Ag groups blast plan to make retailers pay for COOL
Leaders say plan is another attempt to derail meat-labeling plan
By Steve Miller, Journal staff Thursday, February 07, 2008
5 comment(s) Normal Size Increase font Size
Ag groups are fuming over the Bush administration's plans to make retailers pay for part of the country-of-origin labeling program approved by Congress.
President Bush's proposed 2009 budget, announced last week, calls for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to collect fees of $259 from each of an estimated 37,000 retailers to pay for compliance reviews for mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat and other food products. USDA's regular budget would pay for other parts of the labeling program.
Apparently, the fee would apply to both the mandatory labeling program approved by Congress in 2002 (but delayed since then) and the revised labeling program approved by both the House and Senate in the yet-to-be-completed 2007 farm bill, according to a staffer for Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.
Retailers are not enthusiastic about paying the fees, but ag groups that have fought for food labeling for years are also opposed.
"It's just USDA's way of trying to kill this thing again," Margaret Nachtigall, executive director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, said. "It's not good news, but it's not surprising," she said.
Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, which represents cattle producers, said COOL compliance reviews should be conducted by the U.S. Agriculture Marketing Service under its existing budget, just as it pays for similar audits of other regulatory programs.
"This provision is long overdue and finally affords consumers with information they want and need about where their food comes from," Bullard said about COOL.
The program would require labels listing the country of origin for a number of food products, including beef, except for meat served in restaurants.
The South Dakota Cattlemen's Association also opposes the user fees, even though it has been lukewarm about mandatory labeling, according to association executive director Jodie Hickman.
She said the user fees would eventually get passed down to cattle producers. "This label, like all other food labels, should have the backing of the federal government, and the federal government should pay for it," Hickman said.
Mike Held, administrative director of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, questioned how USDA would come up with a figure for such a fee and he said it isn't fair to assess the same flat fee of small-town grocery stores as big retailers such as Wal-Mart.
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., also oppose the fees.
"Both chambers of Congress have spoken on Country of Origin Labeling, and the Senate and House, like roughly 91 percent of the American public, support COOL," Johnson said in a news release. "The administration's proposal is just another attempt to stall a common-sense program and object to sound policy for rural communities and consumers across America."
Thune believes the administrative burden and cost of collecting the fees from retailers could slow implementation and probably wouldn't be cost-effective anyway, Thune ag adviser Lynn Tjeerdsma said. "Rather than encumbering the retailers for these costs and adding to the administrative process, Senator Thune favors Congress providing the money to AMS (Agriculture Marketing Service) to cover COOL implementation costs."
Shawn Lyons, executive director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, said he was unaware of the proposal to collect fees for labeling compliance. But, he added, "We would certainly have some concerns about ... a USDA program that's going to be funded on the backs of retailers."
Lyons said the Retailers Association has not taken a position on the labeling law. "Small independent grocers around the state have a good relationship with the ag community," he said. "But they're concerned about how they're going to implement this program."
The 2002 farm bill included mandatory labeling, but the USDA insisted it didn't have the money to implement it, and congressional leaders have delayed putting it into place.
That version of COOL is now supposed to take effect this September, unless the new farm bill is approved and signed by the president.
Herseth Sandlin said the delay in the new farm bill could mean a delay in putting COOL into place because of logistics.
"At the same time, I want to make sure if it is delayed, it's not an unreasonable delay," she said.
Contact Steve Miller at 394-8417 or
[email protected]..