Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Peterson for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of maintaining food labeling for the American people.

Polls show 9 out of 10 Americans overwhelmingly support country of origin labeling. I certainly look for those labels when I go to the store. It ensures that the public knows the source of their food. What could be more important? In fact, American producers want to share that information because it is a way to differentiate their products in an increasingly international marketplace.

Country of origin labeling is strongly supported by America's farmers and ranchers, who are proud of what they produce. Restoring local food markets, in fact, is a growing trend across the Midwest and the whole country. Farmers and ranchers know that people are demanding more and more information about their food. Restaurateurs are putting on their menus ``local beef,'' ``local pork,'' and ``local chicken.''

COOL allows farmers and ranchers the ability to market their products with pride because the label has integrity. The widespread support for country of origin labeling is what led to its enactment and implementation in the 2002, 2008, and 2014 Farm Bills. The trend is very clear.

Current efforts in Congress to repeal country of origin labeling are simply veiled attempts to gut these laws for meat--for beef, for pork, for chicken, three arenas that are completely controlled by a few processing companies. It is just like the book that Upton Sinclair wrote at the beginning of the 20th century. We are back to the jungle. We are back to the jungle.

Opponents are pressing for less information for consumers, not more. They want to hide the product's origin.

H.R. 2393 is a premature attempt to undermine food labeling. They argue it is necessary because of the World Trade Organization decision that puts Canada and Mexico at a disadvantage. Well, this bill, as such, was never even raised in the WTO dispute, and labeling is supported by the WTO. The WTO dispute never addressed chicken. It has explicitly ruled U.S. labeling requirements for pork and beef are legal. And more importantly, Canada's claims of $3 billion in economic loss due to COOL are absolutely unfounded. The data is not even publicly available, and they are unsubstantiated.

The bottom line is the rationale behind this bill is a clear example of what is wrong with our trade policy. Congress should not let a few meatpacking companies use trade disputes as an excuse to gut important consumer protections and the rights of farmers in this country. It is our duty to protect American consumers, American farmers, and American ranchers, not the trade interests of any other country. Our people deserve a right to know where their food is produced and where it comes from.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source