UNITED STATES-COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING PUT ON BACK BURNER.
No Longer Plans To Enforce Country Labeling Rule On April 1
The U.S. Department of Agriculture this week stated it has dropped April 1 as the date on which new country-of-origin-labeling for food requirements will be enforced, and that the enforcement date will now depend on a review by the Obama administration. The announcement came after Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack removed funding for the enforcement of COOL last month.
April 1 had been mentioned by Bush administration officials, but was not enshrined in the mandatory COOL final rule published Jan. 15. The rule will not be enforced until the Obama administration completes its review of the rule, a USDA spokesman said. But it is still possible that the review could be completed by April, and the rule enforced on April 1.
Former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer had indicated USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) would begin to enforce the COOL requirements in the 2008 farm bill after April 1. Until enforcement begins, AMS will continue its current process of "informed compliance," in which it educates industry about the requirements but does not issue fines for violations.
The final rule, published on Jan. 15 and set to take effect March 16 unless Vilsack delays it, states "AMS will continue this period of informed compliance for this regulation through March 2009," but does not say whether enforcement will begin on April 1 or later.
"I wouldn’t have any confidence in any dates or numbers that were put out in the last administration," the USDA spokesman said. He said the date of enforcement is "under review" following a Jan. 20 memorandum from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel instructing agency heads to review certain pending rules issued by the Bush administration but not in effect yet.
As one of his first moves in office, Vilsack withdrew the $3.2 million that the Bush administration had dedicated to COOL enforcement, so the money could be restored to state agriculture departments to fund block grants for fruits and vegetables. He announced the step in a Jan. 26 news conference, calling the specialty crop program "very important and popular." He did not elaborate on how USDA will enforce COOL.
Sources said AMS is likely unable to fund enforcement activities without cutting funding from elsewhere in USDA’s budget or seeking additional appropriations from Congress. An AMS spokesman declined to say whether the agency could stretch its budget to fund enforcement, only saying that the agency still awaits instructions from Vilsack on the timing and funding of enforcement activities.
Several public- and private-sector sources said USDA will likely approach Congress to seek appropriations for enforcement, adding that House Appropriations agriculture subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) is an adamant supporter of COOL.
Such funding would most likely not be available for months after April 1, as it would become available in fiscal year 2009 appropriations that Congress intends to take up after the stimulus bill is passed, they said.
A meat industry source welcomed the possibility that USDA will not enforce COOL on April 1, noting that packing plants are still working to bring their operations into compliance.
A Senate aide signaled that a delay in enforcement could be acceptable to the Senate Agriculture Committee. "Enforcement of the final rule is important, but it is even more critical that the final rule be done right which may require more time by the Department to do this," the aide said, but declined to elaborate. "The final rule is an improvement over past rulemaking, but clarifications to the rule would improve it."
Aside from the enforcement date, USDA has yet to announce whether the March 16 implementation date of the final rule still stands. Vilsack has not yet signaled whether he intends to delay the March 16 implementation date of the final rule. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) on Jan. 28 suggested proceeding with the implementation of the final rule on March 16 and reviewing the rule after six months. Peterson made these points to reporters after the organizational meeting of the House Agriculture Committee, they said.
House aides emphasized Peterson has not sent a letter to Vilsack urging him to proceed with the rule or conduct a six-month review. They said they were unaware whether he had communicated with Vilsack since Jan. 20.
Public- and private-sector sources this week said Vilsack has not signaled whether he is warm to Peterson’s suggestion. He said "there’s been no final decision made about COOL," in the Jan. 26 news conference and that remains the latest information from Vilsack, they said.
Vilsack emphasized that he strongly supports COOL, and in particular said he believes the rule should inform consumers’ decisions, allows producers to "differentiate their products," and provide "clear and consistent guidance" to industries charged with fulfilling the COOL labeling mandate. He said USDA will carefully review and analyze the regulation, as well as the comments that were received from the public.
But some groups seek changes to the final rule promptly. These groups point out that President Barack Obama, while a Democratic senator from Illinois, on Sept. 25 signed a letter on COOL asking the Bush administration to provide guidance that would prevent large meat packers from labeling most U.S. meat with multiple possible countries of origin.
These groups hope this means that Vilsack may be willing to accept changes to the Bush administration’s final rule sought by the National Farmers Union.
Seven senators led by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) on Feb. 3 wrote Vilsack pressing for such changes, although they did not mention a timeline by which they want the changes to be made to the rule. They complained that the final rule allows meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. to be labeled with multiple countries if the meat is processed on the same day as foreign-born animals, as well as on U.S. ground meat if the plant processed some imported meat within the past 60 days.
The senators pointed out that the farm bill called for neither of these provisions, and urged Vilsack to "close these loopholes." Also on the letter were Sens. Russell Feingold (D-WI), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
Also calling for such changes in a separate Jan. 22 letter were Sens. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mike Enzi (R-WY). A Democratic aide explained that while they seek changes to the language, they understand that Vilsack may not be able to change it in advance of the March 16 implementation date.
A private-sector source said NFU still seeks changes proposed in its Jan. 21 letter to be made promptly, despite Peterson’s bid for a six-month delay.
NFU seeks tighter restrictions on the use of multiple possible country labeling on muscle cuts, such as a percentage threshold for the number of foreign animals slaughtered in a given day (Inside U.S. Trade, Jan. 23).
It also seeks a narrower definition of foods which are deemed "processed," and therefore exempt from the labeling requirement, which applies at the point of sale.
The final COOL rule now defines a processed product as a "commodity that has undergone specific processing resulting in a change in the [commodity’s] character," or "has been combined with at least one ... other substantive food component," exempting food that has undergone changes as simple as cooking meat or placing peas and carrots in a single bag (Inside U.S. Trade, Aug. 1).
NFU also seeks a tighter restr
