The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has published a supplemental proposed rule that would “require nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies.” FSIS proposed a similar rule in January 2001, and this notice responds to public comments already submitted and “explains how the Agency intends to proceed with a final rule.” Under the proposal, the nutrition facts label would contain information about serving size, calorie content, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, fiber, protein, and vitamins. Additional public comments are solicited and must be submitted by February 16, 2010.
Tag Archives meat
A high tax on meat is needed for meat-eaters to consume less, ultimately resulting in multiple benefits to human health, animal welfare and the environment, writes Peter Singer, a Princeton University bioethics professor and author of Animal Liberation and co-author of The Ethics of What We Eat, in an October 25, 2009, guest column in the New York Daily News. He advocates a 50 percent tax on the retail value of meat, but “if it is not enough to bring about the change we need, then, like cigarette taxes, it will need to go higher.” Singer advocates a tax on all meat, fearing “a tax on red meat alone would merely push meat-eaters to chicken.” Americans, Singer writes, have “been ignoring the cow in the room. That’s right, cow. We don’t eat elephants. But the reasons for a tax on beef and other meats are stronger than those for discouraging consumption…
The United States has reportedly blocked Canadian and Mexican efforts to convene a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel that would determine whether the new U.S. country-of-origin (COOL) labeling requirements for meat products are fair. Under WTO procedures, a country can block the creation of a dispute settlement panel once. If, as expected, Canada and Mexico renew their calls for a panel at the WTO dispute settlement body’s November 19, 2009, meeting, the United States will be unable to block it again unless the body consents. U.S. officials reportedly told the WTO, “The U.S. urges Canada and Mexico to reconsider their decisions to request a panel in these disputes, and we are not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at this time.” See Meatingplace.com and Law 360, October 26, 2009.
The U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority has reportedly banned an advertising campaign launched by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), fearing that it would cause some readers to infer that eating meat causes swine flu. The ad stated in bold letters “Meat Kills: Go Vegetarian” and contained repeating background lines of text that said, “E. Coli, Mad Cow, Swine Flu, MRSA.” The “Swine Flu” font was highlighted and made the disease more prominent. The advertising authority apparently determined that the ad was spreading “undue fear and distress” about swine flu. Other PETA ads have also reportedly caused controversy in Great Britain. See MarketingWeek.co.uk, October 14, 2009.
Shortly after Canada filed its challenge to U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements, Mexico apparently followed suit, asking the World Trade Organization (WTO) to establish a panel to undertake a dispute settlement process. Mexico’s agricultural authority reportedly contends that the rules may unfairly discriminate against the country’s meat industry by requiring U.S. meat processors to segregate imported meats. This has allegedly led some U.S. processors to stop buying meat from Mexico or Canada. The panel request is reportedly scheduled to be considered during an October 23, 2009, meeting of WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body. See Product Liability Law 360, October 12, 2009.
Canada’s government has reportedly asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) to establish a dispute settlement panel to hear its claims that U.S. country-of-origin labeling requirements for meat have unfairly reduced demand for Canadian products. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Trade Representative Ron Kirk responded to the request by stating, “We regret that formal consultations have not been successful in resolving Canada’s concerns over country of origin labeling (COOL) required by the 2008 Farm Bill for certain agricultural products. We believe that our implementation of COOL provides information to consumers in a manner consistent with our World Trade Organization commitments.” Apparently, Canada was able to gain some concessions on the matter from the Bush administration, but regulations adopted after President Barack Obama (D) took office did not provide the flexibility Canadian producers were evidently seeking. Canada’s minister of international trade was quoted as saying, “The U.S. COOL requirements are so…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public feedback on the conditions under which the agency should permit “natural” labeling claims for meat and poultry. The current FSIS standard states that minimally processed meat and poultry products can use the “natural” label if the product “does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring ingredients, chemical preservative, or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient.” The agency is now considering whether to define the term “natural” or continue evaluating the claim on a case-by-case basis. It specifically seeks comments on “how best to coordinate FSIS’ regulation of ‘natural’ claims with the Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) voluntary ‘naturally raised’ marketing claim standard.” FSIS will accept comments until November 13, 2009. See FSIS Press Release, September 11, 2009; Federal Register, September 14, 2009.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in a qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuit filed in California by the Humane Society of the United States against two former suppliers to the National School Lunch Program. The suit alleges that Hallmark Meat Packing Co. and Westland Meat Co., Inc. knowingly and falsely represented that cattle at their slaughtering facility were treated humanely and that beef supplied to the schools did not include meat from disabled, non-ambulatory animals. Videotape of employees abusing non-ambulatory animals at the slaughterhouse resulted in the recall of 143 million pounds of beef in February 2008. Under the False Claims Act, private parties, or “relators,” may file claims on behalf of the U.S. government and may recover a portion of any recovery. The government, which will file an amended complaint now that it is a party to the action, is entitled to treble damages and civil penalties of…
The CBC Radio program "Quirks and Quarks" recently featured the efforts of nonprofit research organization New Harvest to engineer meat cultures on a large scale for human consumption. Co-founded by doctoral student Jason Matheny of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, New Harvest harbors “the long-term goal of delivering economically competitive alternatives to conventional meat production” that are “safer, more nutritious, less polluting, and more humane.” CBC host Bob McDonald highlighted the research in his roundup of “Nine-and-Half Technologies That Could Change the World,” which also lauded developments in sustainable agriculture and clean water accessibility. See Cbc.ca, March 28, 2009. Meanwhile, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is currently holding a $1 million contest for the first firm to produce in vitro chicken meat and sell it to the public by June 30, 2012. The winning contestant must submit an entry with “a taste and texture…
A recent National Cancer Institute (NCI) study has concluded that consumption of red and processed meat modestly raises the risk of death from all causes, including heart disease and cancer. Rashmi Sinha, et al., “Meat Intake and Mortality: A Prospective Study of Over Half a Million People,” Archives of Internal Medicine, March 23, 2009. In one of the largest studies of its kind, NCI researchers examined dietary and lifestyle questionnaires submitted by more than 500,000 people ages 50 to 71. During 10 follow-up years in which 47,976 men and 23,276 women died, the group that reported eating the most red meat had the higher risk of death overall, death from heart disease and death from cancer, than the people who ate the least amount of red meat. “Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality,” the study concludes. “In…
