# Producers and Consumers Win with Mandatory Labeling\'s Survival

## Column Submission by: U.S. Senator Tim Johnson 

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

I first introduced country-of-origin meat labeling (COOL) legislation as
a junior member of the US House of Representatives. Finally, as a
Senator, I was proud to work successfully with South Dakota ag producers
and organizations to include mandatory COOL as part of the 2002 farm
bill. My COOL amendment had strong bipartisan support in the Senate and
was to have been implemented by the Department of Agriculture by fall of
this year.

Unfortunately, last year, the House Republican leadership inserted
last-minute language into the omnibus appropriations bill which required
USDA to delay implementation of COOL until the fall of 2006. Most
recently, these same anti-COOL leaders proposed adding language to this
year\'s omnibus appropriations bill which would have gutted the COOL
amendment by turning it into a completely voluntary program that the
packers could simply choose to ignore. Once again, South Dakota ag
producers and ag organizations spoke up to express strong support for
retaining a mandatory COOL program. Working in bipartisan fashion with
Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) and our own Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) and
Representative Stephanie Herseth (D-SD), we were successful in keeping
the anti-COOL language out of the \"must pass\" omnibus appropriations
bill.

Our next effort will be to see to it that additional delay or voluntary
amendments are not passed in the coming 109th Congress. COOL is a
program that will be of real benefit to livestock producers and
consumers alike. Most other industrialized democracies already have
variations of COOL in place for their own consumers, and it is long
overdue that the United States at last allows our citizens to know the
origin of food they purchase to feed their families. There is no reason
for such a common-sense program to be expensive or complicated. In fact,
if USDA would simply mark and keep track of cattle and meat imported
into the United States, there would be no need to require US producers
to do anything.

Other countries have long demonstrated that COOL can be implemented
without significant cost or paperwork. When USDA released a study
wrongfully claiming that COOL implementation would be expensive, I
joined with Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) in asking the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on USDA\'s cost
assertions. The GAO found that USDA\'s cost figures were wildly
incorrect and that it \"used assumptions that are questionable and not
well supported.\" Meatpackers and retailers already track literally
millions of bits of information about meat and produce they handle,
including information about quality, weight, brand name, and
destination. These existing records kept by industry can be used to make
COOL work, and it can be done with far less effort than USDA is
currently proposing for its animal ID initiative.

COOL is not rocket science--- it is a common-sense effort intended to
assist our nation\'s producers to effectively market a high-quality
product, while also assisting our consumers in making knowing,
intelligent nutrition choices for their families. This is a consumer
choice tool which will have a positive benefit to our agricultural
economy and our quality of life. If we can label our T-shirts with
country of origin, why can\'t we label our T-bones?