Country of Origin Labeling
Encyclopedia
Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) is a requirement signed into American law under Title X of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, also known as the 2002 Farm Bill, includes ten titles, addressing a great variety of issues related to agriculture, ecology, energy, trade, and nutrition....

 (known as the 2002 Farm Bill). This law requires retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef
Beef
Beef is the culinary name for meat from bovines, especially domestic cattle. Beef can be harvested from cows, bulls, heifers or steers. It is one of the principal meats used in the cuisine of the Middle East , Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Europe and the United States, and is also important in...

, pork
Pork
Pork is the culinary name for meat from the domestic pig , which is eaten in many countries. It is one of the most commonly consumed meats worldwide, with evidence of pig husbandry dating back to 5000 BC....

, and lamb. The program exempts processed meats. The United States Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....

 passed an expansion of the COOL requirements on 29 September 2008, to include more food items such as fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables.

Background

"Under §304 of the Tariff Act of 1930
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
The Tariff Act of 1930, otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff was an act, sponsored by United States Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.The overall level tariffs...

 as amended , every imported item must be conspicuously and indelibly marked in English
English language
English is a West Germanic language that arose in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England and spread into what was to become south-east Scotland under the influence of the Anglian medieval kingdom of Northumbria...

 to indicate to the “ultimate purchaser” its country of origin." According to the U.S. Customs
United States Customs Service
Until March 2003, the United States Customs Service was an agency of the U.S. federal government that collected import tariffs and performed other selected border security duties.Before it was rolled into form part of the U.S...

, generally defined the “ultimate purchaser” is the last U.S. person who will receive the goods in the form in which it was imported.

However, if the goods are destined for a U.S. based processor where they will undergo “substantial transformation”, then that processor or manufacturer is considered the ultimate purchaser. The law authorizes exceptions to labeling requirements, such as for articles incapable of being marked or where the cost would be “economically prohibitive.”

Exceptions to this are codified into law and known as the “J List,” so named for §1304(a)(3)(J) of the statute, which empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to exempt classes of items that were “imported in substantial quantities during the five-year period immediately preceding January 1, 1937, and were not required during such period to be marked to indicate their origin.”

On November 18, 2011: The Canadian federal government argued before the World Trade Organization that American "country of origin" labelling rules (COOL) actually worked to the detriment of the meat industry on both sides of the border by increasing costs, lowering processing efficiency and otherwise distorting trade across the Canada-U.S. border. Canada's Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and Trade Minister Ed Fast announced the WTO had ruled in Canada's favour at a news conference on a ranch near Airdie, Alta.

Analysis

The contrasting intents of these bills reflected the continuing divergence of opinion among lawmakers over whether a federally-mandated labeling program is needed. Some contend that mandatory COOL will provide U.S. products with a competitive advantage over foreign products because U.S. consumers, if offered a clear choice, prefer fresh foods of domestic origin, thereby strengthening demand and prices for them. Moreover, proponents argue that U.S. consumers have a right to know the origin of their food, particularly at a time when U.S. food imports are increasing, and whenever particular health and safety problems arise. They cite as one prominent example concerns about the safety of some foreign beef arising from the discoveries of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy , commonly known as mad-cow disease, is a fatal neurodegenerative disease in cattle that causes a spongy degeneration in the brain and spinal cord. BSE has a long incubation period, about 30 months to 8 years, usually affecting adult cattle at a peak age onset of...

 (BSE, or mad cow disease) in a number of Canadian-born cows (and two U.S. cows) since 2003. Supporters of the COOL law argue that it is unfair to exempt meats and produce from the longstanding country labeling already required of almost all other imported consumer products, from automobiles to most other foods. They also note that many foreign countries already impose their own country-of-origin labeling.

Opponents of mandatory COOL counter that studies do not provide evidence that consumers want such labeling. They believe COOL is a thinly disguised trade barrier intended to increase importers’ costs and to foster the unfounded perception that imports may be inherently less safe (or of lower quality) than U.S. products. Food safety problems can as likely originate in domestic supplies as in imports, as evidenced by the more than 30 recalls of U.S. meat and poultry products announced by USDA in 2006 alone, these opponents point out. Opponents argue that all food imports already must meet equivalent U.S. safety standards, which are enforced by U.S. officials at the border and overseas; scientific principles, not geography, must be the arbiter of safety. Industry implementation and record-keeping costs, estimated by USDA to be as high as $3.9 billion in the first year and $458 million per year after that, would far outweigh any economic benefits, critics add. (COOL proponents assert that these cost estimates were grossly exaggerated while some in industry claim they were too low).

External links

The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK