Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

Producer groups pledge to kill USDA plan to charge COOL user fees
by Joan Murphy
http://www.theproducenews.com/StoryNews.cfm?ID=7575

02/19/2008
WASHINGTON -- Producers are expressing outrage over a U.S. Department of
Agriculture plan to collect $10 million in user fees to help finance
enforcement of the new country-of-origin labeling measure. This comes as
the produce industry is left guessing what the final COOL program may look
like.

"It's shocking that the president would pledge to veto any legislation that
increases taxes, yet propose a new tax to implement country-of-origin
labeling," National Farmers Union President Tom Buis said in a statement.

"It's one thing for Congress to mandate country-of-origin labeling so
consumers can have that information at point of sale, but it would be
totally irresponsible to punish the produce industry by making our members
pay for a regulatory program that is being imposed upon them," United Fresh
Produce Association President Tom Stenzel said in a statement.

"It's clear that USDA is sending a signal to Congress that inspections will
cost money -- so be it," Mr. Stenzel added in the statement. "But let's
make sure that Congress appropriates whatever it costs to pay for
government's role. Industry will already face major new costs and changes
in our business systems without USDA piling on. We're going to work to make
sure user fees for COOL inspections never take effect."

The Agricultural Marketing Service has $1 million to support rulemaking,
compliance and education for a program that covers only fish and shellfish,
Bruce Summers, chief of AMS' Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act
Branch, said at the USDA meeting of the Fruit & Vegetable Industry Advisory
Group.

In the fiscal 2009 budget request, AMS is asking Congress to approve a new
user fee that would collect $10 million to cover compliance costs for the
rest of the commodities, Mr. Summers said at the Feb. 7 meeting.

With the September deadline fast approaching, Mr. Summers said that AMS has
yet to make a decision on finalizing its regulations for beef, lamb, pork,
perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts.

"The 2003 proposed regulations are in a holding pattern right now," he
said. In June, AMS re-opened the comment period on the 2003 proposal and
received more than 700 comments, he added.

The dilemma is that the 2007 farm bill still pending in Congress contains
an industry-supported compromise to change the COOL program. But the
compromise, which would reduce penalties on retailers and the labeling
burden on produce suppliers, is being held captive by a delayed farm bill.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) told The Wall
Street Journal this month that Congress may explore postponing COOL.

Mr. Summers mapped out the agency's options as the farm bill negotiations
drag on. AMS could publish the final rule if the farm bill does not pass
Congress, he said. If it does pass, AMS could publish a new proposed rule
or publish an interim final rule.

One produce industry representative complained that companies are in a bind
because of the uncertain timeline, since they must make purchasing
decisions on labels for upcoming harvests.

"We are aware of the tight deadline," he said. "We can't change the
September 30 deadline."

While providing little guidance, Mr. Summers directed the produce industry
to look back at how AMS allowed the seafood industry a phase-in period for
implementing the new law. "That's the best insight," he said.

The 2004 interim final rule allowed the seafood industry six months for
existing inventories to clear through the channels and gave USDA a year to
help the industry comply with the new rule.