Producer groups pledge to kill USDA plan to charge COOL user fees
Producer groups pledge to kill USDA plan to charge COOL user fees
WASHINGTON -- Producers are expressing outrage over a U.S. Department of Agriculture plan to collect $10 million in user fees to help finance enforcement of the new country-of-origin labeling measure. This comes as the produce industry is left guessing what the final COOL program may look like.
"It's shocking that the president would pledge to veto any legislation that increases taxes, yet propose a new tax to implement country-of-origin labeling," National Farmers Union President Tom Buis said in a statement.
"It's one thing for Congress to mandate country-of-origin labeling so consumers can have that information at point of sale, but it would be totally irresponsible to punish the produce industry by making our members pay for a regulatory program that is being imposed upon them," United Fresh Produce Association President Tom Stenzel said in a statement.
"It's clear that USDA is sending a signal to Congress that inspections will cost money -- so be it," Mr. Stenzel added in the statement. "But let's make sure that Congress appropriates whatever it costs to pay for government's role. Industry will already face major new costs and changes in our business systems without USDA piling on. We're going to work to make sure user fees for COOL inspections never take effect."
The Agricultural Marketing Service has $1 million to support rulemaking, compliance and education for a program that covers only fish and shellfish, Bruce Summers, chief of AMS' Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Branch, said at the USDA meeting of the Fruit & Vegetable Industry Advisory Group.
In the fiscal 2009 budget request, AMS is asking Congress to approve a new user fee that would collect $10 million to cover compliance costs for the rest of the commodities, Mr. Summers said at the Feb. 7 meeting.
With the September deadline fast approaching, Mr. Summers said that AMS has yet to make a decision on finalizing its regulations for beef, lamb, pork, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts.
"The 2003 proposed regulations are in a holding pattern right now," he said. In June, AMS re-opened the comment period on the 2003 proposal and received more than 700 comments, he added.
The dilemma is that the 2007 farm bill still pending in Congress contains an industry-supported compromise to change the COOL program. But the compromise, which would reduce penalties on retailers and the labeling burden on produce suppliers, is being held captive by a delayed farm bill. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) told The Wall Street Journal this month that Congress may explore postponing COOL.
Mr. Summers mapped out the agency's options as the farm bill negotiations drag on. AMS could publish the final rule if the farm bill does not pass Congress, he said. If it does pass, AMS could publish a new proposed rule or publish an interim final rule.
One produce industry representative complained that companies are in a bind because of the uncertain timeline, since they must make purchasing decisions on labels for upcoming harvests.
"We are aware of the tight deadline," he said. "We can't change the September 30 deadline."
While providing little guidance, Mr. Summers directed the produce industry to look back at how AMS allowed the seafood industry a phase-in period for implementing the new law. "That's the best insight," he said.
The 2004 interim final rule allowed the seafood industry six months for existing inventories to clear through the channels and gave USDA a year to help the industry comply with the new rule.
"It's shocking that the president would pledge to veto any legislation that increases taxes, yet propose a new tax to implement country-of-origin labeling," National Farmers Union President Tom Buis said in a statement.
"It's one thing for Congress to mandate country-of-origin labeling so consumers can have that information at point of sale, but it would be totally irresponsible to punish the produce industry by making our members pay for a regulatory program that is being imposed upon them," United Fresh Produce Association President Tom Stenzel said in a statement.
"It's clear that USDA is sending a signal to Congress that inspections will cost money -- so be it," Mr. Stenzel added in the statement. "But let's make sure that Congress appropriates whatever it costs to pay for government's role. Industry will already face major new costs and changes in our business systems without USDA piling on. We're going to work to make sure user fees for COOL inspections never take effect."
The Agricultural Marketing Service has $1 million to support rulemaking, compliance and education for a program that covers only fish and shellfish, Bruce Summers, chief of AMS' Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Branch, said at the USDA meeting of the Fruit & Vegetable Industry Advisory Group.
In the fiscal 2009 budget request, AMS is asking Congress to approve a new user fee that would collect $10 million to cover compliance costs for the rest of the commodities, Mr. Summers said at the Feb. 7 meeting.
With the September deadline fast approaching, Mr. Summers said that AMS has yet to make a decision on finalizing its regulations for beef, lamb, pork, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts.
"The 2003 proposed regulations are in a holding pattern right now," he said. In June, AMS re-opened the comment period on the 2003 proposal and received more than 700 comments, he added.
The dilemma is that the 2007 farm bill still pending in Congress contains an industry-supported compromise to change the COOL program. But the compromise, which would reduce penalties on retailers and the labeling burden on produce suppliers, is being held captive by a delayed farm bill. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) told The Wall Street Journal this month that Congress may explore postponing COOL.
Mr. Summers mapped out the agency's options as the farm bill negotiations drag on. AMS could publish the final rule if the farm bill does not pass Congress, he said. If it does pass, AMS could publish a new proposed rule or publish an interim final rule.
One produce industry representative complained that companies are in a bind because of the uncertain timeline, since they must make purchasing decisions on labels for upcoming harvests.
"We are aware of the tight deadline," he said. "We can't change the September 30 deadline."
While providing little guidance, Mr. Summers directed the produce industry to look back at how AMS allowed the seafood industry a phase-in period for implementing the new law. "That's the best insight," he said.
The 2004 interim final rule allowed the seafood industry six months for existing inventories to clear through the channels and gave USDA a year to help the industry comply with the new rule.
