Country of Origin Labeling

A Reference Resource List

Compiled by Emerson Library Staff

2003-2004

 

 

2003 Journal Citations:

 

Banasiak, Karen.  “Group Calls For Voluntary Country-of-Origin Labeling.”   (2004) Food Technology (58) 3:8.

Associations are calling for a plan to develop a program for providing country of origin labeling for produce, beef, pork, and seafood.  The group is made of United Fruit and Vegetable Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Fisheries Institute, Food Marketing Institute, and National Grocers Association.  Congress delayed the law until 2006.

 

“Country Labeling Delayed Two Years.”  (2004) Food Processing (65) 2:14.

The Senate decided to delay the country of origin labeling rule by two years.  This means that it will not go into effect for most foods until September 30, 2006.  Farm-raised and wild-caught fish must start labeling September 30, 2004.  Food and grocery associations were happy about the delay so that they can have time to repeal the law.

 

“Food Industry Chafes at Latest Plan for Country-of Origin Labeling Rules.” (2003: November 11) Milling & Baking News (82) 37: 37.

                Food industry groups do not feel the USDA’s proposed country of origin labels are a good thing.    The cost for implementing the labels is stabled to be $3.9 billion in the first year and could cost as much as $500 million annually according to estimates reported from the USDA.  The final  problem with the proposed rules would be the September 2004 implementation date.   

 

Hagstrom, Jerry.  “USDA Reportedly Preparing Beef Label for Japan Exports.”  (2003) CongressDaily 7/14/2003:5.

Japan wants the U.S. to put country-of-origin labels on meat being imported into Japan to ensure that the meat did not come from Canada.  The Agricultural Department is currently working on the plan to meet this demand.  Canada recently found a cow with mad cow disease and Japan is worried about the disease being imported into its country.  Japan gave the U.S. a deadline of September 1, 2003.  By value, the U.S. is Japan’s top beef importer.  The Bush administration is currently opposed to labeling meat with the country of origin.  Meat producers are saying that this is impossible because of all the meat that they imported from Canada.  The Agricultural Department is currently working on the entire situation.

 

Hecht, Chuck and Tim Aughenbaugh.  “Verifying Product and Process Authenticity.”  (2003) Food Technology (57) 6:32-36.

The difference between an Identity Preservation (IP) program and authenticity testing is that an IP program is designed to make sure that the production and process systems will deliver authentic material while authenticity testing is used to determine at the end of the line that a product label is accurate.  The IP program and authenticity testing have created a new field called authenticity management.  The Farm bill now requires retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling for all “covered commodities.”  These include genetics, planting, growing, inspections, environment, harvest, storage, processing, and to the retailer.  The retailer gets all of this information so that they can accurately display the country-of-origin information.

 

Joy, David.  “Cool Reception for Country of Origin Labeling.”  (2003) Food Processing (64) 11:17-18.

Country of Origin Labeling is not a new concept but the way it is being applied is new.  Country of Origin Labeling is being required on certain food products and comes from the 2002 Farm Bill.  There are exceptions to this rule such as foods that are natural products that are in their natural state are exempted such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, berries, live or dead animals.  The rule does not apply to produce that is not packaged but produce that is packaged must have the country of origin label.  Foods that go under substantial transformation are exempted also such as grapes that are made into jelly.  The author believes that the reason to have the labeling requirement is to discriminate against imported goods.  The bill does require that beef, lamb, pork, fish, peanuts, and perishable agricultural commodities have the country of origin labeling.  This law applies to domestic and imported foods.

 

Kilman, Scott.  “Grocers, Meatpackers Fight Law to Label Origin of Foods.”  (2003) The Wall Street Journal (241) 124:B1, B7.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture created a rule that passed in the 2002 farm-subsidy law that says by September 2004, the nation's supermarkets must label the country of origin of beef, pork, lamb, fish, produce, and peanuts.  A fine for mislabeling would be $10,000.  The food industry is opposing this.  Congress is also fighting over this law and if they should repeal the mandate.  The House Appropriations Committee already voted to block some funding that would help implement the labeling rule.  Supermarkets are importing more to satisfy consumer's growing interest in variety.  The labels would help consumers to stay away from food from countries with poor health regulations or who are having a food scare.  The Bush administration also does not like the new regulation because it could affect trade and relations with other countries.

 

Klie, Leonard.  “Country of Origin Labeling.”  (2003) Food Logistics 63:8-9.

The author includes reactions to the new federal law that will require the U.S. food industry to include country-of-origin labeling.  The labeling will be included on all meat, seafood and produce and will be effective October 2003.  The author discusses possible effects that this law will have on consumers and the estimated cost of mandatory records and labeling that will be required to be given to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  U.S congressmen, grocery chains, and wholesalers have already issued responses and taken actions to the country of origin labeling.  The article also includes an inset that is titled, “Food Industry Unprepared for Bioterrorism Rule.”

 

“Trade Coalition Unveils New Website.”  (2003) Food Product Design (13) 5:25.

The Food Industry Trade Coalition has created a new web site at www.countryoforiginlabel.org.  The site will contain information about the laws and how they will impact different sectors of agriculture and food production.  The FITC does report that they hope the country of origin labeling will be appealed and a voluntary program will be put in its place.

 

“Wary of Mad Cow, Japan Asks U.S. to Label Its Beef.”  (2003) The Wall Street Journal (241) 119:A12.

Japan officially asked the U.S. to label its beef with a country of origin label by July 1 for the U.S.'s beef it exports to Japan.  Japan wants to ensure that none of the beef is from Canada or other countries that have reported that they have found cows with the mad-cow disease.  U.S. packers report that they will have little chance of making the deadline since the U.S. has no uniform trace back system in place.

 

2004 Journal Citations:

 

Giese, James.  “Country-of-Origin Comment Period Extended.”  (2004) Food Technology (58) 1:17.

The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has extended their deadline from October 30, 2003 to February 27, 2004 for the proposed rule for mandatory country of origin labeling program. 

 

“Labeling Law Declared Costly.”  (2004) Food Product Design (13) 10:25.

At a conference called “Agriculture at the Crossroads” that was sponsored by AgRelations Council, the senior vice president of regulatory affairs and general counsel for the American Meat Institute, Mark Dopp, reported that the mandatory country of origin labeling is expensive.  It also does not have benefits and is intellectually dishonest.  He estimates that the first year costs for the USDA would be $3.9 billion for all commodities.  The costs outweigh the potential benefits.  Until September 30, 2004, the labeling program is voluntary at which time it will be required for fresh red-meat products, seafood, produce, and peanuts.

 

Last updated June 2, 2004

 

Click to obtain sources for reprints of articles cited