990835 Beef Might Be Labeled by CountryAugust 14, 1999Washington - Shoppers can tell if their shoes or shirts are made in America. They may know soon if their steak is, too, should producers and food retailers settle on a voluntary program for promoting U.S. beef. Cattle producers, who want to curb cattle imports from Canada, have been stymied so far in getting Congress to require beef to be labeled with the country of origin. But now the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Food Marketing Institute, the trade group for the nation's supermarkets, are discussing a system for identifying U.S.-grown beef in stores. “We would be meeting our goal, which is clearly identifying U.S. product in the meat case,” said Dale Moore, legislative director for the cattlemen's group. For the retailers, a voluntary system aimed at promoting U.S. products rather than stigmatizing imports would get around their longstanding objections to being told by the government what to put on food labels, and to identifying foreign products. “If the issue is that we want our consumers to be aware of product that is grown, made, produced in the U.S., then we want to cooperate with our producers to promote those products,” said Karen Brown, senior vice president of the supermarket group. Whether U.S. beef would be labeled as such or simply identified by a sign at the meat case has not been determined. Other issues are unresolved: Should Mexican cattle brought into the United States as calves be considered U.S. or Mexican: What should be the identify of ground beef that often is a mix between U.S. meat and meat imported from Australia or New Zealand. A year ago, the Senate approved legislation that would have required meat to be labeled as imported, domestic or a blend. But meatpackers, who claim that labeling meat could cost the industry $1 billion a year, got the measure killed before it became law. Agriculture Department officials warned at the time that the labeling requirement would cost the government $60 million a year to enforce and could backfire on producers if foreign countries retaliated against U.S. exports. Since then, however, cattle producers worked out a compromise with packers on another thorny issue -- requiring packers to report the prices they pay for livestock. That gives producers hope a deal can be struck on meat labeling as well. Ultimately, the meatpackers would have to go along; otherwise, retailers would have no way of knowing the meat they are selling is American. So far, packers are showing little interest, citing the cost and trouble of identifying where meat originates. “No one has identified any benefits associated with it,” said Jens Knudson, staff economist for the American Meat Institute. But one supermarket chain, Iowa-based Hy-Vee Inc., already has a program for promoting U.S.-grown beef and produce that dramatically has increased sales of both, the company says. Under an agreement with Montfort Inc., one of the nation's biggest packers, Hy-Vee sells a Blue Ribbon line of beef that comes from cattle raised in the upper Midwest, its marketing area. Through similar deals with produce suppliers, Hy-Vee identifies the region of the country where fruits and vegetables are grown. “Let's celebrate the best that American agriculture has to offer, and consumers will surely respond,” Hy-Vee executive Ray Stewart told a congressional committee. “We don't need laws to do this.” The Agriculture Department, asked by Congress to study the impact of a mandatory labeling law, says in a draft report there is no evidence to suggest it would increase producer income. About 10% of the beef that Americans consume is imported. Lawmakers say they will move ahead with plans to encourage retailers and packers to agree on a voluntary system. “I don't know if a voluntary agreement will lead to an end, but I know it won't lead to a strong enough approach if we don't continue to push mandatory legislation,” said Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.
|
