Country-of-origin-labeling: Why the Bush Administration Is Too COOL To Tell You Where Your Food Comes From

By Wylie Harris

Text of Radio Piece

Aired on Touchstone Radio, KEOS 89.1

First aired January 20, 2004

 

Listen online at: http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/tsradio/static/cd33-06.html

 

December's discovery of mad-cow disease in Washington state was a stark reminder of the close links between our health and the products we pull off supermarket shelves.  Investigators worked frantically to identify the country from which the infected animal came.  Yet in the months before the discovery, the Bush administration was busy stalling legislation that would have made that information available instantly.

 

Congress included mandatory country-of-origin-labeling in the 2002 Farm Bill.  The law, known as COOL, requires most kinds of food imported into the U.S. to carry a sticker identifying the country where it was produced.  U.S. consumers believe that food produced here is safer and healthier, and they're willing to pay more for it.  Recognizing the potential for price premiums, small U.S. producers lobbied heavily in support of COOL.  Benefiting small farms, catering to consumer preference, and safeguarding public health, COOL seemed to let everybody win.

 

But COOL has its losers, too - namely, the major packing and processing companies – and they fought it every step of the way.  Unable to keep COOL out of the Farm Bill, they shot it full of loopholes.  These special exemptions removed country-of-origin labels from chicken, food served in restaurants, and any product that's processed or made from a mixture of different foods.  Under the COOL rules, bacon would be labeled – but not smoked bacon, since smoking counts as processing.  Similarly, you'd see COOL labels on oranges and fresh greens, but not orange juice or salad mixes.

 

Even the weak version of COOL that went into the Farm Bill was too much for the corporate food industry.  No sooner had Congress passed it than they began sabotaging its implementation.  Officials from the White House, the USDA, and the Office of Management and Budget conducted only a brief review of COOL, and took comments only from groups calling for repeal of the law.  Several heavy hitters of corporate agribusiness were represented in the meetings, including such notable champions of the public interest as ConAgra – which had 19 million pounds of its tainted beef recalled in 2002, Tyson – which has been hauled into court for smuggling illegal immigrants to work on its production lines, and Kraft – a subsidiary of Phillip Morris, whose concern for children has thus far consisted of trying to ensure that they watch enough cigarette advertisements.  With these companies' input, the USDA estimate of the cost of implementing COOL came out much higher than others, including one by the General Accounting Office. 

 

Despite wide public and congressional support for COOL, appropriations committees recently postponed its implementation until 2006, two years after it was supposed to take effect.  The Bush administration may have hoped to postpone the death blow to the popular legislation until after the 2004 elections.  After Washington state's mad-cow case, Washington D.C. may have to keep COOL, and implement it on schedule.  Whatever the outcome for COOL, the case showed all too clearly how the packing, processing, and retailing companies that dominate the U.S. food system have consumer choice and safety far from their corporate hearts.