|
|
 
|
Sen. Tim Johnson to USDA - "I expect the program [COOL] to be implemented as signed into law.' (Monday, Feb. 17, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- Sen. Tim Johnson wrote the following letter to the USDA regardings its implementatoin of the Country of Origin Labeling program included in the 2002 farm bill.
January 16, 2002
Country of Origin Labeling Program
Office of Management and Budget
Clearance Officer
RE: Docket Number LS-02-6
Dear Associate Deputy Administrators Sessions and Forman:
This letter is in response to your request for comments on record keeping
requirements and the accuracy of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) cost estimates regarding implementation of retail level
country-of-origin labeling. As the author of the labeling provision enacted
as part of the 2002 farm bill, I feel compelled to address this matter. I
also appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the proposed rule
submitted to the Federal Register by the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS).
Simply put, I am concerned with your proposed rule regarding record keeping
and costs. I will not stand to allow USDA or others to weaken
country-of-origin labeling during this rule making process.
After reviewing AMS estimates pertaining to the cost of implementing a
labeling program, I am disappointed that USDA chose to issue "worst-case
scenario" costs which unnecessarily exaggerate the true costs associated
with this program. The nearly $2 billion estimated total cost for
implementation is outrageous and USDA’s cost analysis is breathtakingly
similar to meatpacking industry estimates of the cost of labeling. While
USDA joined packers to oppose labeling during consideration of the farm
bill, I had hoped once labeling was enacted, USDA leadership would withdraw
their opposition in order to carry out the intent of the law.
There is no evidence that consumers are unwilling to pay modestly more for
meat and other food in return for the ability to choose these items with
confidence and knowledge of their origins. Yet, I am concerned that USDA
chose only to estimate the costs associated with country-of-origin labeling
but not any benefits that may accrue to consumers or others as a result of
the program. I am confident the benefits of labeling will outweigh USDA’s
cost estimate. Even if USDA’s cost estimate is remotely accurate, the
Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), an agricultural think tank of
producers and market experts, has determined that the benefits of labeling
outweigh the costs by approximately thirteen cents per week for consumers.
Based on U.S. population totals, OCM has estimated the total annual cost per
consumer for labeling is $6.91 or 13 cents per week. OCM has also indicated
that USDA could reduce the costs associated with labeling if record keeping
regulations traced only foreign products, while allowing domestic products
to bear a United States label. I believe this idea has merit and warrants
further study by USDA.
With respect to record keeping requirements under voluntary or mandatory
labeling, it was not the intent of Congress to place the total
responsibility of record keeping on the producer of commodities. Yet, USDA
estimates that every one of the 2 million farmers, ranchers, and fishermen
in the U.S. will be forced to implement a record keeping system, which
arbitrarily increases the estimated cost. This assumption is clearly
indefensible because every agricultural producer in the U.S. does not
produce a commodity which will be required to be labeled under the farm bill
provision.
Instead, the law provides the Secretary with the authority to require
verifiable record keeping, as well as a requirement that anyone engaged in
supplying a covered commodity to a retailer must provide information
indicating the origin of the covered commodity. For the retailer to know
the country-of-origin of a covered commodity, and for the Secretary to
enforce this section, all participants and businesses affected by the
provision should cooperate to develop this verifiable record keeping audit
trail.
Concerning meat labeling, it is not necessary to impose a mandatory animal
identification program in order to implement country-of-origin labeling
because proven models already exist within USDA to verify the origin or
birth of animals for various purposes. One such model is the quality grade
certification system that signifies the quality grade of certain meat cuts
(such as USDA 'choice,' 'prime,' or 'select'). USDA stated in a report (The
Benefits/Cost Analysis of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling) released in
2000 that AMS and industry could model this certification program to
implement country-of-origin meat labeling. Also, USDA implements a number
of other programs that require an affidavit to verify origin that does not
put the burden of proof on a producer.
It is my understanding that many livestock auction markets in the U.S. have
requested individuals selling cattle or other ruminants to sign affidavits
verifying that the livestock were not fed mammalian parts, so as to ensure
buyers that the livestock will not contract Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE or mad cow disease). The Secretary is encouraged to determine if this
system of tracking animals for prevention of the spread of BSE may work
similarly for keeping records for country-of-origin.
The labeling program was not passed into law in an effort to reinvent record
keeping. As I have indicated before, there are many existing and verifiable
record keeping models that USDA could employ to successfully implement a
labeling program. I strongly encourage USDA to closely review these models
and return to the American public a defensible and logical reassessment of
potential record keeping burdens and cost estimates.
I have been working on this legislation for the past ten years and will
simply not allow USDA to compromise any part of it during the implementation
period. The language and intent of this program was passed by Congress and
signed into law by President Bush, I expect the program to be implemented as
signed into law.
Thank you for your attention to this most important matter.
Sincerely,
Tim Johnson | |
