[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 103 (Monday, July 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7771-S7772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Graham and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1042. A bill to require country of origin labeling of perishable 
agricultural commodities imported into the United States and to 
establish penalties for violations of the labeling requirements; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                   THE IMPORTED PRODUCE LABELING ACT

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Graham, to introduce the Imported Produce Labeling Act of 1997.
  For the past 67 years, since Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1930, 
almost everything imported from abroad has been labeled as to its 
country of origin. Guidelines now exist for products of virtually every 
kind--from clothing and toys to prepared food. Pick up almost anything 
in your local supermarket or department store and you're likely to see 
its country of origin clearly displayed.
  This is sound trade policy, which has served our Nation well. It is 
now time, Mr. President, to extend these same labeling requirements to 
imported produce.
  Currently, containers carrying imported produce from abroad are 
required, by the same Tariff Act of 1930, to be labeled as to where 
that produce was grown and packed. This information makes it possible 
for American importers, shippers, and retailers to know the produce's 
country of origin. However, that information is never revealed to the 
consumer.
  What this legislation would require, Mr. President, is for this 
important information, already in the hands of our retailers and 
shippers, be passed on to those who ultimately purchase and consume the 
imported produce. We're asking, quite simply, for retailers to let the 
American consumer know what they're eating and where it was produced.
  The United States imports approximately 1.7 billion dollars' worth of 
fruit and vegetables every year. Almost all of this produce is 
purchased and consumed by unsuspecting shoppers who have no idea where, 
or under what conditions, it was grown.
  While some might claim these new labeling requirements are unfair or 
burdensome, these claims are simply not true, and aim to distract the 
real issue: the consumer's right to know.
  I would point out to these critics, Mr. President, that most of our 
international trading partners already require such labeling. While I 
won't take the time to read the names of all these nations now, I would 
like to draw your attention to two of those with the strictest labeling 
requirements, Canada and Mexico--our two closest trading partners.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of countries which 
currently require country of origin labeling for produce to be printed 
in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                  Produce Labeling Requirements Abroad

 (From the National Food and Agriculture Policy Project/Arizona State 
                              University)

       Countries which require country of origin labeling on all 
     produce, including bulk produce: Bulgaria, Canada, Costa 
     Rica, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Malaysia, 
     Mexico, Romania, Spain, Tunisia, and the United Kingdom.
       Countries which require country of origin labeling only on 
     prepackaged products: Austria, Brazil, Ecuador, Hong Kong, 
     Israel, Iraq, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, and 
     Venezuela.
       Countries where country of origin labeling is an industry 
     practice, though not required: Denmark, Finland, Italy, 
     Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and Sweden.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is about time we start giving American 
consumers the same information granted in these other nations.
  Likewise, this legislation is not overly burdensome. The bill 
provides for a wide variety of labeling options, any number of which 
might be easily employed by American retailers to display information 
they already know.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation 
seriously. It is time to close the gap of knowledge that currently 
exists relative to where imported produce is grown. American consumers 
have the right to know where their food came from and, given the 
opportunity, will use that information to protect and provide for their 
families.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will both support our national agricultural industries and bolster the 
abilities of American consumers to make educated choices about the 
fruits and vegetables that they purchase for their families: the 
Imported Produce Labeling Act of 1997.
  This important legislation extends our current country-of-origin 
labeling laws--enacted as part of the Tariff Act of 1930--to require 
country-of-origin labeling of imported produce at the final point of 
sale, which for most Americans is the grocery store. It would bolster 
food safety, give consumers more information, and allow American 
growers to achieve some benefit from the heavy investment they make in 
complying with health, labor, and environmental laws.
  Mr. President, country-of-origin labeling is not a new idea. For 
decades, European nations, Japan, and Canada have informed consumers 
about the origins of the produce available for purchase.
  One need only to walk through a supermarket in Paris to notice the 
international nature of the produce sold. Shoppers can purchase apples 
from the United States, tomatoes from Holland, grapes from Spain, pears 
from France,

[[Page S7772]]

peaches from Italy, and oranges from Israel.
  Our American supermarkets also carry agricultural products from a 
wide range of exporting nations. Why, then, do our consumers lack the 
advantage that their French, Japanese, and Canadian counterparts enjoy: 
the ability to make informed choices about the food they feed to their 
families?
  It doesn't have to be that way. For 18 years, Florida grocery store 
customers have enjoyed the benefits of a law very similar to what I am 
proposing today.
  In 1979, during my first term as Governor, the Florida State 
Legislature enacted the Produce Labeling Act, a law that is now 
administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services.
  The law has been implemented with almost no additional regulation and 
at extremely small cost to Florida taxpayers.
  Extra supermarket inspections are not required. Department of 
Agriculture inspectors verify compliance with the law as a part of 
their already planned, routine inspections of all retail food stores in 
the State.
  Florida's policy also expends limited time and money. A standard 
inspection takes approximately 15 minutes, the time needed to review 
displays and document discrepancies. And enforcement costs are 
estimated to be less than $40,000 annually for the department's 
inspection of over 23,000 retail food establishments.
  While costs are low, the benefits that Floridians have enjoyed as a 
result of this policy are significant.
  Most importantly, consumers are armed with important information 
about the products upon which they spend their hard-earned paycheck. 
Here's what that means:
  The ``Made In The USA'' label can draw more customers to domestic 
produce, thus supporting American farmers and the U.S. economy as a 
whole.
  Consumers have the ability to seek out foreign produce that is known 
for its high quality.
  Shoppers have the information needed to boycott products from 
countries that exploit workers with low pay, poor working conditions, 
or child labor.
  American families can protect their own health from products 
subjected to unsafe or unsanitary produce-handling practices.
  The Florida Department of Agriculture reports that the State's 
labeling law has been both well-received and cost-effective. It costs a 
store only $5 to $10 per week to implement, and the estimated industry 
compliance costs statewide are less than $200,000 annually.
  In plain terms, this means that for less than $200,000, consumers in 
a State that has 14 million residents and each year welcomes over 30 
million visitors have the basic information regarding the origins of 
the produce on their supermarket shelves. That's a small price to pay 
for the ability to make educated choices in the marketplace.
  It is my goal--and that of my cosponsors, Senator Craig of Idaho and 
Senator Johnson of South Dakota--to ensure that all American consumers 
are armed with the same ability to make informed choices as their 
counterparts in Florida, Europe, and Japan.
  We are introducing this legislation because the changing nature of 
the agriculture market demands changes in our Nation's trade policy.
  Sixty-seven years ago, when the Tariff Act of 1930 was enacted, fresh 
fruits and vegetables were exempt from labeling laws.
  The Tariff Act dictates that items are required to be labeled with 
their country of origin only on their outermost container. In the case 
of fresh fruit and vegetables, the outermost container is the shipping 
container, from which produce is removed long before it ever reaches 
the consumer.
  Obviously, the consumer market has changed dramatically since 1930. 
Whereas imported produce was once almost nonexistent in the United 
States, it now constitutes a $1.7 billion industry. In fact, 60 percent 
of our winter fruits and vegetables come from Mexico alone.
  As imports have become a fixture in the domestic marketplace, our 
growers and their associations have argued for country of origin 
labeling. But this is an issue that unites producers and consumers. 
Research has shown that an overwhelming number of American consumers 
would like to know where their produce is grown--and they want that 
information made readily available.
  Our bill is not cumbersome. It simply says that a retailer of a 
perishable agricultural product imported into the United States shall 
inform consumers as to the national origins of that product.
  Nor is it designed to give American products an unfair advantage in 
the marketplace. In fact, foreign growers who believe that they grow a 
superior product to ours see this legislation as a prime opportunity to 
sell more of their goods in American supermarkets.
  And finally, this bill does not suppress free trade or the free 
market system. It simply seeks to level the regulatory playing field. 
Shoppers in the European Union and Canada benefit from a county-of-
origin labeling requirement. American consumers should have access to 
the same kind of information.
  The Imported Produce Labeling Act constitutes one of the most 
important agriculture trade initiatives that will come before us during 
this Congress. It is a vital part of efforts to bolster one of the most 
critical elements of our free-enterprise system: informed choice. I 
urge its speedy passage.
                                 ______