Poultry Labeling Defeated : Food: Opponents in Senate block enforcement of guidelines for fresh and frozen chicken. The rule was sought by California farmers and consumer watchdogs.
California farmers suffered another defeat in their seesaw battle to reform federal poultry labeling regulations when the Senate on Tuesday voted to reverse a U.S. Agriculture Department ruling designed to clarify for consumers the definitions of fresh and frozen chicken.
On a 61-38 vote, opponents of the rule turned back an attempt to restore funds to enforce the ruling, which set up three categories of chicken: fresh, hard-chilled and frozen.
The vote effectively derails the recent Agriculture Department decision that consumer groups hailed as a victory for truth-in-labeling and Southern lawmakers derided as an unfair trade barrier to selling out-of-state poultry products in California.
Led by Southern and Southeastern senators with large poultry industries in their states, a Senate appropriations subcommittee last week knocked out funds to implement the rule, which had been issued by the Agriculture Department on Aug. 25.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) led the fight on the Senate floor Tuesday to table that vote during consideration of the Agriculture Department spending bill.
“Consumers have a very common-sense notion of what the word fresh means, and the law should reflect that,” Boxer said. “For Congress to defend a system that allows millions of Americans to be duped on a daily basis is nothing short of aiding and abetting in a massive consumer fraud. Congress is supposed to end these kinds of deceptive practices, not endorse them.”
Richard E. Rominger, deputy secretary of agriculture, expressed disappointment with the vote.
“We thought that the rule was good for consumers and good for the industry in the long run. It gave consumers the information that they were entitled to.”
Supporters of the disputed ruling now must seek to restore the funds in conference committee with the House. But their chances are considered slim because the House bill does not address the chicken-labeling issue.
The agriculture ruling set up the three categories of chicken according to temperature ranges:
* Poultry products never chilled below 26 degrees--the freezing point of chicken--would be considered “fresh.”
* Poultry chilled below 26 degrees but above 0 degrees would be considered “hard-chilled.”
* Poultry chilled at 0 degrees or below would be labeled “frozen.”
Large national producers favor the previous rule that allowed chicken frozen to 0 degrees to still carry the “fresh” label.
The big Southern producers have argued for years that it was unrealistic--and virtually impossible--to maintain a precise 26-degree temperature while trucks carry thousands of the rock-hard birds to faraway markets such as the West Coast.
Consumer groups and California growers say the previous standard deluded the public into believing that chicken labeled fresh actually was, when in fact it was frozen then thawed.
The big national growers opposing the rule said it acted as special protection for California growers.
The two sides have been contesting the issue for years.
“In 1993, the California Poultry Industry Federation went to the California Legislature and said, ‘Look, we can’t compete with Southern and Southeastern states, so here’s a way we’ve conjured up to deal with the issue,’ ” said Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) during floor debate Tuesday.
The California Legislature passed a law requiring that chicken chilled below 26 degrees be labeled “previously frozen,” giving consumers more information on which to base their purchases.
The National Broiler Council, representing the big Southern producers, successfully sued to overturn the measure.
But in January, the Agriculture Department announced that it intended to publish the 26-degree standard in the Federal Register. Then in the face of continuing pressure from the Broiler Council, the department delayed the announcement.
In August the department published the new labeling requirements, only to be thwarted a few weeks later by the maneuver in the Senate appropriations subcommittee.
“I understand that these colleagues must fight for their state. If I was the senator from Arkansas, who knows what I would be doing, so I’m not being holier than thou in any way, shape or form,” Boxer said. “But it’s all about money--all about dollars--otherwise who would be opposing such a common-sense rule?”
