Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) originated when the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require retailers to notify customers where their food was coming from. Now that it is fully implemented, COOL applies to muscle cuts and ground beef, veal, lamb, pork, chicken, goat meat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts. Establishments that slaughter animals are labeled the “initiating supplier” and they must keep detailed records documenting compliance. Exemptions have been set for COOL regulations. Foodservice establishments such as restaurants, lunchrooms, cafeterias, and food stands are exempt and all processed (cooked and cured) or “blended” (ie. Salad mix) foods are exempt as well. Although Congress initially mandated COOL to take effect in 2004, it was delayed for several years. COOL for fish and shellfish has been in effect since April 5, 2005 but remaining covered commodities went into effect more recently (March 16, 2009).
COOL is important because the proportion of fresh foods is increasing. Imported fruits have increased from 6% in 1980 to 23% in 2001 and vegetable imports have increased from 6% to 17% over the same period. COOL allows consumers to identify foods grown domestically (as opposed to internationally) so that they will be able to make more informed choices about what to purchase. Some consumers may choose to buy domestic to support American farmers or to show patriotism. Some may choose to buy local to minimize the miles food travels, thus minimizing their ecological footprint and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. COOL will also address health concerns about contaminated food products from countries with known outbreaks and countries with less stringent pesticide controls.
So far COOL has been very controversial. Opponents say that COOL is “protectionist” and that the labeling is unhelpful to consumers and expensive for farmers and businesses. They also argue that if a premium for domestic foods isn’t imposed, COOL could make American farm products less competitive with imports. However, Florida has had a COOL program since 1979 and the administrative coasts appear very low. Compliance only cost supermarkets 1-2 labor hours per store a week. Also, the demand for COOL from consumers is high. A poll conducted in 2005 showed the 85% of the consumers surveyed were in favor of COOL. The same poll also showed that 74% support a mandatory COOL and 55% have “little or not much trust” in industries (meat, seafood, produce, and grocery) to adhere to a voluntary program. Even though this policy will not effect most American’s choices, citizens that do care to know country of origin information of their food products will be allowed to do so and so I see this as a step in the right direction.
Rachel Stair
I feel that it would be safest to say that those who oppose COOL and ideas such as protectionism can be found sitting upon the board of the IMF, World Bank, or the WTO. These same people support free trade liberalization on all fronts along with privatization and easily liquifiable assets. The US "protected" certain infant industries for years before it emerged as a leader in economic growth. As far as American farm products being less competitive opponents also forget that as long as we subsidies heavily our Monsanto products and potato industry, we are in no danger of loosing competitiveness. One last thing, free trade economists do not want us to know more information. They desire that the majority of people listen to the elite few who make decisions that affect each of us in ways we can't imagine. True democracy should be based on transparency and access to information (Freedom of Information Act). And it appears that the statistics speak for the people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese COOL labels seem like a great idea, and can be used for health and environmental reasons. I however, believe it would have a greater influence on the consumer if a label like the "Ecolabel" in Europe was used. By providing an environmental grade on products, consumers would be more inclined to purchase less environmentally harmful products. I also don't understand why restaurants and other food services don't have to comply. Do they not account for a large portion of food consumed daily? Making consumers more aware is an effective approach to inform them of potentially harmful products.
ReplyDelete