Feedstuffs | June 23, 2003 | Issue 25 | Volume 75
The House agriculture appropriations subcommittee effectively put the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rule for meat on a one-year hold last week, inserting language into the agriculture appropriations bill that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) cannot use fiscal 2004 funding to enforce mandatory COOL for meat products. House Agriculture Committee chair Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) then called for a hearing on the rule for this week. Both the appropriations language and the hearing were major victories for opponents of the rule, including the American Meat Institute (AMI), National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA) and National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), as well as the chicken and turkey industries, which, although not covered by the rule, also are opposed to the mandatory provisions of the origin rule. However, supporters of the rule were infuriated. R-Calf USA said the appropriations language was "railroaded" into the legislation by "the more concentrated segments" of the meat industry, including cattle feeders, packers and trade groups. A COOL provision was written into the 2002 farm law and requires that, effective Oct. 1, 2004, all beef, pork and lamb muscle cuts and ground meat marketed at retail be labeled as to the country, or countries, of origin of the animal, or animals, from which the product was produced (Feedstuffs, April 29, 2002). COOL also covers seafood, fresh fruit and vegetables and peanuts, but it does not cover foodservice or processed meats or poultry. AMS developed a COOL rule for use in the voluntary period between now and Oct. 1 next year (Feedstuffs, Nov. 2, 2002) and is to write a mandatory rule from comments received in response to the voluntary version. Stopping freight train to find 'workable' solution R-Calf, the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) and other producer groups, as well as certain consumer groups, embraced COOL as consumer-right-to-know and food safety issues and, in recent weeks, have pointed to the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in one cow in the Canadian herd as a reason why consumers are entitled to assurances of the origin of their meat. The clashing views have led AMS to host listening posts around the U.S. to hear the views of the different interests, with the final two listening posts this week, one in Minnesota and one in Pennsylvania (Feedstuffs, April 7). The conflict also prompted last week's agriculture committee action. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R., Texas), chair of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee, inserted language in the appropriations bill that none of the funds made available in the bill "shall be used to implement COOL for meat or meat products" for fiscal 2004 (October 2003 through September 2004). The language permits AMS to proceed with implementation of mandatory origin labeling for seafood, fruit and vegetables and peanuts next year. Bonilla noted that he believes it is essential for Congress to "properly evaluate this issue" and COOL's ramifications. He said Congress must not "jump blindly" into mandatory COOL but "must consider all implications and make an educated decision." The language passed on a unanimous voice vote. The appropriations bill now goes to the full House Appropriations Committee, which is scheduled to take it up this week, and must also pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. Goodlatte scheduled the agriculture committee hearing for 9:30 a.m. June 26. AMI spokesperson Janet Riley said the funding language and hearing gives the meat packing association and its members some hope that the mandatory requirement will be repealed. NCBA director of legislative affairs Bryan Dierlam said NCBA, which called for congressional hearings and wants COOL to remain voluntary (Feedstuffs, Feb. 10), agrees with Bonilla and Goodlatte in that it's necessary to "stop the freight train of heated rhetoric and start a realistic debate in front of Congress (on the issue). ... The long-term implications of mandatory labeling are too important to be considered anywhere else." The Texas Cattle Feeders Assn. and Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Assn., in a joint statement, commended Bonilla and Goodlatte "for leadership to address a law that has caused controversy and frustration throughout the beef cattle industry." NPPC president Jon Caspers, a pork producer from Swaledale, Iowa, said the funding moratorium and hearing will provide time "to find a reasonable, workable solution" to mandatory labeling. He said NPPC, which has also called for congressional hearing and is opposed outright to COOL and wants it repealed (Feedstuffs, March 17), has concluded from extensive studies that a mandatory rule will be counter to family-farm hog producers and the entire pork production industry (Feedstuffs, June 2). However, R-Calf Region V director Chuck Kiker, a beef cattle producer from Beaumont, Texas, said he is "gravely disappointed" in Bonilla and Goodlatte's actions, which play into hands trying "to shoot down COOL." He said Bonilla "has sold out cow/calf producers" across the U.S. Consumer Federation of America assistant director Arthur Jaeger said there is no reason that additional time is needed to sort through the COOL debate. "They've had plenty of time," he said in reference to comment on the rule, the listening posts and the fact that the mandatory rule was not to go into place for more than a year. At the same time, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Ohio) said she will argue to restore COOL implementation money in the appropriations committee, and Sen. Tim Johnson (D., S.D.), who co-sponsored the COOL legislation in the farm bill, said origin labels are essential for consumers to know they are not buying meat from animals with diseases in other countries, such as BSE in Canada. He said the agriculture appropriations subcommittee "should think about whether they are representing Canadian ranchers or American consumers." Web site consolidates COOL information pro and con FITC said it opposes mandatory origin labeling but said the site includes information not only about "the enormous and detrimental impact" COOL will have on agriculture and food production and trade but about how producers, packers, processors, retailers and other interests can get into compliance with the rule. The site, www.countryoforigin.org, provides, among other topics, an overview of the rule, cost estimates, penalties for noncompliance, sample labels, audit information, positions of trading partners, media reports and a frequently asked questions section. FITC said the site should be helpful for parties who will need to be in compliance with COOL and for policymakers who "need to understand the widespread impact of the law." FITC members are the American Frozen Foods Institute, AMI, FMI, Grocery Manufacturers of America, National Fisheries Institute, National Meat Assn., NPPC, Produce Marketing Assn. and Snack Food Assn. Copyright Feedstuffs, Miller Publishing Company |