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.
Without indicating whether I am for or against this repeal, let me just say that everyone saying it doesn't cost much to put a "Made in America" label on everything sounds very ignorant.
What the heck does it matter what the freaking label says if it isn't regulated in any way. That's where the cost comes in, not in the orange sticker...come on folks...think for a minute...anybody can SAY their product is made in America so that Americans can buy it, but unless they have someone on the docks making sure the stuff from Spain says "Made in Spain" then the stickers don't mean crap. Well actually, they DO mean crap...
One concern about food is the ever ongoing pressure by ewackos to provide animals with the necessary rights which would prevent slaughter. How would this legislation hurt their efforts?
Oh.......I never thought of it that way. I was just thinking about where it was MADE, not where the ingredients came from.
Now that I can understand; thanks for taking the time to 'splain it to me!
I think the law is just for fruit,vegetables,and meat.
I'll be damned if I'll eat a piece of raw vegetable or fruit if I don't know where it comes from,and as far as meat goes----I think of Mad-Cow. I want to know where the stuff comes from.
And the foreign producers do not play fair either. They sometimes change the names of their products to fool consumers. A case in point is where Vietnamese catfish farmers labeled the products as "Cajun Delight" and "Delta Fresh" in order to fool American consumers.
If it's just for fruits, vegetables, and meats, then I don't have a problem with it, but those who oppose it, according to the article are "meatpackers and food processors fought the law from the start". While meatpackers might still be hurt by a "meat, vegetable, and fruit" law, most food processors would not. So the reason they oppose it is probably because it requires listing country of origin of fruits, vegetables, and meats in processed food.
A horrible, horrible price burden.
(P.S. if you don't eat cow brain, the chances of getting mad cow is really, really slight.)
I'm completely against. I want to know where the food or any other items I buy come from. Imagine bying beef from England!. Plus, I want to be able to decide whether I buy a French product.
I hope though that the health standards for foreign food has to meet the same than domestic.
Simply state on the label that some ingredients are made in foreign countries without going through a grocery list of nations.
Also, China has a history of trying to cheat on our sanitation laws,for example shipping contaminated honey to the US, by routing foods through countries like Viet Nam and Thailand.
Knowing that they do this, and having the country of origin labeling allows you to decide if you want to risk purchasing foods from either of those countries. In any case, the labeling gives you freedom of choice! This is a very important concept for free people to understand.
That would make sense, but... this is government regulation we are talking about.
I've seen small tags applied to apples in Chile as they came through the parafin machine (for shine) in that country. This was done by the use of hanging machine "fingers" that swiped each apple as it came along the conveyor. These apples were identified by their tags as being produced in Chile but many times the tags were removed in the American market so that consumers never saw them.
Muleteam1
LOL I understand your point.
Same here!
About the only type of beef that is imported is cooked and/or canned, e.g., corned beef, etc. The U.S. is about the only country in the world who still can produce grain-fed beef at a low cost. I don't know of any country that exports grain-fed beef into the U.S. but if so, it would be very identifiable because of its high cost, i.e., Kobe beef.
Muleteam1
I avoid produce from Mexico. More and more produce departments say what the country of origin in. I like to know if it's local or from another state.
So much for Freepers wanting less government control over the market.....
So Daschle wasn't a globalist? Well then why did we vote him out?
Ah, but forcing people to have something on their label, in order to be legal for sale, is...somehow disquieting, isn't it?
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.