Country of Origin Labeling Brokering Unlikely Western Relationships

By Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel, 2-27-07

	Caption: Labeling the West: Many western states already have state of origin labels, but they are not mandatory.

Each week in the NewWest.Net "Spade & Spoon" section, writer Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel discusses the localization of the food system in the Rocky Mountain West by profiling organizations and individuals who are attending to the issues and possibilities of eating closer to home.

Let’s face it. Americans love labels. We are comforted by them. They make us feel special. They make us feel cool, particularly when they come on our clothes and shoes, cars and food. For some reason, the recognizable moniker, from Apple Computer’s Mac to an Organic Macintosh apple, gives us a sense of security, community or acceptance. We love labels so much that we even spend more just to have them.

But in recent years there is one label making more than a few people (and industries) shudder: Country Of Origin Labels, lovingly referred to as COOL.

COOL legislation was actually passed as a part of the 2002 Farm Bill in order to clearly identify the origin of beef, pork, lamb, fish, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts. Other than fish and shellfish, it has yet to go into effect as lobbyists for Cargill, the National Cattlemen’s Association and other industries have argued that the labeling program would prove too expensive for their industry to handle. Legislators reacted by delaying the implementation of the law in 2004 and again in 2005, meaning that COOL will not be implemented until September 30, 2008.

In response to the delay, Rocky Mountain Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Craig Thomas (R-WY) recently introduced bill S.404 to move up the implementation date by one year (Sept 30, 2007). Senators Jon Tester (D-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), also signed, along with those from the Dakotas and Iowa.

Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) is pushing a similar bill through the house. With more than 23 million acres of strategic Rocky Mountain Ranchland at risk of being lost, according to American Farmland Trust, and as the US loses two acres of agricultural land every minute, the Senators want mandatory COOL legislation implemented sooner than later so it can support the farmers and ranchers in their state. While Montana and New Mexico have state labels of origin, proponents argue that a national system would provide an edge for U.S. farmers and ranchers who are competing with global, cheap food imports. COOL would provide eaters with a basic understanding of where their food comes from and give them a more informed choice. More importantly, Craig Thomas, (R-WY) argues that, “If it is good enough for t-shirts, it is good enough for t-bones.”

Opponents of the legislation have long argued that COOL is far too expensive and unnecessary, particularly when, as Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed two years ago, our food system is the “safest in the world.” (Of course he didn’t know that California would be the origin of food borne illnesses like e-coli last year.) According to a 2006 Utne article, John Tyson, CEO of Tyson Foods, couldn’t agree more since the U.S. Department of Agriculture initially calculated that the first year of the mandatory COOL program would cost the food industry about $2 billion for paperwork alone. The General Accounting Office later found this figure unsupported, but industries and national associations continue to support a revision of mandatory COOL legislation. They would prefer COOL to be voluntary even though country of origin labeling already is an option.

Some farmers and ranchers also oppose the rule. But they just don’t think it includes enough food products. The law excludes processed beef, lamb, pork and frozen entrees containing those meats or food that is prepared and served at a food service establishment.

Organizations like the National Farmers’ Union and Montana Cattlemen’s Association think mandatory COOL legislation is a good start. In 2005 the National Farmers’ Union and more than one hundred other interested organizations sent a letter to Agriculture Appropriations Leaders supporting immediate implementation of mandatory COOL legislation, sighting the effectiveness of the program for seafood. In response, legislators voted to delay implementation until 2008.

It will take more than a letter of support in the coming legislative session for S.404 to pass. In the meantime, COOL legislation continues to foster unexpected relationships. It has bridged that great divide between many Republicans and Democrats in the Rocky Mountain West who want to support their state’s struggling farmers and ranchers. It has also garnered the support of many conventional farmers and ranchers as well as organic/sustainable/local eaters.

Now that our food comes from what the food systems guru Jack Kloppenberg calls “the global everywhere and yet no where in particular,” supporters are hoping to use our love of labels to encourage us to support U.S. farms and ranches. Just as we search for the comfort of brand names on our clothes and shoes, we search for comfort in the food label. Mandatory nutrition labels already calculate the amount of sugar and salt per small serving, while other labels note the ounces, pounds and grams in the bottle, the “use by” date, the twenty digit tracking number, the comment line, distribution hub, website and brand name until there are more syllables per serving than calories.

But all of these labels do more than define the content of our food. They point to our confusion. They reveal just how little we know about our food, and how much we really want to know.

Should S.404 pass, the COOL label would provide a clue about the origin of our food. Whether it will provide the economic support that farmers and ranchers need or actually encourage eaters to buy food “Grown in the USA,” is yet to be seen. In the mean time, we would all do well to remember what Martin Luther King Jr. once said. “Before you’ve finished your breakfast, you will have relied on half the world.”

This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. It is currently under deliberation and possible revision. It will move on to a general debate next. For updated information on this bill visit GovTrack.

For more information about preserving the Rocky Mountain Region’s Agricultural lands see AFT’s “Rocky Mountain Agricultural Landowners Guide to Conservation & Sustainability.”

Look for the Spade & Spoon column here every Tuesday. If you have article ideas for Spade & Spoon (http://www.newwest.net/spadeandspoon), email . [End of article]