House votes to strip COOL for meat
House votes to strip COOL for meat
WASHINGTON The House of Representatives voted June 8 to delay country-of-origin labeling for meat products another year, and now the debate moves to the Senate, which is scheduled to consider the U.S. Department of Agriculture spending bill later this month.
With Congress focused on delaying COOL for meat products, many are asking whether produce can be far behind.
The embattled labeling program is slated to go into effect for meat products and produce next fall, but opponents say it is too costly.
"By passing this delay, Congress now will have time to take action on a meaningful, bipartisan country-of-origin meat-labeling program that makes sense for both pork producers and American consumers," said Don Buhl, president of the National Pork Producers Council. Pork producers remain steadfast [in the belief that] mandatory country-of-origin labeling is all about costs with no benefits.
Offered by Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX), chairman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, the provision bars USDA from spending fiscal year 2006 funds on implementing regulations for country-of-origin labeling. It also directs the department to conduct research into the impact of mandatory country-of-origin labeling on small businesses and other stakeholders.
During the debate, the House rejected a provision by Reps. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) and Darlene Hooley (D-OR) that would have allowed the labeling program to continue. The amendment was defeated 240-187.
With a victory in hand, anti-COOL forces are now planning to convince Congress to add one more commodity to the one-year delay in country-of-origin labeling.
The Food Marketing Institute said that it was important to not only win the vote against the Rehberg/Hooley amendment but to do so by a comfortable margin a move that would demonstrate eroding support for mandatory COOL.
A loss will not only jeopardize our chances of expanding the additional yearlong delay to include produce but will also have negative implications for our efforts to introduce and pass a voluntary COOL program, FMI told its members before the vote.
It seems clear that a growing percentage of Congress recognizes that there are serious problems with the law passed in 2002, said the United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association's Robert Guenther. Despite good intentions, that law would impose huge costs and liability burdens on the industry, which are unnecessary to increase country of origin labeling.
Now all eyes are on the Senate, which has scheduled its first markup of the USDA spending bill for June 21.
With Congress focused on delaying COOL for meat products, many are asking whether produce can be far behind.
The embattled labeling program is slated to go into effect for meat products and produce next fall, but opponents say it is too costly.
"By passing this delay, Congress now will have time to take action on a meaningful, bipartisan country-of-origin meat-labeling program that makes sense for both pork producers and American consumers," said Don Buhl, president of the National Pork Producers Council. Pork producers remain steadfast [in the belief that] mandatory country-of-origin labeling is all about costs with no benefits.
Offered by Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX), chairman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, the provision bars USDA from spending fiscal year 2006 funds on implementing regulations for country-of-origin labeling. It also directs the department to conduct research into the impact of mandatory country-of-origin labeling on small businesses and other stakeholders.
During the debate, the House rejected a provision by Reps. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) and Darlene Hooley (D-OR) that would have allowed the labeling program to continue. The amendment was defeated 240-187.
With a victory in hand, anti-COOL forces are now planning to convince Congress to add one more commodity to the one-year delay in country-of-origin labeling.
The Food Marketing Institute said that it was important to not only win the vote against the Rehberg/Hooley amendment but to do so by a comfortable margin a move that would demonstrate eroding support for mandatory COOL.
A loss will not only jeopardize our chances of expanding the additional yearlong delay to include produce but will also have negative implications for our efforts to introduce and pass a voluntary COOL program, FMI told its members before the vote.
It seems clear that a growing percentage of Congress recognizes that there are serious problems with the law passed in 2002, said the United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association's Robert Guenther. Despite good intentions, that law would impose huge costs and liability burdens on the industry, which are unnecessary to increase country of origin labeling.
Now all eyes are on the Senate, which has scheduled its first markup of the USDA spending bill for June 21.
