PMA and United Fresh endorse mandatory COOL program in farm bill
PMA and United Fresh endorse mandatory COOL program in farm bill
WASHINGTON -- First, Congress found $1.6 billion for specialty crop programs. Now, the same farm bill negotiators have struck a compromise on mandatory country-of-origin labeling that has earned the endorsement of the Produce Marketing Association and the United Fresh Produce Association.
The House of Representatives Agriculture Committee's version of the 2007 farm bill includes new language that would lift some of the more controversial and costly recordkeeping and liability provisions that have dogged the COOL program. Debate on the bill was expected to begin July 26 on the House floor.
In an e-mail to members, United Fresh President Tom Stenzel and PMA President Bryan Silbermann said that House Agriculture Committee leaders were not interested in delaying the mandatory COOL program past September 2008, and that they urged retailers, consumer groups, and meat and produce suppliers to come up with ways to improve the labeling program.
"It's an improvement as it alleviates the recordkeeping burdens," Bill Greer, spokesperson for the Food Marketing Institute, a vocal critic of mandatory COOL, said in a statement. "We did gain helpful relief on liability. And for produce, it allows producers to use state labels to meet origin requirements." On July 24, PMA and United agreed to endorse mandatory COOL with the new changes, they said.
First, the bill significantly reduces penalties for mistakes in labeling at point of purchase, and includes a "good faith" standard that reduces the liability for retailers unless they are shown to be disregarding or willfully violating the law.
Second, retailers would not be held liable for misinformation provided by suppliers -- a measure that should eliminate the need for retailers to audit suppliers.
Third, the language says that normal business records are sufficient to comply with the law. "This is an important relief from the original law that threatened an extreme cost burden on the total supply chain," the July 25 e- mail said.
Finally, the deal allows the labeling of U.S. state, region or locality to meet the origin rules -- an issue long-fought by the produce industry.
"With these provisions agreed to through tough negotiations with farm and consumer groups under the direct supervision of congressional leaders, our associations will support these changes throughout farm bill consideration," said the two produce groups.
Mr. Greer said that FMI still supports the voluntary approach long advocated by the produce industry, but he acknowledged that the recent food-import problems have "made everyone think again about COOL as a food-safety measure."
While the meat industry has long complained about the cost of tracking meat by origin, produce has a lot more items that need to be segregated and labeled throughout the distribution chain, he said.
In the meantime, it will take time for Congress to pass the 2007 farm bill. FMI plans to push for more reforms in the Senate, but Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the powerful Senate Agriculture Committee, was one of the principal authors of mandatory COOL.
As for the potential cost of the new-and-improved COOL program, Mr. Greer said that this would depend on the final regulations, which would have to be issued by the September 2008 implementation date.
The House of Representatives Agriculture Committee's version of the 2007 farm bill includes new language that would lift some of the more controversial and costly recordkeeping and liability provisions that have dogged the COOL program. Debate on the bill was expected to begin July 26 on the House floor.
In an e-mail to members, United Fresh President Tom Stenzel and PMA President Bryan Silbermann said that House Agriculture Committee leaders were not interested in delaying the mandatory COOL program past September 2008, and that they urged retailers, consumer groups, and meat and produce suppliers to come up with ways to improve the labeling program.
"It's an improvement as it alleviates the recordkeeping burdens," Bill Greer, spokesperson for the Food Marketing Institute, a vocal critic of mandatory COOL, said in a statement. "We did gain helpful relief on liability. And for produce, it allows producers to use state labels to meet origin requirements." On July 24, PMA and United agreed to endorse mandatory COOL with the new changes, they said.
First, the bill significantly reduces penalties for mistakes in labeling at point of purchase, and includes a "good faith" standard that reduces the liability for retailers unless they are shown to be disregarding or willfully violating the law.
Second, retailers would not be held liable for misinformation provided by suppliers -- a measure that should eliminate the need for retailers to audit suppliers.
Third, the language says that normal business records are sufficient to comply with the law. "This is an important relief from the original law that threatened an extreme cost burden on the total supply chain," the July 25 e- mail said.
Finally, the deal allows the labeling of U.S. state, region or locality to meet the origin rules -- an issue long-fought by the produce industry.
"With these provisions agreed to through tough negotiations with farm and consumer groups under the direct supervision of congressional leaders, our associations will support these changes throughout farm bill consideration," said the two produce groups.
Mr. Greer said that FMI still supports the voluntary approach long advocated by the produce industry, but he acknowledged that the recent food-import problems have "made everyone think again about COOL as a food-safety measure."
While the meat industry has long complained about the cost of tracking meat by origin, produce has a lot more items that need to be segregated and labeled throughout the distribution chain, he said.
In the meantime, it will take time for Congress to pass the 2007 farm bill. FMI plans to push for more reforms in the Senate, but Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the powerful Senate Agriculture Committee, was one of the principal authors of mandatory COOL.
As for the potential cost of the new-and-improved COOL program, Mr. Greer said that this would depend on the final regulations, which would have to be issued by the September 2008 implementation date.
