Feedstuffs | July 26, 2004 | Issue 30 | Volume 76

Voluntary COOL gets House support
Sally Schuff, Feedstuffs Washington Editor
 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The House Agriculture Committee gave overwhelming support to a bill that would substitute voluntary country-of-origin labeling (COOL) programs for the mandatory provisions passed as part of the 2002 farm bill.

The committee's vote last Thursday signaled that mandatory COOL is in serious trouble. Two amendments that would have preserved some mandatory provisions were soundly defeated during the committee's "mark-up" of the bill.

With mandatory COOL already delayed until September 2006 (for everything except fish and seafood), the House -- at the urging of powerful livestock and food industry organizations -- conceivably could push for additional delays in implementing the mandatory program -- delays that could run into the debate on the next farm bill.

(The current six-year farm bill, enacted in 2002, expires in 2008. The scheduled start-up of mandatory COOL this Sept. 30 was delayed for two years as the result of an amendment to last year's spending bill.)

Senate minority leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) hastily issued a sharp critique of last week's House Agriculture Committee action. He said such a voluntary COOL bill would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. Daschle has a bill in the Senate to implement mandatory COOL under the timetable and provisions of the 2002 farm bill.

"The House Agriculture Committee has set a dangerous precedent by reopening the farm bill and jeopardizing other farm bill provisions," he said in his statement. "The House effort is really focused on killing mandatory COOL."

However, leading livestock and food industry organizations that oppose mandatory COOL were quick to praise the committee.

Tim Hammonds, president of the Food Marketing Institute, said in a statement, "This vote advances a voluntary labeling solution to one of the costliest and most convoluted labeling laws ever enacted."

House Agriculture Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) said in his opening remarks that while proponents of the mandatory program claim it would benefit producers, "no one has made a clear case to me that mandatory COOL does anything to help producers. ?... ?In fact, the evidence consistently indicates that the costs far outweigh the benefits. Many producers tell me that a mandatory program hurts them by creating another layer of regulatory and business costs."

It was the latest -- perhaps one of the most telling -- chapters in the prolonged COOL controversy. The committee's strong stance on the issue was a major victory for the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA), the National Pork Producers Council and the American Meat Institute, who have led the opposition to mandatory COOL.

They are now joined by more than 350 livestock organizations, trade associations, food companies and grocery chains, who jointly appealed to the committee to support H.R. 4576, the Food Promotion Act of 2004, which spelled out the voluntary program. They said it would "provide useful information to consumers without unduly burdening the entire food industry. It puts the labeling responsibility in the hands of the marketers and the decision-making in the hands of consumers."

Goodlatte said H.R. 4576 would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture "to establish a voluntary program that will allow producers to work with processors and retailers to provide labeling information in the marketplace." Essentially, the bill would allow a voluntary COOL label as part of an effort to brand value-added products.

"The legislation provides for enforcement authorities and penalties for noncompliance so that those who choose to participate will have their investment protected," Goodlatte explained.

The voluntary nature of the bill survived a lengthy debate on substitute language proposed by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R., Mont.).

The Rehberg amendment would have created a mandatory program that included a provision allowing producers to "self-certify" the country of origin of products they sold. Required third-party verification would have been prohibited under Rehberg's proposal, and maximum penalties would have been $100 a day not to exceed $5,000.

In a public letter, NCBA told the committee, "NCBA considers a 'no' vote on the Rehberg amendment a key vote. Should the Rehberg amendment pass, ?... ?we expect the bill will be pulled and the Rehberg amendment will have no chance of becoming law."

The self-certification provision in the Rehberg amendment was modeled after the federal law that allows producers to self-certify that they have not fed animals proteins prohibited in ruminant feeds. R-CALF USA, which has been the chief backer of mandatory COOL along with the National Farmers Union, has long supported self-certification of mandatory COOL.

Rehberg's proposal would have allowed USDA to use such things as producers' records of imports, tax records, feed bills, brand records and so forth to verify the self-certification -- an issue that was particularly troublesome to NCBA, which seeks confidentiality of producer records.

Another amendment by Rep. Tom Osborne (R., Neb.), whose district includes much of the Nebraska Sandhills ranching area, attempted to establish a mandatory program for beef while keeping the voluntary provisions in H.R. 4576 for lambs, hogs, fruits, vegetables, fish, seafood and other covered products.

"As I talk to producers, there is very little support for a mandatory program from pork producers and producers of fruits and vegetables," he said, "but there is a substantial split in the cattle industry.

"Where you live and what kind of an operation you have have a lot to do with where your stand on COOL," he continued. "In my part of the country, there are a large number of cow-calf people who believe strongly in COOL. It is to give those people voice that I am offering this amendment."

Osborne also noted that 13 of the 28 major U.S. trading partners have similar COOL requirements. "If it is unworkable, undoable, how in the world have they been able to do it?" he asked.

"The assumption of my producers is that people will pay more for a product that is born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S., and they deserve to see if it works," Osborne said.

"We passed the farm bill, and we have done everything we can to strip out this part (mandatory COOL) -- the part that many groups said was the main reason they supported the farm bill," Osborne said. "It's a bait and switch."

Osborne's amendment failed 30-12 on a recorded vote.

With the defeat of the two major amendments, the House Agriculture Committee reported the bill to the floor for further action on a voice vote.

H.R. 4576 is on the internet at thomas.loc.gov and www.agriculture.house.gov.