Feedstuffs

Feedstuffs | Oct. 20, 2003 | Issue 43 | Volume 75

FMI survey finds most producers support COOL but want law changed

ROD SMITH, Staff Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Although most producers support the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law, almost two-thirds do not support the current COOL law and want Congress to amend or repeal it before it becomes effective next year, according to a new poll that was commissioned by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and released last week.

FMI said 62% of the livestock, fruit and vegetable producers surveyed want the current law changed or repealed, 53% said they are "not at all confident" or "not very confident" that the law will achieve any increase in sales of their food products, 38% said they believe costs of the law will be passed back on them and 48% said they believe costs will be passed forward to consumers, decreasing competitiveness and demand.

FMI said the survey indicates producers are concerned and uncertain about the impact of the law.

FMI executive vice president Jack Block, in an interview with Feedstuffs at FMI offices here last week, said the results show "a lot of producers" are beginning to realize that mandatory labeling required by the law "is not the best way to go."

Block, a former U.S. agriculture secretary, emphasized that the law is well intentioned but said it is "too complicated" in its demands on producers, processors, retailers and other people "up and down the food chain." He said this is the message that's coming in from more and more farm organizations.

COOL was written into the 2002 farm bill and requires that all beef, pork, lamb, seafood and ground meat marketed at retail be labeled, as of Sept. 30, 2004, as the country, or countries, of origin of the animal, or animals, from which the product was produced (Feedstuffs, April 22 and Dec. 2, 2002). COOL also covers fruit, vegetables and peanuts, but does not cover any of those commodities marketed through foodservice and does not cover poultry.

The law has led to sharp difference of opinion within the food industry, with certain segments for it and certain segments against, the latter including the American Meat Institute, which represents packers, and FMI, which represents supermarkets.

The differences led the U.S. House of Representatives to insert language in the agriculture appropriations bill barring the U.S. Department of Agriculture from using fiscal 2004 funds to develop or implement COOL for beef and pork (Feedstuffs, June 20).

The U.S. Senate has no provisions concerning COOL in its agriculture appropriations bill, which has not yet been passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee, but senators supporting the law have said they will insist the House language be removed when the House and Senate measures are conferenced (Feedstuffs, Sept. 12).

Meanwhile, Feedstuffs learned last week that the Senate appropriations may be included as one title in an omnibus bill that will address several items of unfinished Senate business and that will go directly to a conference committee, bypassing the Senate floor. Sources said such a maneuver would make it difficult to change the House language.

Brands suggest U.S.

Block said FMI will take its survey to members of Congress to make them aware of concerns about the law among their producer constituents. In passing COOL, members of Congress were trying to help those farmer and rancher constituents get higher prices for their animals and food products, he said. "That was good reasoning," but the law needs to be changed to voluntary, rather than mandatory, implementation so that it's less complicated and expensive for producers and others in the food chain.

The survey found producers are aware of the complication and costs that would be involved in the book-keeping and inventorying that would be needed to establish origin, with 48% saying they are familiar with the USDA's cost estimates, and 63% are aware of the potential audits that would be involved, and 58% are aware of the fines that could be handed out for violations.

Block said FMI believes in and would encourage voluntary implementation of a U.S. label but does not think one should be required by "the heavy hand" of government. He said producers are feeling "more and more imposition (from government) every year and see this as another imposition coming down" from Washington.

He said voluntary labeling programs, such as the Nebraska Beef program, have shown that the market responds to opportunities and would already have responded to an opportunity to implement a U.S. label if it were there. However, he said he believes consumers are seeking quality and value and associate that with brands, most of which "suggest U.S. product."

USDA, which issued guidelines for the law last year, is expected to issue its proposed rule for mandatory implementation "very soon," one official told Feedstuffs last week. The rule then will go to public comment upon which USDA will develop and publish the final rule.