Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Can country origin be "control measure" or not?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

vecdika

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 26 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Turkey
    Turkey
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Türkiye

Posted 10 July 2008 - 12:23 PM

Dear Friends,

I want to learn your sense? Thanks

Vecdi Karacaoğlu
www.nevgrup.com.tr


Edited by vecdika, 10 July 2008 - 12:24 PM.


Sirius

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 17 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Australia
    Australia

Posted 10 July 2008 - 10:45 PM

Good topic, vecdika. It's one that has been tossed around in various forums in Australia especially since New Zealand introduced it.

Unfortunately, using country of origin labelling (CoOL) does not guarantee you any type of food safety. Therefore, banning or limiting trade because of country of origin brings a situation where issues of fair trade, cost to consumers and industry and a high prospect that foods made in one country may include ingredients originating in an another.

An example of the last one was when frozen beef patties made in Australia but containing British beef during the whole Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease episode. Legally, the frozen beef patties are a product of Australia and exported as such. However, based on the ingredients, you'd be violating laws about British beef import in countries like Japan.

Also sometimes there are problems with foods and we need to notify the public about these and recall them. We do this by using more accurate information - producer/processor identification, product description and batching. These are already mandatory in the Food Standards Code and in our primary production legislation. Introducing CoOL would cause more problems than it would solve.

And don't think for a moment that any food that is a major food exporter would take part in a scheme that allows non-safety related labelling to add costs to trade for no safety gain. It's the nature of the beast.

Use CoOL as an informational guide for consumers, sure! Great idea with many benefits that come with it. However you should never use it as a control point, government embargos aside.

For some more information regarding Australia's point of view, you can read the CoOL brochure from FSANZ or browse through the many results returned from a basic search at FSANZ.

Edit: Just found this white paper that may help too. It's only four pages long but an interesting read all the same.
Attached File  WP_Ross_COOL_FB_Dec2007.pdf   98.98KB   72 downloads


Edited by Sirius, 10 July 2008 - 11:21 PM.


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,986 posts
  • 5285 thanks
1,256
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 11 July 2008 - 02:22 AM

Dear Sirius,

Very nice links. :clap:

Apart fom the purely operational complexities as noted yr link, the concept of origin control has potentially interesting global consequences with regard to GATT. This organisation is overseeing many, already long implemented / challenged cases being technically argued over (typically applications of the “Precautionary Principle I suppose).
It was illustrated in another thread here that in some locations it is legally acceptable to have both countries on the origin label where “item travelling” was involved. And also none in other cases. Seems that not much harmonisation yet. :smile:

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


vecdika

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 26 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Turkey
    Turkey
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Türkiye

Posted 11 July 2008 - 07:12 PM

Dear Sirius,

Thanks, you like topic,

Your approach using country of origin labelling(COOL) is one form of origin identification towards the consumers to prefer the foods based on their knowledge. I think this is a kind of Control Measure but not efficient to prevent the hazards because it is depend on consumer knowledge based on food safety communication done by Governments. In the wiev of international trade, I agree with you, but food safety issues must be indispensible.

SPS agreement and it’s notifications are the results of risk analysis. Food and Feed safety Alarm Notifications of EU have same purpose which are increasing the country awareness of the consumer. Of course, governments have the biggist responsibility for notify the country and hazards to their own citiziens. SPS Agreement has been implemented by countries very well in the world already now. Yes, you are right that some countries made tricks in the past. These were scandals. But now, can you say that Belgium can presents a dioksin hazard in chicken again? I can’t, because Belgium have big experience and preventive measures.I think that They have safety products in the wiev of dioxins. BSE in Europe is the same.

I mean to prefer the raw material in the light of country origine instead of end products lebeling which inform the country origin.
For example; In the rennet production factory. BSE prions contamination from stomach is the hazard. Is the supplying stomach from New Zealand Control Measures or not? Because new Zealand and your country;Australia is free area of BSE.
Where is the Food Safety? Is it Over or behind the trade?
I agree with you, MR.Sirius, but we must support “the country origin” as a control measures. we will asses and clasify the control mesures using logical approach in the wiev of ISO 22000; requirement 7.4.4.
BEST regards.

Vecdi Karacaoğlu
www.nevgrup.com.tr


Edited by vecdika, 11 July 2008 - 07:22 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users