Meat + Poultry - August 2007 - 24

WASHINGTON

COOL impact varies across industry segments
By Bernard Shire
meatpoultry@sosland.com

he unending debate over country
of origin labeling is getting hotter every day. Recent developments involving imported products are
increasing the likelihood the law will
finally go into effect, even if it is later
rather than sooner.
The House of Representatives
passed its version of the Farm Bill in
late July, but action still needs to be
taken by the Senate, which probably
won't happen until next month. President George W. Bush is unhappy about
some things in the bill, but the cattle
industry and the American Meat Institute are pleased with the changes made
to the COOL provisions in the bill.
At the same time, it looks like
only certain types of food products
will be covered by the labeling requirements, while others will escape
COOL entirely.
Is that fair? Probably not. It proves
that legislative and regulatory action
on food safety in the United States often isn't the result of logic, but rather a
product of political action taken against
those with less ability to represent their
interests. For example, when a law was
approved requiring the origins of seafood to appear on labels, there was
little, if any, protest about it.
But no one seems to be addressing
the obvious issue: If Americans want to
know the origin of their food products,
why shouldn't all food products conform to the COOL requirements?
The latest moves by Congress to
fi nally get COOL on the books and
implemented include provisions originally written by the House Agriculture
Committee that would set up three
COOL categories covering a label on
meat from animals born, raised and
slaughtered in the United States; a
label on meat from foreign-born animals raised or slaughtered here, such
as meat from animals born in Canada
or Mexico; and a label for meat from
26

MEAT&POULTRY

August 2007

animals born, raised and slaughtered
anywhere outside the United States.
Ground meat products may carry labels identifying the list of countries
where the meat came from.
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and J. Patrick Boyle, president
and C.E.O. of the American Meat Institute, say the COOL provisions in the
new bill are an improvement over the
original law. Congress requires county
of origin labels on meat products by
September 2008, fi nally implementing a requirement that dates back to
the previous Farm Bill passed in 2002.
Depending on when and if this Farm
Bill is finally passed and approved by
President Bush, COOL could go into
effect a year ahead of schedule.
The Congressional action comes on
the heels of a decision by the White
House to establish a cabinet-level
working group that will make recommendations on how to guarantee the
safety of imported food brought into
the country, and how to better police
what comes into the United States.
The panel also will examine how federal, state and local food safety agencies enhance the safety of imported
foods and try to improve cooperation
and coordination among government
agencies, something that's been a
near-impossible task in the past.
Up until a few months ago, the
COOL law seemed to be languishing, but with tainted imported food
coming into this country and the furor over pet foods contaminated with
melamine that killed dogs and cats
here a few months ago, consumer
groups began turning the screws on
Congress. In fact, the U.S.D.A.'s Agricultural Marketing Service asked for
comments on the mandatory COOL
rule that would apply to beef, lamb,
pork, perishable commodities and
peanuts, once it actually goes into
effect. The AMS also is asking meat

www.MEATPOULTRY.com

and produce groups to evaluate the
COOL regulation that has been in effect for fi sh and shellfi sh for several
years, and consider whether its provisions could work for them.
But while various food trade organizations argued over whether their
members should be covered by the
law - in particular, the Food Marketing Institute, which represents supermarket chains that are fighting to push
COOL's extensive paperwork requirements away from its members and
back to suppliers - one large group
of food producers have escaped the
law's requirements. Poultry slaughterers and processors are unscathed
when it comes to the COOL law, quite
simply because poultry isn't included in it. How did they avoid it? Very
simple: When legislation was being
debated, lobbyists at the National
Chicken Council and the National
Turkey Federation marched up Capitol Hill, lobbied against it, and got
their members exempted.
Many in the red meat processing
industry wonder why poultry processors and producers do not have to
inform the public about the sources
of their products. Or whether they
were foreign-born and processed?
What about all other food products? Are they local or foreign? Why
wasn't there a lengthier discussion
about disclosing the origin of seafood products?
If Congress is serious and really
wants to protect the i nterests of the
American people when it comes to the
country of origin of food, it needs to
answer these questions.
Bernard Shire is M&P's Washington correspondent
and a food safety consultant and writer for Shire &
Associates in Lancaster, Pa. He has also worked as
an editor and reporter for several daily newspapers.
We would like to hear from you - to comment on
this story or to request reprints, contact us by
e-mail at: meatpoultry@sosland.com.

http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - August 2007

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - August 2007