Kroger must label food with country of origin

This is one way to do it. Go for the jugular at one grocery. They will complain so much that they’re being picked on that they themselves are forced to use their media power to become a larger voice on your side of the argument. One chain at a time.

COOL Update:
Monday, September 17, 2007

"GMA To Unveil Proposal For Greater Federal Food Safety Regulation
The Wall Street Journal this morning reports that the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) plans to propose tomorrow a unique public-private partnership that would “beef up federal oversight of imported food and ingredients” while simultaneously requiring the food industry “to adopt food-safety measures such as product tests and checks on foreign suppliers.”

According to the story, GMA also is “lobbying Congress for more funds for the Food and Drug Administration, and it is working with federal and state officials and other groups toward a model regulation for farms and packing houses around the country.”

These activities are consistent with those being undertaken by other producer, processor and grower groups, which seem to feel that it is time for the federal government to take a larger regulatory role in this area. This is, of course, a shift in attitudes for an industry that traditionally has resisted government regulation. But, as the Journal notes, “Behind the shift is an increasing awareness among industry executives that, with several major food-contamination cases recently shaking consumer confidence and damping sales, their push for greater deregulation is hurting themselves.

“In the vacuum of strong national regulation, states, food processors and retailers are imposing their own rules and requirements to ensure product safety. Complying with the resulting web of rules is proving expensive and difficult for many food makers, however.”

KC’s View: Not having seen the GMA proposal, I’m not sure if this will be in there…but it ought to be: Not only should there be strong federal regulation, but the government ought to do something about the web of regulatory agencies that is charged with keeping track of food safety issues. There ought to be one agency with responsibility for the whole thing. Greater regulation doesn’t have to mean greater complexity. In this case, it should mean precisely the opposite.

(I’m jumping on a bandwagon here. FMI’s Tim Hammonds made this recommendation years ago, but many in the industry scoffed at it. But he may have been proved prescient by events, and if the time isn’t right now, then it’s only because it could be too late.)"

<dl>

compliments of Morning Newsbeat.com

</dl>

Results of proposal:

"Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Consumer Group Criticizes GMA Food Safety Proposal
As reported on MNB on Monday, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) yesterday proposed what it called a unique public-private partnership to beef up federal oversight of food imports while requiring the food industry to adopt additional food safety measures.

However, even as GMA was making its official announcement yesterday, Consumers Union criticized the proposal, saying that GMA did not address what it called “needed key food safety reforms, including Country of Origin labeling and enactment of clear Food and Drug Administration recall authority.”

“If the industry is serious about maintaining consumer confidence in the food supply, they must endorse these measures,” said Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, in a prepared statement.

Consumers Union said that its polls show that 92 percent of Americans favor mandatory Country of Origin labeling, and 97 percent think federal agencies should have the authority to recall tainted meat.

KC’s View: Some sort of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) system has to be created in the US if consumers are to continue to have confidence not just in the food supply, but in government’s and industry’s ability to instantly know where food has come from."

<dl>

Compliments of MorningNewsbeat.com

</dl>

Presenting this arguement/campaign to the USDA would probably be the best approach as they are who regulates such matters. This however would take away from the focus on Kroger as well as take away the chance for them to achieve possitive publicity. This campaign should succeed with kroger and the proceed to the USDA.

it is very hard for a consumer to directly impact the FDA or state dept. Kroger, on the other hand, is very vulnerable, especially as #2 to Walmart. The idea of this campaign is to start the fire at kroger which will spread to the entire industry, like you said in your first comment. also, if kroger concedes then they will de facto become the largest lobbyist for COOL because they will want to level the playing field. This also would mean that the next campaign (say, target dominics for the same thing) will be more successful much faster because there will be this strong precedent, so then jewel, giant, eagle, etc, until we are ready for walmart.