[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4846-4847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       INTRODUCTION OF THE PRODUCE CONSUMERS' RIGHTS-TO-KNOW ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. MARY BONO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 17, 1999

  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Produce 
Consumers' Right-to-Know Act, H.R. 1145. The text of the bill is 
substantially similar to legislation that was introduced by my late 
husband, Representative Sonny Bono during the 105th Congress, H.R. 
1232. When I joined Congress, I was honored to have the opportunity to 
work on this important bill last year with many distinguished leaders 
in Congress including the gentlemen from California (Mr. Hunter and Mr. 
Condit), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), just to name a few outstanding 
individuals. Now, it is appropriate to begin this work again in the 
hope that we in Congress can help all consumers and families across our 
country learn the basic information about the fruits and vegetables 
they bring home.


                      The Global Food Marketplace

  The reality today is that food is a global product. The General 
Accounting Office reported last year that our country receives more 
than 2.5 million shipments of imported fresh fruits and vegetables 
annually (see GAO Report No. 98-103). I believe strongly in the global 
economy, because I believe that the U.S. and American consumers always 
win in a global marketplace.
  My one qualification regarding this belief is that rules for trade 
are fair. Fair trade is an essential element of commerce in any 
millennium. A coordinate element of trade policy for

[[Page 4847]]

the next millennium must be a global standard. Harmonization is 
important. Country-of-origin labeling for fresh produce legislation is 
part of the current harmonization effort. Twenty-two of our trading 
partners have some type of produce country-of-origin labeling or 
marking requirement. These nations include, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and 
many members of the European Union. There is no intent or means to 
discriminate against anyone or trading partner with this bill. The 
office of legislative counsel has incorporated into this bill language 
clarifying that this labeling reform applies equally to imported as 
well as domestically grown produce. Otherwise, this text is based on 
the amendment to the Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill that was 
offered last year by the Senator from Florida (Mr. Bob Graham).


                Labeling: Simple, Sound, and Inexpensive

  Briefly, it is worth pointing out that U.S. law already encourages 
the labeling and marking of fresh fruits and vegetables. The boxes of 
imported produce, for example, are required to indicate country-of-
origin information. These boxes go to the grocery store or retailer, 
but are often left in the back room. Thus, while this valuable 
information travels to the store, it does not always make it to the 
mom, dad, or other consumer at the point of sale.

  As our Founders envisioned, the states are great laboratories for 
ideas. In Florida, the state enacted produce country-of-origin labeling 
more than twenty years ago. The Florida experience is a marked success. 
Two major Florida supermarket chain stores have reported that this 
common-sense customer service costs each store less than $10 per month. 
I am informed that the total cost for more than the 25,000 retail 
stores in Florida is less than $195,000 annually. It is an easy, low-
cost policy that has reaped enormous benefits for consumers by giving 
them a right to know at the grocery store. In addition, it has helped 
the stores better market their produce.


          The American Public Wants this Valuable Information

  The honest truth laying at the core of this bill is that the people 
back home in our districts are curious and just want to know this 
valuable information. Today, virtually everything in the supermarket 
bears its place of origin, except meat and produce. A CBS/Public Eye 
Poll taken last year showed that about 80 percent of the American 
public favor country-of-origin labeling. Why? So that they can have 
this useful information. There are many ways for consumers to use this 
information. Individuals who are concerned about international affairs 
and human rights can know if they are--and hopefully avoid--buying a 
product that may come from a regime that supports non-democratic or 
even racist policies, have poor child labor practices, or anything else 
from a range of legitimate other concerns.
  It is relevant to give another example of how this is important on a 
practical level. This is called ``trace back.'' In March of 1996, for 
example, there was a very serious problem with Guatemalan raspberries 
that were imported into twenty-states, including my home state of 
California. These fruits were making people sick through cyclospora, a 
very serious parasite that invades the small intestine and causes 
extreme diarrhea, vomiting, weight loss, and severe muscle aches. The 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia 
issued an advisory for people not to eat Guatemalan raspberries until 
the problem could be investigated, contained and eradicated. The 
average American was unable to find out from what country were the 
raspberries in the grocery store. In the absence of labeling, concerned 
shoppers had no choice but not to buy any raspberries. This hurts 
consumers by limiting choice. It hurts growers from all the other 
countries with which we import. The current policy also hurts 
supermarkets, grocery stores, and family businesses of all sizes.


                               Conclusion

  Unfortunately the nay-sayers have dismissed the importance of this 
common-sense practice all too quickly. Curiously, it is said that 
giving the American consumer the information at the shelf or bin is 
somehow superfluous or confusing. I remind you that this information is 
already in the back of the store as required by current law.
  I am very curious to see who will rise to oppose this legislation. 
Are there Members who do not want any families, children, or women to 
have the basic right to know from where come the fresh fruit and 
vegetables they are serving at home? Are there Members who want keep 
this information from consumers? Are there members who want our 
citizens to have different information from their foreign counterparts? 
It is my hope that this is not the case. Certainly, the Members who 
have cosponsored this bill answered this question decisively and in 
support of everyday Americans.
  There is nothing in this legislation that is intended to be or shall 
prove discriminatory or protectionist. Information is the most 
important tool for consumers who have a right-to-know. The information 
that will be easily displayed through this bill on a shelf or bin will 
empower consumers. And we will certainly continue to import and enjoy 
produce from around the world, as it is often the only source for fresh 
produce when our growing season ends.
  This is common-sense legislation that will lead to a uniform trade 
policy and benefit all consumers. I thank all of the Representatives 
and Senators who have supported this policy in the past and those 
Members who are joining me today as original cosponsors.

                          ____________________