Posted on 11/17/2004 12:37:51 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Telling consumers where their meat, fruit and vegetables came from seemed such a good idea to U.S. ranchers and farmers in competition with imports that Congress two years ago ordered the food industry to do it. But meatpackers and food processors fought the law from the start, and newly emboldened Republicans now plan to repeal it before Thanksgiving.
As part of the 2002 farm bill, country-of-origin labeling was supposed to have gone into effect this fall. Congress last year postponed it until 2006. Now, House Republicans are trying to wipe it off the books as part of a spending bill they plan to finish this month.
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he expected the Senate to agree to repealing the measure, whose main champion two years ago was Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
"I can't find any real opposition to doing exactly what we want to do here," Blunt said.
President Bush never supported mandatory labeling. Chances for repealing the law improved when Daschle, still his party's leader in the Senate, was defeating for re-election Nov. 2. Daschle indicated through a spokesman this week that he probably will not fight the repeal.
Those who want the repeal say the labeling system is so expensive that it far outweighs any benefit to consumers. The Agriculture Department has estimated the cost could range from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in the first year alone.
"Everybody realized it was going to cost a lot of money, and ranchers were going to have to bear most of that," said Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., chairman of a Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry subcommittee on the issue.
Food processors and other opponents of mandatory labeling say they are amenable to voluntary labels.
Grocery Manufacturers Association spokeswoman Stephanie Childs cited the government's voluntary standards for labeling organic food and said, "That's the sort of thing we should be looking toward."
Supporters of the labeling requirement says opponents want the repeal so producers will not have to spend money getting ready to follow the law. The House Agriculture Committee approved legislation this year to substitute a voluntary system for the current law.
The issue divides cattlemen and other livestock producers. Many of the bigger livestock and feedlot operations, as well as food processors, do not want mandatory labeling.
There are 4.5 million cattle and 2.9 million hogs in Missouri; Kansas has 6.65 million cattle and about 1.5 million hogs.
Producers in favor of mandatory labels believe consumers will prefer U.S.-grown food over foreign imports. The law requires companies to put country-of-origin labels on meat, vegetables and fruit.
"We really feel that country-of-origin labeling is one of the key things we need to keep ourselves competitive in that market. I understand the trade-offs," said Doran Junek, a rancher in Brewster, Kan. Junek also is executive director of the Kansas Cattlemen's Association, an affiliate of R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America.
Consumer groups say the issue is whether buyers have a right to know where their food came from.
"When nutrition labeling was suggested by advocates 25 years ago, the industry kept saying, `Oh, we can't do that,'" said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy for the Consumer Federation of America. "Look, they've done it. They love it. Consumers use it."
The wrangling does not affect fish because Congress did not include fish last year when it delayed the mandatory labeling. Fresh and frozen fish will be required to carry labels beginning in April.
I believe all of today's witnesses would agree that the label of any product serves producers best when it provides information which encourages consumers to purchase it. This is the intent of all of the country-of-origin labeling proposals—selling more farmers' and ranchers' products. By associating these products with the positive feeling consumers have with their country, State or region, we hope consumers choose on behalf of our constituents.
My colleagues will find at their seat an example of what I am talking about. On April 8, the Texas Department of Agriculture rolled out a campaign to encourage Texans to choose Texas products first. ''Go Texan'' is a campaign which employs a distinctive brand in promoting Texas food, natural fibers, leather, wine, horticulture, and all products grown or produced in my home State. Texas has enlisted actor Tommy Lee Jones and baseball Hall-of-Famer Nolan Ryan as a part of this effort.
I am sure my colleagues have constituents that feel as strongly about their home State's products as Nolan Ryan does about Texas. Everyone has heard of Idaho potatoes, Washington State apples, Vermont maple syrup, and Omaha beef. These products tap into consumers' loyalties in a positive way when they are making their buying decisions. Many of the witnesses today understand this idea because they represent producers that participate in check-off promotional programs based on the commodities themselves.
As Texas and other examples have shown, there is no reason why we can't come up with creative ways to promote products based on their State, region, or country of origin. What I like best about efforts such as these is that they allow producers, processors, and retailers to control the message in a way that targets consumers better than any federally mandated labeling requirement ever could. I am confident that producers will be more prudent about the costs associated in this type of labeling than Government bureaucrats.
As this committee continues to study the notion of country-of-origin labeling, I hope my colleagues will spend some time to consider not just the merits of the idea but the best way to accomplish it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY COMBEST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN LABELING
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Thank you.
If you mean "free market" as in "free trade" the global socialists attending the Uruguay Round negotiations of GATT did not want us to label our country of origin and say it violates "free trade". They want to eliminate it even though 4 out of 5 Americans would like it, and a host of other Ag producers would like to use it as a marketing tool.
***
Such proposals would violate the country's obligations to its trading partners under international agreements, including the Uruguay Round negotiations of GATT and NAFTA. On this point, I want to be very clear. This violation of our country's trade obligations would have serious consequences to U.S. producers.
Steve Anderson, president and chief executive officer of the American Frozen Food Institute
If you go back and read some of the posts, you'll see it is a big deal, that producers and American consumers have asked for COOL for years. See the letter from 2001 signed by many many fresh market producers.
Its only since GATT and the WTO this has become a problem. The global socialists think it will interfere with "free trade" if people know the origins of the goods they are purchasing.
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.