[House Report 114-131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
1st Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { 114-131
======================================================================
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015
_______
May 29, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Conaway, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2393]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2393) to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to
repeal country of origin labeling requirements with respect to
beef, pork, and chicken, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Country of Origin Labeling Amendments
Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR BEEF,
PORK, AND CHICKEN.
(a) Definitions.--Section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended----
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (7);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (8),
and (9) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7),
respectively; and
(3) in paragraph (1)(A) (as so redesignated)----
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the
following new clause:
``(i) muscle cuts of lamb and venison;'';
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following new clause:
``(ii) ground lamb and ground venison;'';
(C) by striking clause (viii); and
(D) by redesignating clauses (ix), (x), and (xi) as
clauses (viii), (ix), and (x), respectively.
(b) Notice of Country of Origin.--Section 282 of the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638a) is amended----
(1) in subsection (a)(2)----
(A) in the heading, by striking ``beef, lamb, pork,
chicken,'' and inserting ``lamb,'';
(B) by striking ``beef, lamb, pork, chicken,'' and
inserting ``lamb,'' each place it appears in
subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D); and
(C) in subparagraph (E)----
(i) in the heading, by striking ``Ground
beef, pork, lamb, chicken,'' and inserting
``Ground lamb,''; and
(ii) by striking ``ground beef, ground pork,
ground lamb, ground chicken,'' each place it
appears and inserting ``ground lamb,''; and
(2) in subsection (f)(2)----
(A) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as
subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively.
Brief Explanation
The Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, H.R.
2393, amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal
country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork, and
chicken.
Purpose and Need for Legislation
In 2002, Congress enacted mandatory country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) provisions requiring retailers of certain meat
products to inform consumers of a product's country-of-origin.
Controversial aspects of COOL prompted Congress to revisit the
law in the 2008 Farm Bill, which included several amendments to
the 2002 statute.
Less than five months after the COOL implementing rule was
published in 2008, Canada and Mexico challenged the rule at the
WTO, arguing that it had a trade-distorting impact by reducing
the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S.
market.
The process has since progressed through the dispute
settlement panel phase (report issued November 2011), and a
U.S. appeal to the WTO's Appellate Body (report issued June
2012). In both instances, the WTO found that the way U.S. COOL
regulations were implemented violated U.S. WTO obligations by
discriminating against imported livestock.
The United States was given until May 2013 to bring its
COOL regulations into compliance with the findings of the
dispute settlement panel, as modified by the Appellate Body. In
response, USDA issued a revised COOL rule in May 2013 which
required that production steps--born, raised, and slaughtered,
by origin country--be included on meat labels. The revised rule
also prohibited the commingling of meat from imported and
domestic livestock. Canada and Mexico claimed the revised rule
did not bring the United States into compliance, and
furthermore they said the revised rule, especially the
prohibition on commingling, was more onerous than the original
rule. A key criterion of current COOL implementation is that it
requires ``segregation'' of animals by country of origin, which
raises the cost of utilizing imported livestock.
At the request of Canada and Mexico, the WTO established a
compliance panel to determine if the revised rule brought the
United States into compliance with previous rulings. The
compliance panel report, released October 20, 2014, upheld the
earlier findings of discrimination.
The United States filed to appeal the compliance panel
report on November 28, 2014. On May 18, 2015, the WTO rejected
the United States' appeal and found for the fourth and final
time that the U.S. COOL requirements for beef and pork are
unavoidably discriminatory. The final ruling kick-starts the
WTO process to determine the level of retaliatory tariffs
Canada and Mexico can now impose of the U.S., which has widely
been predicted to have effects in the billions of dollars.
On Wednesday, March 25, the House Agriculture Committee's
Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee held a public
hearing to examine the implications of potential retaliation
against the U.S. Witnesses at the hearing testified as follows:
Canada and Mexico are by far the United States'
largest export markets, and purchased a record $485
billion in manufactured goods in 2014. Those exports
support millions of U.S. jobs. WTO-authorized
retaliation by two of the largest U.S. trading partners
could result in billions in tariffs affecting multiple
sectors of the U.S. economy, threatening the
livelihoods of American families.
With the threat of retaliation looming for our
nation's manufacturers, time has run out. The NAM and
the COOL Reform Coalition urge Congress to bring the
United States back into compliance with its WTO
obligations fully and quickly through the repeal of
these WTO inconsistent provisions.
--Ms. Linda M. Dempsey, Vice President of International
Economic Affairs, National Association of
Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.
Overall, an estimated $21.8 billion of personal
income and $35 billion of gross national product are
supported by the U.S. hog industry. Regrettably for the
U.S. pork industry, pork is on Canada's target list and
will likely be on Mexico's. Because COOL involves
agricultural products, retaliation is inevitably going
to fall heavily on U.S. agriculture.
Congress must be prepared to repeal the offending
parts of the statue to bring the U.S. into compliance
with WTO rules. Congress should not allow retaliation
against pork producers and other sectors of the U.S.
economy.
--Mr. John P. Weber, President Elect, National Pork
Producers Council, Dysart, IA
The importance of the U.S. trade relationship with
Canada and Mexico for American workers, farmers,
ranchers, and companies of all kinds is worth bearing
in mind. A trade dispute with a minor commercial
partner can be damaging; a trade dispute with the two
largest markets for U.S. exports could be highly
damaging.
More than 95% of the world's consumers live outside
our markets, but American farmers, workers, and
companies will not be able to sell their goods and
services to those consumers if we fail to live up to
these rules ourselves.
[T]he Chamber strongly urges Congress to move swiftly
to approve legislation repealing the COOL requirements
for muscle cuts of meat due to the imminent and all-
but-certain adverse ruling by the WTO Appellate Body in
May. Failure to do so could cost tens of thousands of
American jobs and jeopardize mutually beneficial trade
relationships with our two closest neighbors and
largest export markets.
--Mr. Christopher W. Wenk, Executive Director of
International Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, D.C.
With Canada the number one and Mexico the number six
market for U.S. wine exports, COOL-related retaliatory
tariffs would have an enormously negative economic
impact on our winemakers and grape growers.
COOL-related retaliatory tariffs will result in an
enormous loss of sales for U.S. wineries, estimated to
be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Since the
strong growth of U.S. wine exports to Canada and Mexico
over the past decade has in part been due to USDA's
Market Access Program, it would be most unfortunate now
for Congress to allow another U.S. law, such as COOL to
undo these hard-fought export gains.
--Mr. Tom LaFaille, Vice President and International
Trade Counsel, Wine Institute, Washington, D.C.
Forty percent of U.S. confectionery exports are to
Canada ($900 million) while 15 percent (more than $300
million) are to Mexico. These two markets together
total over 50 percent of U.S. confectionery exports. We
are deeply concerned that retaliatory duties from both
countries will target our industry.
U.S confectioners have worked hard to grow the
presence of U.S. confections and intermediates in
Canada and our efforts are paying off. Exports of
finished chocolate grew by almost $45 million in just
the last two years, while exports of bulk chocolate
grew by almost $12 million. Those years of investment
will quickly be diminished if the retaliations are
implemented.
We are aware already of Canadian companies using the
threat of the retaliation to lure manufacturers to new
and more secure supply sources. The loss of business
will impact U.S. confectionery companies and their
workers, also their communities.
--Ms. Alison Bodor, Executive Vice President, National
Confectioners Association, Washington, D.C.
The solution is for Congress to repeal COOL now.
Half-measures or other alterations to COOL will only
bring more uncertainty and possible WTO challenges.
That is unacceptable to the meat industry, as well as
to the other industries forced to look over their
shoulders, worried about potential retaliatory tariffs
from Canada and Mexico. We encourage you to work with
Chairman Conaway to repeal COOL before retaliation is
implemented.
--Mr. Michael T. Smith, Special Projects Manager,
Harris Ranch Company, Selma, CA; on behalf of the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack has also been quoted
numerous times acknowledging the repeal of the offending COOL
requirements as a viable option to bringing the U.S. into
compliance with its WTO obligations and avoiding retaliatory
measures.
In November 2014, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack said
that USDA analysis shows that there is no regulatory fix that
will allow COOL regulations to be consistent with the COOL law
and also satisfy the WTO rulings. Secretary Vilsack said that
Canada and Mexico would need to specifically say what measures
would be acceptable, or Congress would have to provide, in the
law, ``different directions'' to USDA to allow for WTO
compliance.
Testifying before the House Appropriations subcommittee on
agriculture on February 25, 2015, Secretary Vilsack explained
``[s]o either there has to be a generic label established by
Congress or you have to essentially repeal what is in the
current law if we lose the WTO appeal. Those are the two
options.''
In a May 1, 2015 letter to Congress, Secretary Vilsack
reaffirmed the need for Congress to repeal the disputed COOL
requirements or develop a generic North America label. However,
Canada and Mexico have previously rejected the North America
label rendering that option unacceptable.
Furthermore, an April 2015 report to Congress from USDA
explains that COOL requirements result in extraordinary costs
with little to no corresponding benefits:
In terms of producers, packers, and retailers, USDA's
regulatory impact analysis for the 2009 COOL rule
estimated incremental implementation costs of $1.3
billion for beef, $300 million for pork, $183 million
for chicken, and $2.6 billion for all covered
commodities (beef, pork, chicken, lamb, goat, fish,
fruits, vegetables, ginseng, peanuts, pecans, and
macadamia nuts).
[T]he increased costs of producing, processing, and
marketing food products to comply with COOL without a
commensurate measurable increase in consumer demand
results in economic losses to producers, packers,
retailers, and consumers and leads to a smaller overall
industry with higher consumer prices and less product
available.
[A]lthough consumers desiring COOL information
benefit from its provision, there is insufficient
evidence to conclude that such benefits translate into
measurable increases in consumer demand for beef, pork,
or chicken. Due to increases in the costs of production
resulting from COOL implementation, however, the
results of economic models indicate that consumers over
the longer run face higher beef and pork prices and
therefore purchase less beef and pork.
Namely, the benefits to COOL do not result in
measurable increases in demand that are sufficient to
offset losses to producers stemming from costs to
implement the rule.
Finally, although chicken was not a part of the WTO dispute
between Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., the industry requested
that COOL requirements for chicken be repealed as well due to
the high costs and minimal benefits associated with the
requirements. The National Chicken Council has repeatedly
expressed its desire to be removed from COOL requirements and
recently reiterated its support for repeal in a May 21, 2015
letter to Chairman Conaway stating:
The National Chicken Council greatly appreciates your
swift action yesterday in the House Agriculture
Committee to repeal country of original labeling
regulations for beef, pork and chicken products. Canada
and Mexico are our two largest trading partners, and we
have a keen interest in sustaining and growing these
important export markets.
The U.S. chicken industry is a proponent of free and
open trade. While we cannot speak on behalf of Canada
and Mexico as to why they limited their WTO appeal on
Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) to pork and beef, we
are keenly aware that chicken was near the top of the
list for retaliation by both countries. NCC supports
legislative action that will allow U.S. laws and
regulations pertaining to meat and poultry to be
compliant with our international trade obligations.
NCC is fully supportive of your COOL repeal bill,
H.R. 2393, and are grateful for your and
Representatives Costa and Rouzer's leadership in
resolving this critical issue before retaliatory
tariffs are imposed on United States agricultural
exports.
Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 of the bill designates the title of the bill as
the ``Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015.''
Section 2. Repeal of country of origin labeling requirements for beef,
pork, and chicken
Section 2 of the bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 to repeal country of origin labeling requirements for
beef, pork, and chicken. Subsection (a) amends the definitions
section, section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946,
to remove definitions of and subsequent references to beef,
pork, and chicken. Subsection (b) amends section 282 of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal country of origin
labeling notice requirements for beef, pork, and chicken.
Subsection (c) further amends section 282 and is a conforming
amendment to remove unnecessary references to two voluntary
programs.
Committee Consideration
I. HEARINGS
On March 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Livestock and
Foreign Agriculture held a public hearing to examine the
implications of potential retaliatory measures taken against
the United States in response to meat labeling requirements.
Members of the Subcommittee heard testimony and discussed
the impacts of potential retaliation by Canada and Mexico in
response to the United States' country-of-origin labeling
requirements for beef and pork. During the hearing, the
following witnesses testified on matters included in H.R. 2393:
Mr. John P. Weber, President Elect, National Pork
Producers Council, Dysart, IA
Mr. Christopher W. Wenk, Executive Director of
International Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Roger Johnson, President, National Farmers
Union, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Linda M. Dempsey, Vice President of
International Economic Affairs, National Association of
Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Tom LaFaille, Vice President and International
Trade Counsel, Wine Institute, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Alison Bodor, Executive Vice President,
National Confectioners Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Michael T. Smith, Special Projects Manager,
Harris Ranch Company, Selma, CA
II. FULL COMMITTEE
The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with
a quorum present, on May 20, 2015, to consider H.R. 2393, a
bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal
country of origin labeling requirements with respect to beef,
pork, and poultry, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2393 was placed before the Committee for
consideration. Without objection a first reading of the bill
was waived, and it was open to amendment at any point.
Chairman Conaway, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Rouzer, and Mr. Costa
were recognized for statements. Mr. Costa offered an amendment
to insert a short title for the bill as the ``Country of Origin
Labeling Amendments Act of 2015''. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
There being no further amendments, Mr. Costa moved that
H.R. 2393, as amended, be adopted and reported favorably to the
House with the recommendation that it do pass. Mr. King asked
for a recorded vote. By a roll call vote of 38 yeas to 6 nays,
H.R. 2393, as amended, was ordered reported. See Roll Call No.
1.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Chairman Conaway advised
Members that pursuant to the rules of the House of
Representatives Members had until May 22, 2015, to file any
supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views with
the Committee.
Without objection, staff was given permission to make any
necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect
the intent of the Committee. Chairman Conaway thanked all the
Members and adjourned the meeting.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the Committee sets forth the record of the
following roll call votes taken with respect to H.R. 2393.
ROLL CALL #NO.1
Summary: Costa Motion to report the bill, H.R. 2393, as
amended, favorably to the House with the recommendation that it
do pass.
Offered By: Representative Jim Costa
Results: Passed by a recorded vote of 38 yeas to 6 nays.
YEAS NAYS
1. Mr. Conaway 1. Mr. Peterson
2. Mr. Neugebauer 2. Mr. Walz
3. Mr. Goodlatte 3. Mr. McGovern
4. Mr. Lucas 4. Ms. Lujan Grisham
5. Mr. King 5. Ms. Kuster
6. Mr. Rogers 6. Mr. Nolan
7. Mr. Thompson
8. Mr. Gibbs
9. Mr. Austin Scott
10. Mr. Crawford
11. Mr. DesJarlais
12. Mr. Gibson
13. Mrs. Hartzler
14. Mr. Benishek
15. Mr. Denham
16. Mr. LaMalfa
17. Mr. Davis
18. Mr. Yoho
19. Mrs. Walorski
20. Mr. Allen
21. Mr. Bost
22. Mr. Rouzer
23. Mr. Abraham
24. Mr. Moolenaar
25. Mr. Newhouse
26. Mr. David Scott
27. Mr. Costa
28. Ms. Fudge
29. Ms. DelBene
30. Mr. Vela
31. Mrs. Bustos
32. Mr. Maloney
33. Mrs. Kirkpatrick
34. Mr. Aguilar
35. Ms. Plaskett
36. Ms. Adams
37. Ms. Graham
38. Mr. Ashford
Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture's
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the
body of this report.
Budget Act Compliance (Sections 308, 402, and 423)
The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new
budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority,
or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not
considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to
be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee prior to the
filing of this report are as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 28, 2015.
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2393, the Country
of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jim Langley.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2393--Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015
H.R. 2393 would repeal existing requirements for retailers
of beef, pork, and chicken to inform customers at the final
point of sale of the country of origin of those products. The
repeal would not affect existing requirements for country-of-
origin labeling for lamb, venison, goat meat, perishable
agricultural commodities, peanuts, farm-raised and wild fish,
ginseng, pecans, and macadamia nuts.
USDA inspects retail stores and audits supply chains
through cooperative agreements with state agencies to enforce
requirements for county-of-origin labeling. Based on
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), CBO
estimates that enactment of this bill would have an
insignificant effect on spending subject to appropriation over
the 2016-2020 period because USDA would continue to enforce
compliance with labeling requirements for other commodities. In
2015, USDA received an appropriation of $5 million for country-
of-origin inspections. Enacting H.R. 2393 would not affect
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
H.R. 2393 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jim Langley. The
estimate was approved by H. Samuel, Deputy Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to
repeal the country of origin labeling requirements for beef,
pork, and chicken in order to come into compliance with a World
Trade Organization ruling.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopted as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Earmark Statement Required by Clause 9 of Rule XXI of the Rules of
House of Representatives
H.R. 2393 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives.
Duplication of Federal Programs
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another
Federal program, a program that was included in any report from
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee does not believe that the legislation directs
an executive branch official to conduct any specific rule
making proceedings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT OF 1946
* * * * * * *
TITLE II
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Country of Origin Labeling
SEC. 281. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
[(1) Beef.--The term ``beef'' means meat produced
from cattle (including veal).]
[(2)] (1) Covered commodity.--
(A) In general.--The term ``covered
commodity'' means--
[(i) muscle cuts of beef, lamb, pork,
and venison;
[(ii) ground beef, ground lamb,
ground pork, and ground venison;]
(i) muscle cuts of lamb and venison;
(ii) ground lamb and ground venison;
(iii) farm-raised fish;
(iv) wild fish;
(v) a perishable agricultural
commodity;
(vi) peanuts; and
(vii) meat produced from goats;
[(viii) chicken, in whole and in
part;]
[(ix)] (viii) ginseng;
[(x)] (ix) pecans; and
[(xi)] (x) macadamia nuts.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``covered
commodity'' does not include an item described
in subparagraph (A) if the item is an
ingredient in a processed food item.
[(3)] (2) Farm-raised fish.--The term ``farm-raised
fish'' includes--
(A) farm-raised shellfish; and
(B) fillets, steaks, nuggets, and any other
flesh from a farm-raised fish or shellfish.
[(4)] (3) Food service establishment.--The term
``food service establishment'' means a restaurant,
cafeteria, lunch room, food stand, saloon, tavern, bar,
lounge, or other similar facility operated as an
enterprise engaged in the business of selling food to
the public.
[(5)] (4) Lamb.--The term ``lamb'' means meat, other
than mutton, produced from sheep.
[(6)] (5) Perishable agricultural commodity;
retailer.--The terms ``perishable agricultural
commodity'' and ``retailer'' have the meanings given
the terms in section 1(b) of the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (7 U.S.C.
499a(b)).
[(7) Pork.--The term ``pork'' means meat produced
from hogs.]
[(8)] (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means
the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Agricultural Marketing Service.
[(9)] (7) Wild fish.--
(A) In general.--The term ``wild fish'' means
naturally-born or hatchery-raised fish and
shellfish harvested in the wild.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``wild fish''
includes a fillet, steak, nugget, and any other
flesh from wild fish or shellfish.
(C) Exclusions.--The term ``wild fish''
excludes net-pen aquacultural or other farm-
raised fish.
SEC. 282. NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.
(a) In General.--
(1) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), a retailer of a covered commodity shall inform
consumers, at the final point of sale of the covered
commodity to consumers, of the country of origin of the
covered commodity.
(2) Designation of country of origin for [beef, lamb,
pork, chicken,] lamb, goat, and venison meat.--
(A) United states country of origin.--A
retailer of a covered commodity that is [beef,
lamb, pork, chicken,] lamb, goat, or venison
meat may designate the covered commodity as
exclusively having a United States country of
origin only if the covered commodity is derived
from an animal that was--
(i) exclusively born, raised, and
slaughtered in the United States;
(ii) born and raised in Alaska or
Hawaii and transported for a period of
not more than 60 days through Canada to
the United States and slaughtered in
the United States; or
(iii) present in the United States on
or before July 15, 2008, and once
present in the United States, remained
continuously in the United States.
(B) Multiple countries of origin.--
(i) In general.--A retailer of a
covered commodity that is [beef, lamb,
pork, chicken,] lamb, goat, or venison
meat that is derived from an animal
that is--
(I) not exclusively born,
raised, and slaughtered in the
United States,
(II) born, raised, or
slaughtered in the United
States, and
(III) not imported into the
United States for immediate
slaughter,
may designate the country of origin of
such covered commodity as all of the
countries in which the animal may have
been born, raised, or slaughtered.
(ii) Relation to general
requirement.--Nothing in this
subparagraph alters the mandatory
requirement to inform consumers of the
country of origin of covered
commodities under paragraph (1).
(C) Imported for immediate slaughter.--A
retailer of a covered commodity that is [beef,
lamb, pork, chicken,] lamb, goat, or venison
meat that is derived from an animal that is
imported into the United States for immediate
slaughter shall designate the origin of such
covered commodity as--
(i) the country from which the animal
was imported; and
(ii) the United States.
(D) Foreign country of origin.--A retailer of
a covered commodity that is [beef, lamb, pork,
chicken,] lamb, goat, or venison meat that is
derived from an animal that is not born,
raised, or slaughtered in the United States
shall designate a country other than the United
States as the country of origin of such
commodity.
(E) [Ground beef, pork, lamb, chicken,]
Ground lamb, goat, and venison.--The notice of
country of origin for [ground beef, ground
pork, ground lamb, ground chicken,] ground
lamb, ground goat, or ground venison shall
include--
(i) a list of all countries of origin
of such [ground beef, ground pork,
ground lamb, ground chicken,] ground
lamb, ground goat, or ground venison;
or
(ii) a list of all reasonably
possible countries of origin of such
[ground beef, ground pork, ground lamb,
ground chicken,] ground lamb, ground
goat, or ground venison.
(3) Designation of country of origin for fish.--
(A) In general.--A retailer of a covered
commodity that is farm-raised fish or wild fish
may designate the covered commodity as having a
United States country of origin only if the
covered commodity--
(i) in the case of farm-raised fish,
is hatched, raised, harvested, and
processed in the United States; and
(ii) in the case of wild fish, is--
(I) harvested in the United
States, a territory of the
United States, or a State, or
by a vessel that is documented
under chapter 121 of title 46,
United States Code, or
registered in the United
States; and
(II) processed in the United
States, a territory of the
United States, or a State,
including the waters thereof,
or aboard a vessel that is
documented under chapter 121 of
title 46, United States Code,
or registered in the United
States.
(B) Designation of wild fish and farm-raised
fish.--The notice of country of origin for wild
fish and farm-raised fish shall distinguish
between wild fish and farm-raised fish.
(4) Designation of country of origin for perishable
agricultural commodities, ginseng, peanuts, pecans, and
macadamia nuts.--
(A) In general.--A retailer of a covered
commodity that is a perishable agricultural
commodity, ginseng, peanut, pecan, or macadamia
nut may designate the covered commodity as
having a United States country of origin only
if the covered commodity is exclusively
produced in the United States.
(B) State, region, locality of the united
states.--With respect to a covered commodity
that is a perishable agricultural commodity,
ginseng, peanut, pecan, or macadamia nut
produced exclusively in the United States,
designation by a retailer of the State, region,
or locality of the United States where such
commodity was produced shall be sufficient to
identify the United States as the country of
origin.
(b) Exemption for Food Service Establishments.--Subsection
(a) shall not apply to a covered commodity if the covered
commodity is--
(1) prepared or served in a food service
establishment; and
(2)(A) offered for sale or sold at the food service
establishment in normal retail quantities; or
(B) served to consumers at the food service
establishment.
(c) Method of Notification.--
(1) In general.--The information required by
subsection (a) may be provided to consumers by means of
a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear and
visible sign on the covered commodity or on the
package, display, holding unit, or bin containing the
commodity at the final point of sale to consumers.
(2) Labeled commodities.--If the covered commodity is
already individually labeled for retail sale regarding
country of origin, the retailer shall not be required
to provide any additional information to comply with
this section.
(d) Audit Verification System.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may conduct an audit
of any person that prepares, stores, handles, or
distributes a covered commodity for retail sale to
verify compliance with this subtitle (including the
regulations promulgated under section 284(b)).
(2) Record requirements.--
(A) In general.--A person subject to an audit
under paragraph (1) shall provide the Secretary
with verification of the country of origin of
covered commodities. Records maintained in the
course of the normal conduct of the business of
such person, including animal health papers,
import or customs documents, or producer
affidavits, may serve as such verification.
(B) Prohibition on requirement of additional
records.--The Secretary may not require a
person that prepares, stores, handles, or
distributes a covered commodity to maintain a
record of the country of origin of a covered
commodity other than those maintained in the
course of the normal conduct of the business of
such person.
(e) Information.--Any person engaged in the business of
supplying a covered commodity to a retailer shall provide
information to the retailer indicating the country of origin of
the covered commodity.
(f) Certification of Origin.--
(1) Mandatory identification.--The Secretary shall
not use a mandatory identification system to verify the
country of origin of a covered commodity.
(2) Existing certification programs.--To certify the
country of origin of a covered commodity, the Secretary
may use as a model certification programs in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act, including--
(A) the carcass grading and certification
system carried out under this Act;
[(B) the voluntary country of origin beef
labeling system carried out under this Act;
[(C) voluntary programs established to
certify certain premium beef cuts;]
[(D)] (B) the origin verification system
established to carry out the child and adult
care food program established under section 17
of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act (42 U.S.C. 1766); or
[(E)] (C) the origin verification system
established to carry out the market access
program under section 203 of the Agricultural
Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623).
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
The purpose of country of origin labeling--to provide
information to consumers about the food they eat--has
repeatedly been ruled by the WTO to be a legitimate regulatory
goal. The challenge for us is to find a way to provide U.S.
consumers with the information they have said in numerous
surveys that they would like to see on food labels. These
surveys include those conducted by leading consumer
organizations such as Consumers Union and the Consumer
Federation of America. Many other countries have been able to
achieve this goal without sanctions. We should not so readily
abandon our efforts to provide U.S. consumers with information
they have repeatedly said they want.
We agree with the goal of avoiding retaliation under the
World Trade Organization (WTO) decision on country of origin
labeling, but a repeal of mandatory labeling for beef, pork and
poultry is premature. Retaliation is unlikely to begin for many
months. In the case of Brazil's cotton case against the United
States, retaliation began 21 months after the WTO upheld the
panel ruling on appeal.
Many supporters of a repeal of country of origin labeling
have argued that retaliation by Canada and Mexico will result
in lost trade opportunities. In fact, we do not know how much
the WTO will allow Canada and Mexico to raise tariffs as a
result of the decision. The amount will largely depend on how
much of the meatpacking industry's segregation and tracking
costs can be attributed to country of origin labeling. In fact,
meatpackers already have infrastructure in place to track
voluntary marketing attributes such as ``certified Angus,''
``grass-fed,'' ``organic,'' and USDA grades including
``choice'' and ``prime.'' It makes little sense to repeal
country of origin labeling when we do not yet know the amount
of retaliation that may be permitted.
Collin C. Peterson.
Richard M. Nolan.
Timothy J. Walz.
Michelle Lujan Grisham.