First adopted on the Senate floor in late 2001, mandatory Country of Origin labeling (COOL) was to be in place on September 30, 2004, but language in the FY2004 consolidated appropriations act (P.L. 108-199) delayed implementation for meats, produce and peanuts, but not seafood, for two years, until September 30, 2006. Debate over COOL carried into the 109th Congress, which (in USDA’s FY2006 appropriation, P.L. 109-97) postponed implementation for an additional two years — until September 30, 2008 (a provision in H.R. 2744). Other measures in the 109th Congress would have made COOL voluntary for meats (including H.R. 2068, S.1300, and S. 1333). Still others (e.g., S. 135, S. 1331) would have expanded COOL requirements and/or accelerated its current implementation date.
The contrasting intents of these bills reflected the continuing divergence of opinion among lawmakers over whether a federally-mandated labeling program is needed. Some contend that mandatory COOL will provide U.S. products with a competitive advantage over foreign products because U.S. consumers, if offered a clear choice, prefer fresh foods of domestic origin, thereby strengthening demand and prices for them. Moreover, proponents argue that U.S. consumers have a right to know the origin of their food, particularly at a time when U.S. food imports are increasing, and whenever particular health and safety problems arise. Supporters of the COOL law argue that it is unfair to exempt meats and produce from the longstanding country labeling already required of almost all other imported consumer products, from automobiles to most other foods. They also note that many foreign countries already impose their own country-of-origin labeling.
Opponents of mandatory COOL counter that studies do not provide evidence that consumers want such labeling. They believe COOL is a thinly disguised trade barrier intended to increase importers’ costs and to foster the unfounded perception that imports may be inherently less safe (or of lower quality) than U.S. products. Food safety problems can as likely originate in domestic supplies as in imports, as evidenced by the more than 30 recalls of U.S. meat and poultry products announced by USDA in 2006 alone, these opponents point out. Opponents argue that all food imports already must meet equivalent U.S. safety standards, which are enforced by U.S. officials at the border and overseas; scientific principles, not geography, must be the arbiter of safety. Industry implementation and record-keeping costs, estimated by USDA to be as high as $3.9 billion in the first year and $458 million per year after that, would far outweigh any economic benefits, critics add. (COOL proponents assert that these cost estimates were grossly exaggerated while some in industry claim they were too low).
In the all becoming too common current food illness crises, one should ask where are these tomatoes coming from? Why does it take so long for the FDA to figure out where they are coming from? Are there funds available? Wouldn't a quicker response to the origin of the crop save lives? Clearly, a label would help this process. In the meantime, farmers with good, clean crops suffer irreparable financial damage. Congress is now on year seven of this debate. I suspect BLT is off the menu at the congressional cafeteria.
