US Meat Producers Move to 
Head Off Push for Mandatory Labelling 

EDWARD ALDEN / Financial Times (UK) 17jan04

Mindfully.org note: 
Nothing short of mandatory will be meaningful.
A voluntary program would not be binding 
and any information on the label would be
next to meaningless, just as everything the 
industry prints is meaningless. 

Even when required, food labeling tells the
consumer next to nothing. A prime example
of this is monosodium glutamate (MSG). The
manufacturer of a food can easily obscure the
use of MSG by using any number of alternative
words. They can avoid even using the alternative
terms by having it in the mix obtained from a
supplier of an ingredient. MORE

Washington—US meat producers and retailers yesterday proposed an industry-wide, voluntary country-of-origin labelling scheme for food sold in the US, the most serious effort yet to head off growing political pressure for mandatory labelling.

The initiative comes in the wake of the mad cow scare in the US, which has re-energised proponents of labelling because the infected cow originally came from a Canadian herd.

In a letter to President George W. Bush on Thursday, the Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle and the Republican Mike Enzi said a labelling scheme would be "the quickest, simplest and most effective way to restore confidence in the American meat industry".

US beef prices have fallen since the discovery of the infected cow last month, which caused large beef importers such as Japan and Mexico to shut their markets to US beef. Those countries are insisting that the US take additional measures to ensure the safety of its beef.

The labelling issue has sharply divided US farmers, the food industry and Congress. Congress approved a mandatory labelling scheme as part of the 2002 farm bill, but opponents succeeded in adding a provision to this year's omnibus budget bill that would delay implementation for another two years.

The House passed the budget bill last month, but the Senate is yet to vote on the measure.

Mr Daschle and other senators are threatening to block the vote unless the provision delaying labelling is removed from the bill.

Western ranchers and other farmers who believe that US consumers would favour American-grown or raised products if given a clear choice have supported origin labelling.

But opponents, including food processors, retailers and the main organisations representing beef, pork, fish and vegetable producers, say labelling is an expensive measure that would do nothing to enhance food safety and would provide few benefits because most Americans do not care where their food comes from.

The US Department of Agriculture estimated the scheme could cost $3.9bn in the first year alone.

Tom Stenzel, president of the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, said an industry-wide voluntary scheme would give consumers additional information without "imposing needless bureaucratic requirements". The industry plan calls for finalising a voluntary labelling programme early this year and then urges Congress to rescind mandatory labelling.

The mad cow scare has changed the politics of the issue, however, even though origin labelling was never intended primarily as a food safety measure.

Bill Lesher, an agricultural economist who opposes labelling, predicted that Congress would pass tough legislation this year making labelling mandatory and providing additional measures to strengthen food safety. He said origin labelling and the mad cow scare had become "joined at the hip".

source: http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073281105720&p=1012571727162 17jan04

To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here
The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org
Please see our Fair Use Notice