The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada
Safe Quality and Traceability
The producer cannot foot the bill alone. Consumers and Retailers must come on board. Please discuss.
Views: 172
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by littlelamb on
-
You forgot the Processor. They have to play a major part in traceability and food safety.
-
-
Good Morning!
So Sorry! Totally overlooked. Producer is Processor for many foods. Meat on the other hand when dealing with all the many regulations preferr to produce then process elsewhere.
This could be another discussion. I am also adament that food auditting should be about the product, the process, the number of people (because of the checking system) and the facility. Why do we have so many different certification standards? There should be only one but dealing as already mentioned with product, process being used - open, contained, etc. number of people and facility.
National Brands, Wal-Mart etc. demand SQFI an international standard but it too should be broken down as mentioned.
-
-
I don't think the domestic producer should be footing the bill for traceability.
I believe consumers have the noble intent to buy safe nutritious foods for their selves/families but the lowest price appears to overtake good intentions. The origins of foods is inconsequential against the cost in the broader scheme.
Which brings into play the integrity of the foods on store selves.
Health costs are and will continue to be a huge societal issue. Our present system is unsustainable.
It would appear that the integrity of food products are being compromised in a collective effort to ensure corporate profits whether it be in the processing, retail and any part of the chain. The tooth paste scandal, the milk scandal from China, cadmium and lead in toys, beef trimmings injected with ammonia to form hamburger patties, nanotechnology in our food supply, radioactive contamination in mushrooms, contamination of food by packaging materials, etc. The Wall Street Journal reported Chinese farmland near factory smokestacks or mining operations have been contaminated by heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and lead that can cause a “sweeping range of health problems from brain damage to cancer.”
If our consumer wants traceability then they must demand government to show formidable and compelling leadership in food safety. The long term effects on health has yet to be played concerning the accountability of food legitimacy.
If corporations are importing/distributing foods with abstruse content with resulting negative health effects on our population they should be held accountable and contribute to the social health costs.
Complete traceability of foods, and the costs of, should be the responsibility the end distributor. Then it will be up to the consumer to put their money where their mouth is. I somehow doubt people would buy mushrooms if they knew it was radioactive but in the same respect, would choose foods with ensured quality security.
The Chernobyl nuclear accident has left a lasting legacy and who is to say imported foods are completely safe if distributors do not disclose the complete composition and origins of their products?
-
-
Thank you so much for your message!
-
-
Our government is spending large resources to promote healthier food choices to enjoy a healthier lifestyle. Encouraging informed decisions about what goes into peoples' bodies.
Yet our government totally fails in the area of ensuring the foods we import are safe in all regards.
How many times have foreign foods been "dumped" into our country because it has been rejected elsewhere? When a product is "dumped" for unsafe reasons, it creates negative factors for our own producers as the price of related commodities fails.
With improved communications and transportation, the global movement of food is now part of the economic equation of sustainability of every country on this planet. The old rules to trading perishables to not apply in today's economy. Pay attention to the economic summit in Toronto this June. Mr. Harper has some interesting ideas.
Without aggressive monitoring of imported foods the extra financial burden potential placed on domestic producers is totally pointless.
If our government chooses to ignore food hazards originating from other countries, will we resort to the level of some eastern block countries? People making recommendations that all citizens carry items like a keychain radiation detector called "Micro Bomb Detector" (MBD), available for around $100 ... when buying and preparing foods?
The current discussion of quality and traceability of domestic foods is moot if imported foods are not subject to the same scrutiny.
Karen Mahon said:Thank you so much for your message!
-
-
I will thank Joann for her comment but I did not make such a reply to the last shared message only the first one. The second message just appeared on my email and was opened only a moment ago. How are these comments of mine being printed before I print them? That's a little scarry isn't it?
Karen
Joann said:Our government is spending large resources to promote healthier food choices to enjoy a healthier lifestyle. Encouraging informed decisions about what goes into peoples' bodies.
Yet our government totally fails in the area of ensuring the foods we import are safe in all regards.
How many times have foreign foods been "dumped" into our country because it has been rejected elsewhere? When a product is "dumped" for unsafe reasons, it creates negative factors for our own producers as the price of related commodities fails.
With improved communications and transportation, the global movement of food is now part of the economic equation of sustainability of every country on this planet. The old rules to trading perishables to not apply in today's economy. Pay attention to the economic summit in Toronto this June. Mr. Harper has some interesting ideas.
Without aggressive monitoring of imported foods the extra financial burden potential placed on domestic producers is totally pointless.
If our government chooses to ignore food hazards originating from other countries, will we resort to the level of some eastern block countries? People making recommendations that all citizens carry items like a keychain radiation detector called "Micro Bomb Detector" (MBD), available for around $100 ... when buying and preparing foods?
The current discussion of quality and traceability of domestic foods is moot if imported foods are not subject to the same scrutiny.
Karen Mahon said:Thank you so much for your message!
-
-
The whole system is a croc of you know what, meat produced here, the product is inspected by vets before they are slaughted and meat inspectors, that should be good enough, as it is you have to compete with overseas products, with no such regulations. Super market chains, could not give rats, who or where it came from as long as it has been certifide safe for human consuption and cheap, to max profit to the consumer. Its not wine for god sake. Small holders, have enough of their plate without paying for more buarcates, user fees, that use the safety and health risk ploy to raise revenue and force the little guy out. If there is another out break of foot and mouth or made cow, it will not make difference, because the consumer will not eat meat until safe anyway, no matter who's farm it came from.
-
-
Bristow has a good point. What they should do is make any product being imported into Canada abide by the same regulations and safety policys that the Canadian products have to go though to get to the consumer. Then maybe that product coming into Canada wouldn't be so cheap and people would be more inclined to purchase closer to home.
-
-
There have been more problems from imported product than domestic. It may only be a matter of time before the consumer realizes that by buying domestic they are protecting their very life because of the food safety and traceability required for Canadian Food Producers. I do hope that government listens to small producers and assists them in achieving necessary standards so that our food and farms are sustainable. It is time for consumers to pay more for food in North America. I agree that imports should meet our standards but realistically I don't think it will happen. I do fear it will take a huge loss of life due to contaminated imported product before the message to buy Canadian at whatever cost is clear and there are always those that will continue to play Russian Roulette.
-
-
Sometimes things just come across that makes a person shake their head.
If traceability and quality becomes an entrenched model of source food security, there will NO DOUBT be an element of liability. When problems become exposed, such as court settlement cases to address wrongful injury i.e. food related health issues..... everyone up and down the traceability chain gets swept in right to primary production. If farmers feel secure enough to stamp their brand of quality.. the farmer could be held accountable for the brand sooner or later.
It takes years to feel the effects of some products.... smoking is a prime example. there was a time when it was mandatory to smoke at least twice a day. during the plagues in the 17th century, it was believed tobacco gave protection against disease. if students in private schools refused to smoke their daily requirement... they were punished. tobacco and smoking has now changed but it was socially acceptable for centuries. But decades of research now reveals the ill effects and tobacco is being villianized.
Years of research can expose many harmful elements decades after the fact.
Now we are being gently persuaded to buy into a self-imposed self-financing self-auditing protocol system that will leave a paper trail legacy.....so are farmers opening themselves up to future liability claims?
as an example... there was a recent weather report, May 6, by Chief Meteorologist Kevin Lollis of KTVL Channel 10 news, Oregon. Mr. Lollis spent many years in the Marine Corps.
Just over 1 minute into his weather report he makes a stunning statement. He talks about "bands of very distinct cloud cover". He says that military aircraft are "dropping chaff - small bits of aluminum, sometimes its made of plastic or even metalized paper products." He goes on to say the military is "up there practicing" and although they would not confirm that-....."that's what it is". He knows.. he was in the Marine Corps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yl0Dc9EGZE&feature=player_embedded
The area he shows affects some wonderful primary agricultural areas. Major American fruit and vegetable growing area.
So, here we see the government 'practicing' by releasing 'chaff' into the atmosphere and creating a distinct cloud cover.
What else is being released over our heads and onto primary food production? How can a farmer guarantee quality security when items such as aluminum is being sprayed onto his farm? Isn't aluminum linked to Alzheimer?
If a farmer guarantees safe quality today but does not test for many contaminants... is he doing 'due diligence'?
What are the possibilities that a number of years from now we see litigation due to contaminants traced back to farmland unbeknown to the farmer today?
Are programs such as: i.e.OnTrace, opening farmers up to long term legal exposure with a paper trail the farmer himself signed off on.
What exposure and fiduciary interest do NGOs have if there is long term litigation in quality and traceability assurances?
Karen Mahon said:There have been more problems from imported product than domestic. It may only be a matter of time before the consumer realizes that by buying domestic they are protecting their very life because of the food safety and traceability required for Canadian Food Producers. I do hope that government listens to small producers and assists them in achieving necessary standards so that our food and farms are sustainable. It is time for consumers to pay more for food in North America. I agree that imports should meet our standards but realistically I don't think it will happen. I do fear it will take a huge loss of life due to contaminated imported product before the message to buy Canadian at whatever cost is clear and there are always those that will continue to play Russian Roulette.
-
-
Secret agendas, when we look at this subject and many others that are discussed on this sight, you can't help noticing the same patton. The main one is shift of blame and responsibilty. The aim of a government policy or law was at one time, was to benefit the producer to enable him or her a guideline to follow, with minnial cost. And to the consumer by insurance that product, is safe by fines, safety checks and ect. Not create a system where the real agenda is revinue raising, shifting compansion blame back on the producer. Yes, you have to ask the question why do I pay taxes, where it would be cheaper to get a lawyer, sue a producer who has government approved product, after following government law and had his product demeed safe by the government. In the real world I like to see a farmer, recoop his legal costs,from a government if this happens.
-
-
I hear you. There are too many people taking!
Bristow said:Secret agendas, when we look at this subject and many others that are discussed on this sight, you can't help noticing the same patton. The main one is shift of blame and responsibilty. The aim of a government policy or law was at one time, was to benefit the producer to enable him or her a guideline to follow, with minnial cost. And to the consumer by insurance that product, is safe by fines, safety checks and ect. Not create a system where the real agenda is revinue raising, shifting compansion blame back on the producer. Yes, you have to ask the question why do I pay taxes, where it would be cheaper to get a lawyer, sue a producer who has government approved product, after following government law and had his product demeed safe by the government. In the real world I like to see a farmer, recoop his legal costs,from a government if this happens.
© 2025 Created by Darren Marsland.
Powered by
