Food Channels: In the News

Vilsack calls for stricter food labels

The labeling requirements, which would apply to fresh meats and some perishable fruits and vegetables, long have been debated in Congress and were enacted as part of a wide-ranging farm bill last year. While the meat industry and retailers responsible for the labels have protested the changes — saying they are burdensome and could lead to higher prices — consumer groups and northern states ranchers who compete with the Canadian beef industry favor them.

Barry’s analysis:

I don’t think that this will necessarily lead to higher prices. I have been thinking nerdly thoughts about transparency in the food channel, as I mentioned in yesterday’s post about my impressions of the World Ag Expo in Tulare last week.

After the jump, read the predicted results of increased transparency.

Increased transparency can lead to:

  1. better quality of food, better decisions made end-to-end from food producers to people who eat the food,
  2. better public health,
  3. amazing opportunities for innovation new companies and new ways of doing business for existing businesses
  4. increased education and wages among the farm workers doing the “down and dirty” work of producing foods.

Other than short term capital that might be at risk for some of  the existing food channel, what is not to like about steps in these directions?

As always, comments welcome pro or con.

Posted in Choose Porterville, Food Channel Development, Food Economics and tagged , , , .