Waving the Flag Over U.S. Produce

Patriotism and concerns over food safety in the wake of Sept. 11 have revived long-stalled legislation that would require supermarkets to identify the country of origin of produce and possibly meat and fish as well.

California fruit and vegetable farmers hope the requirement will help them battle imports. But importers say the measure is protectionist and that it could spark a trade war with other countries.

The requirement is buried in both House and Senate versions of a major farm bill that extends federal agricultural support programs. Both versions have been approved and are headed to conference committee.

Both provisions would require signs on display cases or stamps or stickers on fruits and vegetables identifying their country of origin. The Senate version also would require labels on beef, lamb, pork, fish and peanuts.

Farm groups say these labels will help consumers make informed choices about the products they’re buying.

And, they say, the labels could persuade shoppers to pay more for U.S. products. That would help farmers--especially California’s struggling fruit and vegetable growers--cover rising production costs.

“Our producers endure a number of costs with regard to regulation that other countries aren’t required to abide by,” said Lisa Dillabo, director of international trade and plant health for the California Farm Bureau. “These give consumers confidence in the food supply.” Many consumers, she said, have shown that they are willing to pay more for what they feel is added protection.

Importers, however, say the measure amounts to a protectionist trade barrier designed to position domestic goods as safer products, even if they’re not.

One thing’s for sure, analysts say. The long-stalled measure’s recent success is owing to its link--however tenuous--to efforts to combat bio-terrorism and ensure food safety.

“With the threat of bio-terrorism becoming an increasing worry on consumers’ minds, country-of-origin labeling is becoming more important,” said Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), who introduced a country-of-origin bill in the late 1980s when he served in the House. Such labeling would help in segregating infected food in case of an outbreak in another country, he says.

House measure sponsor Rep. Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs), who represents table grape growers, says it will give producers the ability to “market their produce and tout why domestically grown produce is better.”

That kind of promotion could create trade tensions, experts say, and encourage poor treatment for U.S. produce in export markets, where U.S. fruit already is labeled.

“This has the potential for backfiring on the U.S.,” says Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. “If the U.S. does it, other countries could say that’s a green light for us to do it too,” he says.

Retailers, the measure’s biggest critics, say the regulation is no guarantee of safety and would be costly and difficult to manage.

“We have all of the responsibility and the liability and I don’t think we should,” said John Motley of the Food Marketing Institute, a group that represents retailers.

Besides, retailers say, many of the country’s largest shippers are already voluntarily labeling produce in an effort to boost sales, including apple growers from Washington state, navel orange growers from California and potato shippers from Idaho.

Moreover, several states, including California, have launched promotional campaigns to advertise the benefits of locally grown produce.

Mandates to label the origin of products exist in only a few states, including Florida, which adopted the regulation for all produce in 1979.

Although widely praised by the state’s growers, the regulation has done little to boost the market share of American produce in the state, according to Florida agriculture industry officials.

And given that, many importers don’t believe the regulation will hurt sales of imported produce.

“I don’t think it will change the playing field at all,” said grower and importer Bruce Taylor, chief executive of Taylor Farms in Salinas. “If you have great-looking product from Canada next to product that doesn’t look as good from the U.S., [consumers] will buy the product from Canada.”

Consumers, however, do seem to support labeling. A phone survey of 1,000 households by a produce industry newspaper, the Packer, found that 78% favored mandatory country-of-origin labeling.

In that survey, 90% of consumers surveyed believed labels also should list the chemicals used in production of those products.

And that’s what has some farmers and lawmakers concerned. Although country-of-origin labeling could give their products an edge in supermarkets, they say, it could also lead to more regulation, such as mandatory listing of pesticides, fertilizers and coatings such as wax used on produce.

Fruit and vegetables are the only items that would have to be labeled under the House version of the farm bill.

However, the Senate measure was broadened to mandate labels on meat, fish and peanuts to pick up the votes of lawmakers representing states with big interests in these sectors.

These two versions still have to be reconciled and could face some opposition from President Bush.

*

Times staff writer Richard Simon in Washington contributed to this report.