Food Safety Framing Sparks COOL Debate

JON SPRINGER

Recent food safety scares in China and upcoming congressional action on a farm bill are rekindling the fiery debate over country-of-origin labeling, with proponents of the measure — including a consumer group and a Democratic presidential candidate — going on the offensive for its implementation.

Country-of-origin labeling, better known as COOL, became law as part of the 2002 Farm Bill but thus far has been enforced only for fish and shellfish. Congress has twice delayed implementation of the law for beef, pork, lamb, produce and peanuts. It is scheduled to become enforceable for those categories on Sept. 30, 2008.

The USDA last month reopened the public comment period for COOL legislation through Aug. 20. Billy Cox, a spokesman for the USDA, said the public comment period would allow the agency to come to agreement on a single mandatory rule to cover all food categories (seafood is being enforced on an interim basis).

Food retailers and certain meat-industry trade associations have long been opposed to COOL, arguing the measure would be onerous and costly and would serve to restrict trade without addressing food safety. Their lobbying efforts to this point have successfully blocked the law from taking effect.

But a Democratic-leaning Congress and widespread food-safety fears brought on by recent events overseas have begun to swing momentum back to pro-labeling groups. And to the dismay of opponents like Food Marketing Institute, the issue has shifted into a food-safety debate.

“Country-of-origin labeling never was really about food safety,” Tim Hammonds, president and chief executive officer of FM, told SN in a recent interview. “This is an attempt by a small number of producers to throw so many trade barriers in place that they stop imports from other countries.

“But the issues that are playing out in China now certainly don't help us on this,” Hammonds admitted.

Last week, Consumer Reports magazine released results of a telephone poll suggesting that 92% of Americans agree that imported foods should be labeled by their country of origin. Consumers Union, the Yonkers, N.Y.-based publisher of Consumer Reports, has called on Congress to implement COOL legislation immediately.

“We believe that consumers have a right to know where their food is produced,” Dr. Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, told SN last week. “The benefit is information. If there is a food safety scare, and you're looking to avoid certain products, is one reason for it; but on the other side, if they are trying to get authentic Parma ham and want to verify its authenticity, country-of-origin labeling would help them do that. It would allow the consumer to make better decisions for themselves.”

The CU survey did not gauge consumer attitudes about what they might be willing to pay for the additional information, but Rangan said consumers in past surveys have indicated they were willing to pay more for safer food.

“I'm not sure why this seems so complicated for companies,” she added. “They've dealt with more difficult things, including their own inspections. This is minor compared to some of the other kinds of record-keeping they do already.”

The American Meat Institute, Washington, said the poll results underscore existing rules for imported meat and poultry enforced by the Department of Agriculture, but dismissed the more onerous COOL legislation as “protectionist” policy that would increase costs without improving food safety.

“This will increase costs and force companies to alter livestock procurement practices to comply with a very complex and cumbersome law when consumers simply want to know where their food is produced,” J. Patrick Boyle, president of AMI, said in a statement last week. “[It] only benefits protectionist livestock producers who seek to limit competition, disadvantage products from other countries, drive up livestock prices and in turn, drive up the price of meat for consumers.”

The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, which supported the initial legislation as a response to competition from imported beef, last week called for immediate implementation of COOL. The Billings, Mont.-based group represents independent U.S. cattle farmers whose businesses suffered as the result of trade agreements opening borders to imports.

COOL also appeared to gain strength last week as a political issue. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards last week issued a statement in favor of a plan to make COOL mandatory as part of an initiative to improve food safety. Edwards also called for giving greater strength to the FDA and USDA to order product recalls; to strengthen inspections of foreign food; and to require countries that export food to the U.S. to have their safety systems certified by the FDA, a level of protection currently given to meat, poultry and egg products.

“It is time to stop the delays and stop giving in to big agribusiness and food importers,” Edwards said in a statement. “We need to give Americans the information they need to choose the best, and safest, food for their families.”

These events occurred following news in recent weeks of safety issues with seafood, toothpaste and wheat gluten imported from China. Chinese authorities last week announced that they had executed Zheng Xiaoyu, former director of China's food and drug safety agency. Zheng, who resigned more than a year ago, was accused of taking bribes.

Deborah White, vice president and associate general counsel of FM, said the China events illustrate that “the American consumer is losing confidence in the food safety system and the way that it's managed,” but reiterated that COOL was not the solution to that problem.

“Pulling the products from the marketplace was the absolute right thing to do when products are adulterated. But that doesn't mean that all given products from a country are adulterated or problematic,” White said. “Certainly, there have been U.S. products that have been affected with recalls in the past. You wouldn't want to take the position that all U.S. products should be recalled.”

FM earlier this year said its study of COOL programs as they related to seafood revealed that the costs of running a labeling program were 10 times higher than USDA had estimated, while retailers reported no benefits as a result of the labeling. White said FM will continue to offer comments to the USDA while its lobbyists work with Congress looking, if not to repeal COOL, then to repair it.

“Whenever you develop any kind of plan, you have to keep in mind who the audience is and what's going to be the most effective,” she said.