It doesn’t matter where you live in California, whether it’s farming or agricultural areas like the Coachella Valley, or cities like San Diego, CA, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Orange County, Anaheim , Irvine, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Yorba Linda, Fullerton, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Bernardino, Temecula, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Victorville, Santa Barbara, Ventura, La Jolla, Del Mar, San Marcos, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Pacific Beach, El Cajon, Chula Vista or Escondido, you’ll be glad to see a change at the grocery store when you’re shopping for food and beverages or produce.
The change has to do with the law. No, California farm attorneys will not be in the produce aisle. And California food and beverage or regulatory attorneys won’t be lurking around frozen foods. California personal injury attorneys will not seek victims of slip and fall accidents. However, the change will please customers.
Until now, most consumers had no idea which country the food they ate came from. With the new COOL (Country of Origin Labeling) law coming into effect after September 30, 2008, all of that will change, with a few exceptions and a few quirks.
After years of lobbying for delays by supermarket lobby groups who argued that the law would be too expensive to implement and who lobbied for delays, COOL finally went into effect.
Now, when you buy that apple, pick up a package of most meats, or pack a head of lettuce, you’ll be able to tell from a label, sticker, or notice of some kind what country it’s from. Unfortunately, so far, the law does not extend to dairy products and with China’s milk scare, one can expect calls for it to be expanded to include these products will be heeded. The law also does not apply to organ meats such as heart, liver or kidneys, but how many households see those meats on the table?
The law also makes exceptions for processed foods like bacon or everyone’s favorite spam, blended foods like peas and carrots, but it’s likely to help consumers feel much safer in being able to avoid foods from certain countries, especially during the meal. poisoning outbreaks and feel more able to buy American products if they choose.
The law was established in the 2002 Farm Bill, but was successfully delayed by lobbyists until now. Concerns about unsafe imports from China and elsewhere eventually outweighed the food industry’s efforts to delay it. It was amended in the 2008 Farm Bill to include more foods. Retailers have six months to learn about the regulations and comply with them (so there is a grace period here). The government is then supposed to announce a final set of regulations incorporating the shellfish and crustacean regulations already in place.
The law suggests that lobbying efforts may be the reason for some of the strange distinctions in COOL. For example, macadamia nuts are included, but walnuts are not. Did the nuts have a better lobbyist than the macadamia nut lobbyist, or was the macadamia state senator absent when the Farm Bill passed?
There are also exceptions in COOL for butchers, fishmongers, restaurants, hotel restaurants, school cafeterias, and small retailers. Also, if spices, sauce, or breading have been added, labeling is not required. Although not exactly food, the law does not apply to pharmaceuticals either, although there are calls to extend the law to them. Commingled products at exhibits may simply be labeled “from two or more countries of origin.”
Consumers are likely to be surprised when they see how much of their food is imported. “I’ve been eating what?” and “This comes from where?” It will likely be heard by employees checking out as consumers stand in line and look at the new labels.
COOL has long been a target of American farmers and ranchers who believe that identifying foreign food imports can encourage buyers and manufacturers to buy more American food. Meatpackers, on the other side of the barbed wire, opposed COOL citing the costs that implementation will entail.
But as this country’s economic crisis deepens, shoppers may be increasingly inclined to buy American products not just for safety, but also to help other Americans. Who better to help than American farmers?
Lawmakers and consumer groups are angry that the USDA appears to be trying to evade Congressional intent by allowing steaks and other cuts of meat to be labeled with multiple country of origin labels. Congress only intended that exception for ground beef or for animals raised in more than one country. It has been said that there is a world of difference between the legal language that was passed by Congress and the rule that allows multi-country origin labels drafted by the USDA.
Some have suggested that it was the meat packers who did not want the obligation to separate Canadian and Mexican cattle, who are the reason why, at least to begin with, beef can be labeled with only a country of origin label. from North America. , as opposed to a US country of origin tag. Sadly, with the lack of geographic knowledge of this country (just look at Jay Leno when he asks people on the street where Canada is), many people will assume that “North American” means that the meat could not have come from outside the US, much less Mexico.
Consumer advocacy groups expect the USDA to make rule changes as it receives more feedback. Thirty-one senators, including Barack Obama, have already written to the Secretary of Agriculture asking for more restrictive rules on meat labeling. US ranchers have also called on the USDA to address the beef loophole and ensure the statute is faithfully implemented.
There are other discrepancies regarding how the law will be applied. Fish caught off the coast of Alaska by a Chinese- or Japanese-owned vessel may be labeled as a product of China or Japan. Beef raised in another country that spends 30 days in a US feedlot can be labeled as US sourced.
Retailers have discretion on how to label food. Meat counters, for example, can simply list all the countries where the meat is produced, or they can label each cut. The burger will likely still give the consumer pause, as the ground beef can come from numerous countries.
Since all of the chicken and goat consumed in the US comes from the US, the chicken and goat industries applied to be included in the law.
Once the compliance goes into effect, businesses can be fined $1,000 per violation. Implementation of the law is expected to cost at least $2 billion.
