| ||||
|
|
Senate committee reaches tie on implementation date for mandatory COOL
The Senate Appropriations Committee reached a tie vote of 14-14 Sept. 13 on a proposed amendment to move the mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) date to Jan. 1, 2005, instead of Sept. 30, 2006.
COOL legislation was passed in the 2002 farm bill and was supposed to have taken effect Sept. 30, 2004. In January, federal legislators were successful in moving the implementation date to Sept. 30, 2006, except for the portion of the law that affects labeling of fish and seafood products.
"R-CALF USA recognized there was a window of opportunity within the Senate Appropriations process to restore a more reasonable implementation date for COOL, and three weeks ago along with our coalition members began work on both sides of the aisle to find support for this effort," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. "We provided committee members who had previously supported COOL with our recommended language for the amendment and we had received indication of support from both parties. But despite prior assurances, the breakdown on Sept. 14 came straight down party lines."
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND, introduced the language in support of the amendment, but unfortunately, the result was a tie vote, which results in the language not being included in the appropriations process for the 2005 agriculture budget.
Dorgan said U.S. consumers and producers want and deserve COOL. He also indicated that the U.S. Senate should answer to the best interests of the ranchers and consumers in the United States.
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD, also a supporter of the amendment, argued if most of the United States' trading partners utilize COOL, then "Why can't the U.S. do the same?"
Bullard said R-CALF USA has worked aggressively during the past few weeks to move the implementation date forward and will continue to work for implementation before 2006.
Danni Beer, COOL Committee chair for R-CALF USA, wondered why opponents of mandatory COOL continue to use antiquated arguments to misinform U.S. consumers about the benefits of the program and she asserted that Congress and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have a responsibility to follow the intent of the law.
"The law clearly states USDA may use programs such as the National School Lunch Program as models for COOL," Beer said. "In the school lunch program, USDA identifies imported products as such, and then it's automatically understood that meat products with no markings are of U.S. origin. It is a proven model and minimizes costs to ranchers."
Beer explained U.S. export customers are concerned about foreign cattle in the United States, which are not identified.
"Because we are not addressing their concerns by identifying these imports, U.S. cattle producers are losing nearly 12 percent of the value of their finished cattle," she said.
"If mandatory COOL were in place, both imported beef and cattle would have labels, and the U.S. would be sitting in a better position to open our export markets," Beer continued. "Congress and USDA should not limit a business owner's ability to market their cattle and/or beef for a fair value, but that's exactly what's happening today."
Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA president, said the arguments that COOL will be too costly are misleading at best. He referenced the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued in August 2003, which stated the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under the authority of the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, had issued proposed rules that will lower compliance costs and facilitate the implementation of COOL. According to the GAO, the FDA rule will require records of "immediate previous source and the immediate subsequent recipient" on most food products to allow the FDA to have a traceback trail on that information from farm to table, or "point-of-import to table".
"Obviously, if the FDA also is requiring detailed records on food, the process of labeling will only require a transfer of information already kept by food handlers to the food product," he said.
McDonnell also said the GAO report additionally explained that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, under USDA guidance, has failed to enforce the existing labeling requirements of the Tariff Act of 1930 as it pertains to live cattle and beef.
The report states, "As a result, consumers, who already have origin information on imported items, including imported foods, do not routinely have this information on imported meat."
McDonnell said, "The immediate implementation of mandatory COOL is needed so producers can be assured that consumers can begin differentiating the growing volumes of imported beef from our domestic beef."
Date: 9/22/04
Copyright 1995-2008. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com
 
| |||||||||||||||||||||
