Posted on 11/17/2004 12:37:51 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
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.