WASHINGTON (FNS) -- Two recent country-of-origin labeling amendments to the Senate's proposed 1999 Agriculture Appropriations bill have raised the ire of food-industry groups, while some domestic producers are organizing to lend their support.
At issue are two proposals to require retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling on all beef, lamb and produce under threat of civil penalties. Both amendments will be considered when a conference committee begins negotiating the Agriculture Appropriations bill this month, although the overall bill won't come up for a vote until at least September. Neither side is willing to wait that long, however.
"Country-of-origin labeling is certain to force U.S. trading partners to retaliate," said Timothy M. Hammonds, president and chief executive officer of the Food Marketing Institute, based here, which has already sent out a "call to action" to its members to fight the amendments. "If this requirement passes, it will bring about the single most destructive attack on American agricultural exports imaginable."
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association supports the meat-labeling amendment, however, arguing it would help "differentiate products in the retail meat case." Said NCBA president Clark Willingham, "This bipartisan meat-labeling measure will address a frustration among U.S. producers who question why beef cattle imported into the United States for immediate slaughter are marketed as U.S. beef."
Under one amendment, sponsored by Sen. Timothy Johnson, D-S.D., every individual beef and lamb package would have to bear U.S. or import labels at the point of retail sale. Products that combine sources of beef or lamb would have to be labeled as a "blended product" or would have to declare the percentage of imported and domestic product each contained. Currently, any imported meat that is further processed in the United States is considered a domestic product.
The other amendment, sponsored by Sen. Bob Graham, R-Fla., would require similar country-of-origin labeling -- in the form of a label, stamp, mark, placard or other clear sign -- for produce at retail stores.
The proposal has divided the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Alexandria, Va., a spokesman said, prompting a neutral response from the group. But at the FMI, Hammonds argued that the amendments are "completely unnecessary.
Growers and ranchers can accomplish their goals right now simply by voluntarily labeling their own products as 'Grown in America.' "
Meanwhile, in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, the National Food Processors Association here said the proposed amendments "reflect bad trade policy and do not conform with the spirit and intent of U.S. trade obligations."
The NFPA argued that the amendments will be viewed as non-tariff trade barriers by the World Trade Organization.
At the NCBA, however, Willingham said the amendments will only increase competition among product lines. Said Willingham, "With labeling, consumers will have the ability to make more-informed purchases."
