House and Senate Pass Different Versions of the 2007 Farm Bill

As the House and Senate have passed different versions of H.R. 2419, a House-Senate conference is needed to resolve the differences.

(Generally, in order for a bill to be implemented, identical versions of that bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then the bill must be approved (enacted) by the President.)

This summary focuses on H.R. 2419's provisions related to mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) and agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) user fees. (See BP notes for history of COOL regulations and for details of a threatened Presidential veto of H.R. 2419.)

Origin Labeling at "Final Point of Sale" for Certain Meat, Nuts, Etc.

Both the House and Senate version contain similar provisions that would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 USC 1638 et. seq.) to require that retailers inform consumers at the final point of sale of the country of origin for: beef, lamb, pork, and goat meat. (The Senate version adds these same COOL requirements for chicken.)

Five country of origin scenarios for meat. Both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2419 would amend 7 USC 1638a to require origin labeling for a covered commodity that is beef, lamb, pork, chicken (Senate version only), or goat meat at the final point of sale according to the following five scenarios:

U.S. country of origin. A retailer of a covered commodity would be able to designate it as exclusively having a U.S. country of origin only if the covered commodity is derived from an animal that was (i) exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S.; (ii) born and raised in Alaska or Hawaii and transported for a period of not more than 60 days through Canada to the U.S. and slaughtered in the U.S.; or present in the U.S. on or before January 1, 2008.¹

Multiple countries of origin. A retailer of a covered commodity that is derived from an animal that is: (i) not exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S.; (ii) born, raised, or slaughtered in the U.S.; and (iii) not imported into the U.S. for immediate slaughter, would be able to designate the country of origin of such covered commodity as all of the countries in which the animal may have been born, raised, or slaughtered.²

Imported for immediate U.S. slaughter. A retailer of a covered commodity that is derived from an animal that is imported into the U.S. for immediate slaughter would be required to designate the country of origin of such covered commodity as both: (i) the country from which the animal was imported and (ii) the U.S.

Foreign country of origin. A retailer of a covered commodity that is derived from an animal that is not born, raised, or slaughtered in the U.S. would be required to designate a country other than the U.S. as the country of origin of such commodity.

Ground meats. The retailer's notice of country of origin for ground beef, ground pork, and ground lamb (the Senate version adds ground chicken and ground goat) would be required to include: (i) a list of all countries of origin of such ground meat; or (ii) a list of all reasonably possible countries of origin of such ground meat.

(Note that H.R. 2419 would reorganize but maintain the current COOL requirements under 7 USC 1638a for wild or farm-raised fish.)

U.S. origin for perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, etc. Both versions of H.R. 2419 would amend 7 USC 1638a to state that for perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts (the Senate version adds macadamia nuts), that are produced exclusively in the U.S., the designation by a retailer of the U.S. state, region, or locality where such a commodity was produced would be sufficient to identify the U.S. as the country of origin.

Verifications and record keeping requirements. Both versions of H.R. 2419 would amend 7 USC 1638a(d) to state that in the event of an audit of any person that prepares, stores, handles or distributes a covered commodity for retail sale in order to verify compliance with the COOL provisions (including regulations promulgated under 7 USC 1638c(b)), such person would be able to provide records maintained in the normal conduct of the business of such a person, including animal health papers, import or customs documents, or producer affidavits. Both versions of H.R. 2419 would further prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) from requiring records other than those maintained in the normal conduct of business.

Warnings and fines for retailers/suppliers. Both versions of H.R. 2419 would amend 7 USC 1638b to state that if after a 30 day warning period, the Secretary determines that a retailer or a person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer (supplier), has not made a good faith effort to comply with and continues to willfully violate the COOL regulations under 7 USC 1638a, the Secretary would be able to fine such a person in an amount not more than $1,000 for each violation (current legislation calls for an amount not more than $10,000 for each violation).

AQI User Fee Exemption for Certain Commercial Trucks Transiting Through Canada, Etc.

The Senate version of H.R. 2419 would exempt from the payment of any AQI user fees, the owner or operator of any commercial truck that: (i) originates in the State of Alaska and reenters the customs territory of the U.S. directly from Canada; or (ii) originates in the customs territory of the U.S. (other than the State of Alaska) and transits through the customs territory of Canada before entering the State of Alaska.

(AQI user fees are fees for agricultural quarantine and inspection services provided in connection with certain commercial vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and international airline passengers arriving at ports in the customs territory of the U.S. (See ITT's Online Archives or 10/30/07 news, 07103020, for BP summary of the modest increase in AQI user fees for fiscal year 2008.))

Cargo area to remain sealed during transit through Canada. The Senate version of H.R. 2419 would also require that the cargo area of any commercial truck carrying an agricultural product remain sealed during transit through Canada.

¹The Senate version of H.R. 2419 would add the requirement that once present in the U.S., the covered commodity would have to remain continuously in the U.S.

²The Senate version adds that the provision allowing for multiple country of origin labeling would not alter the mandatory requirement to inform consumers of the country of origin of commodities covered under 7 USC 1638(2)(A).

House-passed version of H.R. 2419 available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2419eh.txt.pdf

Senate-passed version of H.R. 2419 available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2419eas.txt.pdf

BP Notes

1. The 2002 "Farm Bill," Public Law (P.L.) 107-171 required certain retailers of specified commodities to inform consumers at the final point of sale of the country of origin of those commodities, beginning September 30, 2004. Those commodities included: (a) muscle cuts of beef, lamb, and pork; (b) ground beef, lamb, and pork; (c) certain perishable agricultural commodities (i.e., fresh fruits and vegetables, whether or not frozen or packed in ice, and certain cherries in brine); (d) farm-raised fish; (e) wild fish; and (f) peanuts. (See ITT's Online Archives or 05/31/02 news, 02053115, for BP summary.)
2. The 2006 "Farm Bill" (P.L. 109-97) delayed the applicability of mandatory COOL for muscle cuts and ground beef, lamb, pork, certain perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts until September 30, 2008. (See ITT's Online Archives or 06/22/07 news, 07062230, for BP summary of an Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) notice reopening the comment period on its proposed rule for mandatory COOL for beef, lamb, pork, peanuts, etc.)
3. However, mandatory COOL took effect April 4, 2005 for wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish. (See ITT's Online Archives or 06/21/07 news, 07062125, for BP summary of AMS' reopening the comment period on its interim final rule on COOL for fish and shellfish.)
4. A statement of administrative policy by the Executive Office of the President states that if the "Farm Bill" were to be presented to the President in its current form (as of November 6, 2007), his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. The statement cited irresponsible commodity price supports, and improper accounting for government outlays (in the Senate version), among other reasons. Administrative statement, dated 11/06/07, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr2419sap-s.pdf