Produce industry sets hopes on COOL compromise
Produce industry sets hopes on COOL compromise
WASHINGTON -- The produce industry is eagerly awaiting news on whether retailers -- a critical voice in the country-of-origin labeling debate -- will support a compromise country-of-origin labeling package that, in turn, would help sell the proposal on Capitol Hill.
With a September 2006 deadline looming, a dozen top produce industry groups have crafted a compromise package that would allow the labeling program to remain voluntary unless the industry fell short of meeting certain agreed-upon goals. If fewer than a certain percentage of the top-selling fruits and vegetables failed to be labeled by country of origin, then a mandatory program would kick in. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would monitor the industry's compliance rate.
After brokering the delicate compromise, industry leaders say that it's time for "other friends in the food industry," such as Food Marketing Institute, to weigh in. The more groups that support the package, the more muscle the industry will have in pushing a legislative solution in the halls of Congress, rather than face repeated calls to simply delay the starting date for the mandatory COOL program.
"We just received the proposal and are beginning to take a look at it, said Bill Greer, spokesman for the Food Marketing Institute, who added that the organization would consider this proposal, just as FMI is looking at all ways to come up with a voluntary labeling program that will work in a cost-effective manner.
Supporters of the proposal say that it allows some room for mistakes and accommodates certain commodities that are difficult to label, but also would tighten any uneven labeling problems and keep the program on the books.
"We're almost a year out from the September deadline. It must be addressed now, United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association's Robert Guenther said Aug. 17. "There will be challenges all along the process in selling the document, he said, and getting everyone in the industry behind the proposal is "the best formula for success.
Timing will be critical, as the produce industry would like to leave the COOL debate far behind before tackling the upcoming farm bill. If the current effort fails, the COOL compromise may end up added to the farm bill agenda.
"The challenge is convincing others that the program can be done voluntarily, said Kathy Means of the Produce Marketing Association. In analyzing the grocery store, a lot of commodities are already labeled, whether they say Washington apples or California avocados, she said. At first, PMA was alone in insisting the program could do it on a voluntary basis, but now the entire industry is joining in.
While not commenting on the details, Ms. Means said that the latest compromise would allow the industry flexibility to label fruits and vegetables by country of origin in a cost-effective manner, while ensuring that key information gets to consumers.
It is unclear, however, how far the compromise package could go without support from retailers, who have been pushing for legislation to strip the mandatory program from the farm bill.
Rather than place the onus for labeling on the producer/packer -- the link in the supply chain best able to provide this information -- the farm bill requires the retailer to provide and display a "clear and visible sign indicating a product's country of origin, said FMI's position paper on COOL.
FMI has been pushing to ditch the farm bill program because it would require an elaborate system of documentation so the government can verify compliance. PMA and other groups have long complained that these added costs and liabilities faced by retailers would be pushed back to produce suppliers.
Selling the compromise package may not be easy. One obstacle is likely to be the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who favors a voluntary program and has sponsored legislation to do just that.
Another obstacle may be the meat, seafood and peanut commodities already covered under the COOL legislation. The fruit and vegetable industry may find itself at odds with the meat industry as the food industry struggles to ditch the mandatory COOL program.
Unlike the meat industry, however, the produce industry decided to assemble all sectors and commodities and develop a compromise.
With a September 2006 deadline looming, a dozen top produce industry groups have crafted a compromise package that would allow the labeling program to remain voluntary unless the industry fell short of meeting certain agreed-upon goals. If fewer than a certain percentage of the top-selling fruits and vegetables failed to be labeled by country of origin, then a mandatory program would kick in. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would monitor the industry's compliance rate.
After brokering the delicate compromise, industry leaders say that it's time for "other friends in the food industry," such as Food Marketing Institute, to weigh in. The more groups that support the package, the more muscle the industry will have in pushing a legislative solution in the halls of Congress, rather than face repeated calls to simply delay the starting date for the mandatory COOL program.
"We just received the proposal and are beginning to take a look at it, said Bill Greer, spokesman for the Food Marketing Institute, who added that the organization would consider this proposal, just as FMI is looking at all ways to come up with a voluntary labeling program that will work in a cost-effective manner.
Supporters of the proposal say that it allows some room for mistakes and accommodates certain commodities that are difficult to label, but also would tighten any uneven labeling problems and keep the program on the books.
"We're almost a year out from the September deadline. It must be addressed now, United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association's Robert Guenther said Aug. 17. "There will be challenges all along the process in selling the document, he said, and getting everyone in the industry behind the proposal is "the best formula for success.
Timing will be critical, as the produce industry would like to leave the COOL debate far behind before tackling the upcoming farm bill. If the current effort fails, the COOL compromise may end up added to the farm bill agenda.
"The challenge is convincing others that the program can be done voluntarily, said Kathy Means of the Produce Marketing Association. In analyzing the grocery store, a lot of commodities are already labeled, whether they say Washington apples or California avocados, she said. At first, PMA was alone in insisting the program could do it on a voluntary basis, but now the entire industry is joining in.
While not commenting on the details, Ms. Means said that the latest compromise would allow the industry flexibility to label fruits and vegetables by country of origin in a cost-effective manner, while ensuring that key information gets to consumers.
It is unclear, however, how far the compromise package could go without support from retailers, who have been pushing for legislation to strip the mandatory program from the farm bill.
Rather than place the onus for labeling on the producer/packer -- the link in the supply chain best able to provide this information -- the farm bill requires the retailer to provide and display a "clear and visible sign indicating a product's country of origin, said FMI's position paper on COOL.
FMI has been pushing to ditch the farm bill program because it would require an elaborate system of documentation so the government can verify compliance. PMA and other groups have long complained that these added costs and liabilities faced by retailers would be pushed back to produce suppliers.
Selling the compromise package may not be easy. One obstacle is likely to be the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who favors a voluntary program and has sponsored legislation to do just that.
Another obstacle may be the meat, seafood and peanut commodities already covered under the COOL legislation. The fruit and vegetable industry may find itself at odds with the meat industry as the food industry struggles to ditch the mandatory COOL program.
Unlike the meat industry, however, the produce industry decided to assemble all sectors and commodities and develop a compromise.
