USDA reopens the comment period for COOL
USDA reopens the comment period for COOL
WASHINGTON -- Produce companies have 60 days to comment on changes the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering for the country-of-origin labeling program that goes into effect for perishables in September 2008.
USDA changed key definitions for COOL when it issued a final rule for fish and shellfish, so the agency is weighing whether to extend the changes to the other commodities.
Specifically, USDA is seeking comment on the new definition of processed food products, and changes to labeling, marking and recordkeeping requirements for the final rule. For example, for seafood, USDA reduced the time retailers and suppliers had to maintain certain records from two years to one year.
USDA also allowed seafood companies to start the program on a specific date for caught or harvested fish so products without source verification information could clear the channels of commerce and suppliers would have more time to put COOL systems in place. USDA is requesting whether the final rule should set similar timeframes for each commodity. Comments are due Aug. 20.
In other news, the House of Representative's Agriculture subcommittee on June 19 marked up the commodity portion of the farm bill, deciding to stick closely to the 2002 version of the bill.
"The proposals approved today by the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities & Risk Management reflect the message we heard loud and clear from farmers and ranchers nationwide: The structure of the 2002 farm bill works for them," House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) said in a statement.
But Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns said that he was disappointed with the direction the House Agriculture Committee was taking on the bill. "Fruit and vegetable growers in California, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere make a compelling case that they deserve to be supported," he said.
"The House draft offers no overall funding increase for conservation, while the administration put forth a proposal to increase funding by $7.8 billion," Mr. Johanns said. "The House draft offers no mandatory funding for specialty crop research, while the administration proposes $1 billion in mandatory funds. The House draft offers no mandatory funding to expand eligibility for the Food Stamp Program, while the administration proposes four areas of expansion. The list goes on, and in each instance the House draft either fails to identify these priorities or fails to fund them with mandatory dollars.
"Our farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders deserve to be presented with a vision for the future instead of reliance on policies of the past," Mr. Johanns concluded.
USDA changed key definitions for COOL when it issued a final rule for fish and shellfish, so the agency is weighing whether to extend the changes to the other commodities.
Specifically, USDA is seeking comment on the new definition of processed food products, and changes to labeling, marking and recordkeeping requirements for the final rule. For example, for seafood, USDA reduced the time retailers and suppliers had to maintain certain records from two years to one year.
USDA also allowed seafood companies to start the program on a specific date for caught or harvested fish so products without source verification information could clear the channels of commerce and suppliers would have more time to put COOL systems in place. USDA is requesting whether the final rule should set similar timeframes for each commodity. Comments are due Aug. 20.
In other news, the House of Representative's Agriculture subcommittee on June 19 marked up the commodity portion of the farm bill, deciding to stick closely to the 2002 version of the bill.
"The proposals approved today by the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities & Risk Management reflect the message we heard loud and clear from farmers and ranchers nationwide: The structure of the 2002 farm bill works for them," House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) said in a statement.
But Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns said that he was disappointed with the direction the House Agriculture Committee was taking on the bill. "Fruit and vegetable growers in California, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and elsewhere make a compelling case that they deserve to be supported," he said.
"The House draft offers no overall funding increase for conservation, while the administration put forth a proposal to increase funding by $7.8 billion," Mr. Johanns said. "The House draft offers no mandatory funding for specialty crop research, while the administration proposes $1 billion in mandatory funds. The House draft offers no mandatory funding to expand eligibility for the Food Stamp Program, while the administration proposes four areas of expansion. The list goes on, and in each instance the House draft either fails to identify these priorities or fails to fund them with mandatory dollars.
"Our farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders deserve to be presented with a vision for the future instead of reliance on policies of the past," Mr. Johanns concluded.
