Food-origin labeling benefits everyone - Federal Regulations - according to John VanSickle, a professor with the University of Florida, Gainesville's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), August, 2003

At a time of rising concern over food security, public demand is growing for information about where food originates. "There's nothing new about food imports, but there is a lot of interest by a lot of people about where the food they consume comes from," notes John VanSickle, a University of Florida, Gainesville, agricultural economist who believes new country-of-origin labeling will benefit consumers and producers.

"Congress last year passed a law requiring that by September, 2004, all fruits and vegetables, beef, lamb, pork, and fish sold in the United States include a label showing where the food originated," he says. "But some retailers and processors would prefer that consumers didn't know, and they are reluctant to support" the legislation.

VanSickle, a professor with the university's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, is the lead author of a study by five universities that shows country-of-origin labeling--often referred to as COOL--would have significant benefits. He points out that U.S. consumers eat about 236,000,000,000 pounds of the commodities annually, or about 842 pounds per person.

The actual cost of record-keeping for the new labeling would be less than one-tenth of a cent per pound, according to VanSickle. "Consumers will be more confident about food products when they know where they come from. Labeling allows them to identify U.S. products and support those producers in the marketplace." For example, knowing that domestically produced fruits and vegetables meet high quality and safety standards is reassuring to consumers. Imports from some foreign countries may not be produced under the same standards U.S. producers must follow, particularly when it comes to pesticide residues and other safety issues.

"For consumers in today's global marketplace, the trend is clearly toward more information--not less," VanSickle points out. "Consumers have demonstrated a desire to know, and they support labeling." Moreover, labeling reduces the risk and cost of food-safety problems by providing information that would make food recall efforts easier to track and identify.

"Americans are being led to believe that all meat with a U.S. Department of Agriculture grade stamp is produced in the U.S., but that's not the case," he indicates. "About 20% of the beef sold in the U.S. [derives] from cattle born outside of the country, and consumers have little or no idea where it came from."

Opponents to the Federal legislation--especially meat processors and retailers who profit from cheap beef imports--are comfortable with the current system. They argue that the cost of adding labeling would be more than $2,000,000,000.

"There has been considerable debate and several competing claims about the cost of this program," VanSickle explains. "The fact of the matter is that USDA has not yet designed the regulations to implement mandatory labeling, and our study indicates that it can be done in a way that will benefit the consumer--90% to 95% cheaper than what opponents say it would cost."

Director of the university's International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center, VanSickle maintains that the cheapest way to implement country-of-origin labeling would be to presume that all covered commodities are from the U.S. unless otherwise noted on the label. "Our study shows that, according to the labeling law, producers themselves would not be subject to USDA jurisdiction; only those who supply covered products directly to retailers would be [responsible]. This eliminates the regulatory burden for farmers and ranchers who sell live animals or raw crops to processors or wholesalers."

Adding country-of-origin information to imported products would comply with World Trade Organization rules and other trade laws. Since existing customs requirements and Federal health regulations already necessitate identification of most imported animals, the information should be made available to consumers.