021227 Food Labeling to Bolster Security of Food Supply

Orlando, FL - Government cost estimates about new origin labeling practices for produce, meats and fish are grossly inflated, lack factual support and ignore the benefits to our nation's food security and heightened response to outbreaks of food-borne illness, says the Americans for Country of Origin Labeling (ACOL), a national alliance of agricultural and consumer organizations. The report, issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, makes sweeping, unfounded assumptions regarding the number of participants and the costs associated with simple record keeping and inventory procedures. Further, the USDA study fails to account for food origin labeling already required in several states, and accounting and inventory practices already conducted by the food industry, many of which are mandated by USDA itself.

"In crafting this report, USDA ignored record keeping that producers, food handlers and retailers already practice to comply with government rules," said Ray Gilmer, director of public affairs at the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association. "We've long advocated a simple, common sense approach to ensuring consumers have this information, using existing systems whenever possible. USDA's assumptions in this report don't match the reality of what is already practiced in the industry."

For example, USDA's report assumes that produce shippers and retailers would expend considerable time and resources to create and maintain a record keeping system. But, USDA rules, under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), already require sales records be kept for two years. Typical shipping and purchasing records contain information that would satisfy the USDA's guidelines for record keeping under the origin labeling guidelines. If not, that information could simply be added to existing forms.

Florida's existing labeling law, which served as a template for the 2002 federal labeling provisions, costs 1 to 2 man-hours a week per store to implement, according to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The Florida labeling, in place for more than 20 years, allows consumers to make more informed choices about the foods they buy, and benefits retailers by enhancing customer satisfaction.

"Country of origin labeling for meat and/or produce is currently required by Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho," said Fred Stokes, president of the Organization for Competitive Markets. "The marginal cost of compliance with a federal rule over and above state laws is certainly minimal."

The USDA estimate differs considerably from conclusions of both the General Accounting Office (GAO) and another USDA agency, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). GAO, in a 2000 report, concluded country of origin labeling for beef and lamb would increase costs for both industry and government but that "the magnitude of these costs is uncertain." Likewise, in another 2000 report, FSIS, while acknowledging there may be additional costs for country of origin labeling of beef and lamb, said those costs "may not exceed what is now being spent on federal inspection."

"USDA inspectors are already present in our nation's meat plants, and all imported meat must already carry country of origin labels at the packing level," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, a cattle producer association. "Beef plants segregate carcasses according to grade, and that labeling is retained at retail. How much more could it cost to pass along the origin information with the grade label?"

Whatever the true costs, the USDA report does not account for the dramatically improved response to food-borne illnesses and food security threats afforded by country of origin labeling. National origin labeling of foods, already required by most major U.S. trading partners, provides critical information to consumers who are concerned about production practices, sanitation and wholesomeness.

"When the government recently banned cantaloupes from Mexico, consumers, who read about such actions in the news, did not know whether the cantaloupes in their store were safe to eat," said Luis Rodriguez of Florida Farmers, Inc. "This marketplace confusion results in lost sales for retailers, and a resulting loss for producers. A simple labeling standard could save the industry millions of dollars in such cases."

Starting September 2004, the labeling provisions passed by Congress in the 2002 farm bill would require produce, peanuts, meats and fish to be labeled in stores, indicating country of origin. Surveys show consumers overwhelmingly support country of origin labeling, and that many are unaware that imported food is sold in their supermarkets.

"Consumers have overwhelmingly supported country of origin labeling in studies over the years," said Art Jaeger, associate director of the Consumer Federation of America. "Unfortunately, the USDA's inflated cost assumptions have sparked a misinformation campaign by large supermarket chains and corporate food processors, which seek to overturn the will of consumers, producers and Congress."

"The report exaggerates the costs of implementing this program, while totally ignoring the benefits to American consumers, farmers and ranchers," said National Farmers Union President Dave Frederickson. "By implementing this program in a bureaucratic-laden manner and overestimating the cost, the administration could derail one of the most beneficial programs contained in the new farm bill."

RETURN TO HOME PAGE

E-mail: sflanagan@sprintmail.com