By 
It doesn’t matter where you live in California, whether it’s farm or agricultural areas like the Coachella Valley, or cities like San Diego, CA, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Orange County, Anaheim , Irvine, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Yorba Linda, Fullerton, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Bernardino, Temecula, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Victorville, Santa Barbara, Ventura, La Jolla, Del Mar, San Marcos, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Pacific Beach, El Cajon, Chula Vista or Escondido, you’ll be glad to see a change at the grocery store when you shop for food and beverages, or produce.
The change has to do with the law. No, California farm attorneys will not be in the produce aisle. And California food and beverage or regulatory lawyers won’t be lurking near frozen food. California personal injury attorneys will not seek victims of slip and fall accidents. However, the change will please customers.
Until now, most consumers had no idea what country the food they ate came from. With the new COOL (Country of Origin Labeling) law taking effect after September 30, 2008, all that will change, with a few exceptions and a few quirks.
After years of lobbying for delays by supermarket lobby groups who argued that the law would be too expensive to implement and who lobbied for delays, COOL finally went into effect.
Now when you buy that apple, pick up a pack of most meats, or box up a head of lettuce, you’ll be able to tell from a label, sticker, or notice of some sort which country it came from. Unfortunately, so far, the law does not extend to dairy products and with China’s milk scare, one can hope that calls for it to be expanded to include these products will be heeded. The law does not apply to viscera such as the heart, liver or kidneys either, but how many households see these meats on the table?
The law also makes exceptions for processed foods like bacon or everyone’s favourite, spam, mix-and-match foods like peas and carrots, but it will likely help consumers feel much more secure in being able to avoid foods from certain countries, especially during the meal. poisoning outbreaks and feel more able to buy American products if they want to.
The law was laid out in the 2002 Farm Bill, but has been successfully delayed by lobbyists until now. Concerns about unsafe imports from China and elsewhere eventually outweighed efforts by the food industry to delay them. It was amended in the 2008 Farm Bill to include more food. Retailers have six months to learn about the regulations and comply with them (so there is a grace period here). The government is then supposed to announce a final set of regulations incorporating the shellfish and crustacean regulations already in place.
The law suggests that lobbying efforts may be the reason for some of the strange distinctions at COOL. For example, macadamia nuts are included, but walnuts are not. Did the nuts have a better lobbyist than the macadamia nut lobbyist, or was the macadamia state senator absent when the Farm Bill was passed?
There are also exceptions in COOL for butchers, fishmongers, restaurants, hotel restaurants, school canteens, and small retailers. Also, if spices, sauce, or breading have been added, labeling is not required. While not exactly food, the law doesn’t apply to pharmaceuticals either, although there are calls to extend the law to them. Commingled products in displays may be labeled simply “from two or more countries of origin.”
Consumers are likely to be surprised when they see how much of their food is imported. “I’ve been eating what?” and “Where does this come from?” it will likely be overheard by employees checking out as consumers stand in line and look at the new labels.
COOL has long been a target of American farmers and ranchers who believe that identifying foreign food imports can encourage buyers and manufacturers to buy more American food. Meatpackers, on the other side of the barbed wire, opposed COOL, citing the costs of its implementation.
But as the economic crisis in this country grows, shoppers may be increasingly inclined to buy American products not only for safety, but also to help other Americans. Who better to help than American farmers?
Lawmakers and consumer groups are angry that the USDA appears to be trying to evade Congress’ intent by allowing steaks and other cuts of meat to be labeled with multiple country of origin labels. Congress only wanted that exception for ground beef or for animals raised in more than one country. It has been said that there is a chasm of difference between the legal language that was passed by Congress and the rule allowing multi-country origin labels drafted by the USDA.
Some have suggested that it was the meat packers who did not want the requirement to separate cattle from Canada and Mexico, who are the reason why, at least to begin with, beef can be labeled only with a country of origin label. from North America. , as opposed to a US country of origin label. Unfortunately, with the lack of geographic knowledge of this country (just look at Jay Leno asking people on the street where Canada is), many people will assume that “North American” means the meat could not have come from outside the US, much less Mexico.
Consumer advocacy groups expect the USDA to make changes to the rules as it receives more feedback. Thirty-one senators, including Barack Obama, have already written to the Secretary of Agriculture asking for more restrictive rules on meat labeling. US ranchers have also called on the USDA to address the beef loophole and ensure the statute is faithfully implemented.
There are other discrepancies regarding how the law will be applied. Fish caught off the coast of Alaska by a Chinese- or Japanese-owned vessel may be labeled as a product of China or Japan. Foreign-raised beef that spends 30 days on a US feedlot can be labeled as US-sourced.
Retailers have discretion on how to label food. Meat counters, for example, may simply list all the countries where the meat is produced, or they may label each cut. The hamburger is still likely to give the consumer pause, as the ground beef can come from numerous countries.
Since all chicken and goat consumed in the US comes from the US, the chicken and goat industries petitioned to be included in the law.
Once the compliance goes into effect, businesses can be fined $1,000 per violation. The implementation of the law is expected to cost at least $2 billion.