Farm News, IA
07-20-07
Cattlemen’s Association in favor of COOL law
By Kristin Danley-Greiner, Farm News staff
While many producers and consumers want Country of Origin Labeling (COOL),
some believe that packers, commodity groups and the government are making
too big of a beef about the requirements.
Bruce Berven, executive vice president of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, said
that COOL “addresses a consumer desire for identification of foreign produced
foods. Knowing that U.S. beef is the safest in the world, we can promote that fact
and have identification of U.S. beef in place.Ӕ
“ICA is in favor of COOL and our policy calls for inclusion of all beef products in
the program,”î Berven told Farm News. “ICA feels that too much emphasis is
being placed by USDA on producers having to prove beyond any reasonable
doubt that their cattle are U.S. produced, while the intent of the law is to identify
non-U.S. beef to consumers. More focus should be placed on the identification
and labeling of foreign beef and cattle entering the U.S.Ӕ
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has said that the current
mandatory law slated for implementation next September should be amended to
“work betterî for food producers and consumers.” Specifically, the NCBA believes
that the paperwork and documentation requirements need clarification, because
the current law could allow packers and retailers to “demand impossibly
complicated documentî and that self-certification” will not satisfy the
requirements.î
Roger A. McEowen, Leonard Dolezal Professor in Agricultural Law and
director of the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and
Taxation, co-authored a University of Florida study in 2003 that analyzed the
statutory language and made recommendations to the USDA on how to
implement COOL at the lowest cost possible. McEowen said that livestock
producers aren’t subject to COOL because they don’t produce “covered
commoditiesӔ
“A ‘covered commodity’ is a meat cut, not live cattle or other livestock. Producers
raise livestock, not meat cuts,î” he said.
Also, the NCBA is concerned about producers meeting the law’s requirements for
calves born this year to be marketed next fall when the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) hasn’t written a final rule. If the program becomes mandatory,
producers must have liability protection and those who cannot company or
unsure how to comply would be fined, the NCBA said.
But, the “USDA has no authority under the statute to require the ‘audit trail,’ (i.e.,
verification of source of origin) to govern producers,Ӕ McEowen said.
John Lawrence, agriculture economist at Iowa State and director of the Iowa
Beef Center, said that proponents of COOL believe that there is no requirement
of any producer. Others, including the Food Marketing Institute that represent
retailers and American Meat Institute that represent packers, are encouraging
members to request producers provide a signed affidavit that states that records
to document origin exist and are available for inspection.
“Most all producers have the records as part of their normal business operations
that they would need to support their claim of a country of origin if audited.
However, not everyone wants to share that information, particularly with other
members in the supply chain,î” Lawrence said. “One of the driving forces is to
inform consumers of the country that their food comes from. Not which farm or
region, but what country. The recent concern about food products from China is
an example of why some believe that it is beneficial.î”
The current law also exempts ’’too many products,î the NCBA stated, with nearly
75 percent of meat products going unlabeled, including poultry.
Berven said that COOL applies only to beef marketed at retail supermarkets and
not in the foodservice channels.
’’With 92 percent of consumers in a recent survey requesting and supporting
country-of-origin information, we feel beef should be labeled in restaurants as
well as in supermarkets,î he said. ’’Poultry is exempt. Is that fair? On one hand,
we could complain that poultry would be exempt from the costs and burdens of
labeling. Yet, on the other hand, as consumers are demanding to know where
their food is produced, beef may have an advantage over poultry because of the
additional information we will be providing consumers.î
McEowen clarified why some retailers and restaurants are exempt.
’’Many retailers are exempt, because they don’t purchase enough covered
commodities, and restaurants are exempt. But, the point is that the processor
from whom the food service industry gets the product is the one that is subject to
the label requirement, not the end seller,î he said. ’’The statutory language
clearly imposes a duty on only direct suppliers to retailers rather than on all
upstream suppliers. Chicken is exempt. But, we don’t import chicken. So, what’s
the big deal? It doesn’t need a label.î
The cost of abiding by COOL also could put many small operators out of
business, the NCBA said.
’’COOL should not necessarily be a burden to small producers. The costs per
head should not vary much between large and small producers,î Berven said.
’’As is always the case, producers can and should contact their senators and
congressmen to let their voices and concerns be heard. Working through
associations and forming alliances with others with similar views would be
advantageous.î
McEowen said that even if producers were to be subject to the record-keeping
rules, it wouldn’t require any new records to be maintained beyond what
producers already maintain for tax, animal health, livestock births, animal and
feed purchases, sales and inventory purposes, he said.
’’The record-keeping burden for processors would also be minimal - they already
have the necessary records. And, all importers are already required to maintain
records on the country of origin of imported products under existing regulations
that have been around for decades (cattle is exempt under these rules),î he said.
In essence, McEowen said that ’’consumers want labels.î
’’A June 2007 survey by Consumer Reports showed that 92 percent of
Americans want to know the country of origin that produced the food they are
buying. Consumers cited recent worries about peanut butter and lettuce, among
other things. Seventy-three percent (according to a 2003 survey) would be willing
to pay a price premium to get U.S. meat,î he said.
Mark Salvador with the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) said that individual
producers share mixed emotions about COOL.
’’If the program enhances U.S. meat demand while protecting farmers from
excessive costs, program liabilities and protects the confidentiality of farm
business records, I think farmers could feel good about advocating for COOL,î he
said. ’’Farm Bureau continues to work with the USDA to create a voluntary
country of origin labeling program; one that is both feasible and reasonable for
the livestock industry. It is very important that the program enhances demand for
U.S. meat products without creating significant industry implementation costs. To
date, our three main concerns with the COOL program are cost, confidentiality
and liability. Producers need to a voluntary program that protects vital business
records from those who would harm agriculture and assurance that they will only
be liable for business practices and information management within their
immediate control. Finally, the entire meat industry, from producer, to the packer,
to the retailer, need to all share equally in the cost of the program, not just pass
the cost back to the farmer.î
Salvador said that if COOL were to be implemented according to farm Bureau
policy, ’’the entire livestock, meat processing and food retail industries would
share in the cost of the program.î
’’A successful program would enhance U.S. meat demand and therefore benefit
farmers of all sizes,î he said.