Posted on 12/18/2005 2:27:09 PM PST by jb6
Some lawmakers believe consumers have the right to know they're eating meat produced in America, and are trying to re-instate a law --- included in the 2002 Farm Bill but never implemented --- to do just that. Supporters of country of origin labeling, otherwise known as COOL, say it will boost consumer confidence and fatten the wallets of livestock farmers by creating more demand for U.S. meat.
Opponents believe COOL will cost too much money for little or no benefit. They don't believe most consumers are willing to pay the cost of program, which will be passed on by processors. Opponents think it is too burdensome for packers and farmers. ADVERTISEMENT
HOW TO ADVERTISE » MARKETPLACE » Under COOL, all muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb and pork; ground beef, lamb and pork; farm-raised and wild fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities like fruits and vegetables and peanuts must be labeled at retailers to indicate their country of origin. Food service entities are exempt from the law as well as meat lockers. Only retailers selling more than $230,000 of these items need to comply.
COOL was supposed to be implemented in September 2004, but Congress delayed it twice by not appropriating funds to write the legislation. Its implementation would be funded by the food industry. Currently, COOL is slated to go into effect in 2008.
That's unacceptable to Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, Iowa's U.S. senators. They co-sponsored a bill late last month with 10 other colleagues to enforce the law next year.
"Three years ago we put COOL in the Farm Bill because consumers demanded more information about the foods they eat, and producers wanted to add value by informing consumers of the origin of food products," Harkin said.
"Unfortunately, large food processors have sought to kill COOL from the beginning and the House (of Representatives) and Bush administration are determined to delay it indefinitely," he added. "It is a sad state of affairs that we have to push a measure simply to implement what we already adopted."
President George W. Bush approved the first delay in January 2004 for all products except fish and shellfish. These items have been labeled at retailers since April.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the intent of the law is to provide consumers with additional information; it is not a food safety or animal health measure. Not everyone sees it that way.
Consumer impact
Northeast Iowa consumers surveyed at the Hy-Vee grocery store at Crossroads Center recently offered mixed opinions about COOL.
Some said they would like to know they're buying T-bone steaks and pork chops produced in the United States, and are willing to pay extra for the information. Others said COOL is a good idea and want to support domestic farmers, but aren't willing to pay much for the knowledge. Still others said they trust the nation's meat supply and don't care where it comes from, as long as it's affordable.
Jan Chase of Fairbank had hamburger and pork chops in her shopping cart. She just assumed most of the meat she buys is already produced in the United States.
Chase was surprised to learn more than 4 billion pounds of red meat and poultry was imported into the United States in 2003, according to the USDA. That's a relatively small amount considering nearly 300 million Americans consume, on average, 221 pounds of meat a year. The John Deere worker said she would always choose meat produced by American farmers and would be willing to pay extra for it.
"I would go with the U.S. to promote the country. Since we're outsourcing everything, we should stay in the U.S.," Chase said. "I definitely trust our meat first before other countries."
Apparently she is not alone. Results of a poll conducted last year by the National Farmers Union indicated 82 percent of Americans approve of COOL, and 81 percent were willing to pay a few cents more for food products grown and/or raised in the U.S.
The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service estimates it will cost anywhere from $582 million to $3.9 billion to implement COOL, with processors shouldering most of the bill.
This cost will likely be passed on by processors. Either farmers will be paid less for animals, or retailers will be charged more for product, the AMS said, which will be reflected at meat counters.
AMS cost estimates for COOL range from less than 1 cent per pound to more than 10 cents depending on the type of meat, with beef costing more.
Donna Stevens of Waterloo said her budget just doesn't allow being picky. While she would like to know where her food comes from and she loves the flavor of corn-fed Iowa beef, that is not the driving factor when she buys meat.
"I love to buy American, but if there's a choice between (that) and price ... I'm still looking for price. I have to," Stevens said.
Farmer impact
Harkin spokesman Dave Townsend said red meat produced in the U.S. is the highest quality in the world, and farmers should take advantage of it. Supporters think demand for domestic products will increase with labeling, which will offset the cost of the program and put more money in farmers' pockets.
"That's a powerful marketing tool, to have a label that says 'Made in the USA,'" Townsend said.
However, the AMS and other farm and meat organizations say producers probably won't cash in on a general labeling law. The little money, if any, generated probably wouldn't pay for the program and the extra work involved.
The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation supports a voluntary labeling program but not a mandatory one. Farm Bureau, the largest farm organization in the state, stipulates if there was true value in labeling all meat, packers would be doing it already.
Dave Miller, IFBF director of research and commodity services, said the rule isn't fair since not all red meat sources like poultry are targeted and food service entities are exempt.
While it's proven that labeling certain products will make farmers money like Amana beef or Vidalia onions, Miller contains labeling everything will defeat the purpose of stating a product is unique, thus worth more.
"There's real mixed evidence of the economic value of it. When you label everything, what is the value of the label?" Miller said.
For farmers, COOL would mean keeping a set of records they would give packers at the time of sale documenting the origin of the animals. These include birth and purchase records, and possibly health records.
Local farmers are skeptical about whether COOL will mean more money, but if it keeps customers happy, they'll support it. Most farmers already keep good records and it is a matter of making copies. For farmers who buy feeder cattle or pigs from Canada, it would mean segregating animals.
Hog farmers say that wouldn't be a big problem since they usually move pigs in an all-in, all-out manner. Cattle feedlot operators may have a tougher time. Cattle develop more slowly than pigs and are usually separated by size, not nationality.
"For the cow/calf guy it's pretty easy. For the cattle feeder, that's another story," said Bob Trager a Hampton cow/calf producer and Iowa Cattlemen's Association Board member.
John Vossberg, a feeder-to-finish swine producer near Janesville, said the last thing hog farmers need is more expense. With rising energy costs, he hopes the law, if it takes effect, won't cost him money.
Vossberg intends to sell 11,000 head next year. When feeder pigs are scarce locally, which occasionally occurs, he will purchase 18-day-old pigs from Canada. While he doubts the law will make him money, he'll do what the law requires.
"I keep track of (animal) sources. Within minutes I can tell a packer where they came from," said Vossberg, an Iowa Pork Producers Association Board member.
Processor and retailer impact
Meat packers and food retailers think COOL is unnecessary, will be a "record-keeping nightmare" and eventually increase the cost of food.
Tyson Fresh Meats, which operates one of the largest hog slaughtering plants in the world in Waterloo, said the cost to pork and beef packers alone would be in the billions of dollars.
Expenses include starting and keeping a computerized database for records, figuring out a way to segregate animals at slaughter and possibly building more cooler space for foreign meat.
"We at Tyson Foods believe mandatory country of origin labeling will hurt our livestock suppliers, our retail customers and our company," Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said in a statement to the Courier. "This measure, which we call the law of unintended consequences, should either be repealed or made permanently voluntary."
Officials said it is bound to interrupt the flow of animals to slaughter, at least at the beginning, and cause plants to run more inefficiently if companies decide to slaughter animals from one country at a time. When plants run at less than capacity they don't make as much money, and the cost is passed along to both sides of the food chain.
The American Meat Institute calls COOL a massive unfunded federal mandate masquerading as a consumer education sticker.
"The fact is that it will not only fail to provide useful information to the public about something they really want to know, but will hit hard-working American families in their pocketbooks every time they try to put a meal on the table," said Dave Ray, AMI spokesman.
Harkin believes the USDA, which in his estimation is unfairly siding with packers, is putting out inflated numbers to consumers. He contends it is a manageable law.
"This is a classic example of USDA trying to scare producers," Harkin said in a statement.
Hy-Vee officials said labeling should be voluntary and the company would rely on suppliers for origin information. Extra record keeping and other expenses would be incurred at the retail level.
AMS pegged that cost anywhere from $49,581 to nearly $400,000 per company.
Hy-Vee spokesperson Ruth Comer said customers tend to care more about quality and price than COOL. At the Waterloo Crossroads Hy-Vee, a large sign on the fish counter tells customers that salmon is from Canada, albacore tuna is from the USA and white premium shrimp is from Pakistan.
Gaylen Hutchins, meat department manager at the store, said very few people comment about the where the fish is from and prices don't really fluctuate because of it.
"People want to see lower prices and fresher products. This (COOL) is far down the list," Comer said.
Contact Matthew Wilde at (319) 291-1579 or matt.wilde@wcfcourier.com.
"This (COOL) is far down the list"
I'd much rather know what's in my steak, antibiotics, steroids, etc., than where it came from. People know where cars come from and that doesn't stop them from buying foreign cars.
Most "foreign" cars are built in the USA.
I'd like to know both.
Then again, under COOL I'll be able to find out if a wine is a true Scuppermong or a Califunny fake.
Passed on to the rancher/farmer not the consumer.
Correct, and the rancher/farmer passes it on to the consumer through higher prices.
What kind of steak sauce do you use on your car? Silly comparison. Blackbird.
I do not see what the big deal is, required the importers/sellers of out of country meats to label their meats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.