop them from importing thus raising your prices at the store due to supply reasons. Are you willing to wage war over where your can of beans come from? Very, very simple economics. Stop being dependent on the government, that's the problem to begin with.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Listen Texas predator - the arguing is for another forum here. I didn't post to get snapped at because you don't agree with me.
> 
> Thank you Bellyman for being reasonable - you got what I was saying.
> 
> ...


If you believe you are saving fossil fuels by buying locally, you are wrong. Not my opinion, factually wrong. I didn't mean to take away permission nor give permission. I was simply offering facts so that you could form your own beliefs. This is a discussion, an exchange of information. If you don't want people to give information or share their opinions, what is the purpose of you being on this site?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes transportation from long distances IS and always has been economical. Take for instance many years ago I worked at a disturbing house for chicken.
Now 20 miles down the road was our local chicken processing plant. BUT it was CHEAPER to PAY for the transportation all the way from GA. then right down the road.~ 9 Semi loads a week were coming from Northern GA. Rather then buying chicken 20 miles away~!!!
Seems people just can't understand that growing whatever in warmer climates and year round growing conditions, just can't match what a small backyard part time hobby farming types can. Facts and Figures don't lie.~!


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Texaspredator & Haypoint, I guess I just felt a bit attacked by your responses to my post. You were quick to tell me I was wrong, and that felt lousy. 

It doesn't make any sense at all to me how it would take less fuel for an organic pepper to come to my local grocery store from holland than it is for a similar pepper to ride locally to a farmers market. And even if by some math equation it does take more or the same fuel, I am still going to buy local when I can. You telling me I am wrong about saving fossil fuels isn't going to change my mind. So what was the point really? Why did you have to tell me I was wrong? I guess it's because that's what some people here like to do. Maybe you're one of them, maybe you're not. But since you can agree these types of people exist, you can surely see how I was taken aback by your original responses to me. 
I also didn't mean to offend, if I did, by saying "listen." It came from a casual place, but of course that is impossible to convey in text. You have a blessed day as well


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Texaspredator & Haypoint, I guess I just felt a bit attacked by your responses to my post. You were quick to tell me I was wrong, and that felt lousy.
> 
> It doesn't make any sense at all to me how it would take less fuel for an organic pepper to come to my local grocery store from holland than it is for a similar pepper to ride locally to a farmers market. And even if by some math equation it does take more or the same fuel, I am still going to buy local when I can. You telling me I am wrong about saving fossil fuels isn't going to change my mind. So what was the point really? Why did you have to tell me I was wrong? I guess it's because that's what some people here like to do. Maybe you're one of them, maybe you're not. But since you can agree these types of people exist, you can surely see how I was taken aback by your original responses to me.
> I also didn't mean to offend, if I did, by saying "listen." It came from a casual place, but of course that is impossible to convey in text. You have a blessed day as well


I always want to base my choices on factual information. I assumed you do too. Sorry for that assumption.

If you were on a diet and told me that you are eating granola five times a day, I might want you to know that some granola has 500 calories per cup. My intent is not to force you to give up granola, just make more informed choices.

I'll buy locally produced fruits and vegetables, but never base my choice on fuel consumption, because that isn't true.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Apples are apples are apples. Broccoli is broccoli is broccoli. Potatoes are potatoes are potatoes. Chickens are chickens are chickens. Cows are cows are cows. If that is what you believe, then the idea that it's cheaper to buy the stuff shipped in makes perfect sense because most local producers can't compete on price. 

When you start factoring in things other than price, that changes things. Yes, you can produce a baseball tomato, picked way too early, gassed to make it red and shipped a few thousand miles, perhaps for pennies. Can you compare that to a tomato that's been ripened on the vine to the point where it's developed most of it's color, it's texture has changed to be much softer and it's flavors have developed dramatically to the baseball tomato? If a tomato is a tomato is a tomato, then a person is foolish to buy the local vine ripened tomato at $3/lb, why would they waste their money?

For those who's taste buds can't tell the difference, I pity you. Then again, you'll spend less money than me on food when you have to buy it.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

I sure would not mind knowing country of origin. For safe handling reasons if nothing else.


----------



## Thumper38 (Mar 4, 2017)

The point that has been made is that you already can. But it either requires work or money on your part.

If knowing easily where something comes from matters to you, then only buy food that is already labeled with country of origin. Its been my experience that it will cost you more. Cause those companies found a nich. And theyre going to capatalize on it. Dont want them to have a nitch. Dont buy from them. If you dont mind doing some work then get on google. If you cant find if a product is made in a country you want to buy from by googling the company then dont buy it.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

Our law makers are bought and paid for by big business and big agriculture. It would cost next to nothing to label place of origin. Lobbyist from these large companies lobby against this. Lets put it to a vote. Oh yea we already did. @ this post time it is 71 to 3. I am sure most can guess who the 3 are.


----------



## Thumper38 (Mar 4, 2017)

ed/La said:


> Our law makers are bought and paid for by big business and big agriculture. It would cost next to nothing to label place of origin. Lobbyist from these large companies lobby against this. Lets put it to a vote. Oh yea we already did. @ this post time it is 71 to 3. I am sure most can guess who the 3 are.



It would actually cost more than you know. Seeings as many big companies buy their grwins and meats and what not from many different suppliers and often times process them together,,,


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ed/La said:


> *Our law makers are bought and paid for by big business and big agriculture.* It would cost next to nothing to label place of origin. Lobbyist from these large companies lobby against this. Lets put it to a vote. Oh yea we already did. @ this post time it is 71 to 3. I am sure most can guess who the 3 are.


When you start off with that, it's hard to give the rest any credibility.
COOL tells one very little about a product.



> I am sure most can guess who the 3 are


You're only *assuming* you know who voted and how they voted.

Those saying "we need labeling laws" don't seem to know that's been the law for many years:

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/cool


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

ed/La said:


> Our law makers are bought and paid for by big business and big agriculture. It would cost next to nothing to label place of origin. Lobbyist from these large companies lobby against this. Lets put it to a vote. Oh yea we already did. @ this post time it is 71 to 3. I am sure most can guess who the 3 are.


Out of 76 total votes? On this website? Do you really believe that those are even remotely accurate numbers of how the rest of the population feels? 

Next to nothing means it costs something which means YOU the CONSUMER will pay for it and then you will be whining because your can of peaches grown wherever and canned in USA need to be labeled as such and you'll wind up buying the cheap Walmart brand because you cannot justify the increase of your preferred brand all because they changed a label. Cost will almost always be transferred to the consumer. Again I ask you, how will you force another country to label their food. Trust me they can import elsewhere and will and will once again raise your prices because supply is down. I'm not really sure what y'all do not understand about simple economics, this stuff ain't rocket science. If they want to label it great if they don't great, I mean seriously. My beer label is going to have 7 different labels on it before I know and sardines will have a bunch depending what sauce they are in. More government intervention is not the answer the market will dictate what it wants, of companies see people not buying because a label they will change on their own to keep the money flowing.


----------



## fluttervale (Apr 21, 2015)

I don't have time (or patience) to read the entire thread, but labeling country of origin for processed foods is very different from COOL labeling for meat and produce. Country of Origin for processed foods is only for where the final product was created. For example, that jar of pasta sauce might have tomatoes and peppers from Mexico, onion and garlic from California, and spices from God-knows-where, but if it's mixed and bottled in the US, that's what the label says. Plus, COOL labeling for seafood is based on where the cannery/processor is, NOT where the wild product was harvested. So your Chinese, Australian, Japanese, American, and Chilean tuna might all come from the same area of the Pacific, but the canneries are in different ports.

COOL labeling is a start, but it's not the be-all-end-all of answers on where your food comes from. You want to know where your food comes from, buy it from a neighbor, not Walmart. Either buy cheap food, or food that you know where it's from and what's in it, but you can't have both unless you grow your own.


----------



## Thumper38 (Mar 4, 2017)

fluttervale said:


> I don't have time (or patience) to read the entire thread, but labeling country of origin for processed foods is very different from COOL labeling for meat and produce. Country of Origin for processed foods is only for where the final product was created. For example, that jar of pasta sauce might have tomatoes and peppers from Mexico, onion and garlic from California, and spices from God-knows-where, but if it's mixed and bottled in the US, that's what the label says. Plus, COOL labeling for seafood is based on where the cannery/processor is, NOT where the wild product was harvested. So your Chinese, Australian, Japanese, American, and Chilean tuna might all come from the same area of the Pacific, but the canneries are in different ports.
> 
> COOL labeling is a start, but it's not the be-all-end-all of answers on where your food comes from. You want to know where your food comes from, buy it from a neighbor, not Walmart. Either buy cheap food, or food that you know where it's from and what's in it, but you can't have both unless you grow your own.


Which is why what many of these people here are saying will be as simple as adding a label are wrong. It is a logistical nightmare that will cost tons of money. Which would increase the cost of these products. So instead of calling for more legislation which would in the end hurt people looking to simply feed their families, people who care where their food comes from aught to just fork over the extra cash for already labeled food or buy cheap food and not know where it comes from.


----------

