Labels: COOL or unCOOL?

In my blog post "Why Should You Care About Ag Policy?" I discussed the different industries and key players involved in developing policy. Last week, I used the ongoing GMO-labeling debate to showcase the role of communication. This week, we will will look at another labeling controversy, country of origin labeling, to examine the role outside organizations can play in shaping ag policy.

What is Country of Origin Labeling?

The 2005, 2008, and 2013 Farm Bills amended and upheld the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require mandatory country of origin labels on specific food products. Country of origin labeling (COOL) allowed consumers to remain informed about where their products were born, raised, and slaughtered. This became especially important for the beef industry after a reported case of Mad Cow disease in Canada. However, it quickly turned into a policy nightmare. The full details of the process can be found at Packaging Digest. 

Here is a summary of the events:

• Canada and Mexico filed lawsuits with the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming these regulations violated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
• USA lost two counter-suits and its final appeal in June 2015
• WTO approved retaliatory tariffs in December 2015

 Retaliatory tariffs are taxes placed on imported or exported goods as a means for coercing a foreign country to comply with international trade rules. According to the Bismarck Tribune in December, the WTO approved tariffs by Canada and Mexico for $781 million and $228 million, respectively. The Ministers Fast and Ritz of Canada released a list of 38 possible tariffs, including many products unrelated to COOL, such as wine, jewelry, and furniture. 

These events forced the United States government to make a very difficult decision: 
maintain COOL and risk retaliation OR repeal a widely popular piece of legislation. 

Hot and Cold on COOL

Statistic from Forbes Food & Agriculture

The meatpacking industry opposed COOL since its inception, believing labels present an unnecessary burden and cost. On the other hand, consumer groups, small ranchers and farmers, and politicians supported COOL. They argued consumers have the right to know their food's origin and choose American products. The WTO's ruling and the threat of retaliatory tariffs forced each  organization to reconsider the costs and benefits of COOL. Below is a table of 12 national organizations and their final positions on COOL.

(Information gathered from organization websites.)

Each of these organizations, as well as others and individual citizens, lobbied Congress for one of its three options: keep COOL, repeal COOL, or repeal COOL and replace it with a voluntary labeling program. The House Agriculture Committee repealed COOL, while Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) proposed a voluntary program. Ultimately, time ran out and both chambers repealed COOL by removing its funding in the latest omnibus bill, according to the Wall Street Journal. After the repeal, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack said:

"Effective immediately, USDA is not enforcing the COOL requirements for muscle cut and ground beef and pork."

This policy decision demonstrates the difficulty policy makers face in balancing the competing demands of outside entities. In this case, the WTO ruling contradicted the desires of many Americans (Forbes reports 90% of Americans support country-of-origin labeling), and the risk of retaliatory tariffs caused many former COOL advocates to call for its repeal.

Unfortunately, policy is never black and white, but a "COOL" gray. Ultimately, Congress listened to testimonies and gathered evidence before deciding on the best-case scenario. Do you agree with Congress's decision to repeal country of origin labeling? Let me know your opinion in the comments.

The Role of Communication in the GMO-Labeling Debate

GMO-labeling is the most complex and contentious issue being debated in today's agricultural policy. Policy makers must balance the desires of consumers with the practical needs of the industry. When it comes to policy, perceptions by the public and decision makers can outweigh the facts of an argument. The role of communication becomes increasingly important as different groups offer competing messages. The issue of GMOs is the largest public relations war agriculture has fought in the last two decades, and so far the industry appears to be losing. 

What is a GMO?

GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are organisms whose genes have been engineered and altered in ways beyond the capabilities of nature. In functional terms, GMOs are seeds that have been modified to resist herbicides and increase production yields. According to a recent article by ABC News, 75 to 80 percent of foods contain GMOs. The chart (right) shows the increased prevalence of different GMO crops over the last 20 years.

Initial scientific studies discovered no safety concerns with GMOs, which have been tested and approved by the FDA. However, labeling advocates argue that not enough long-term research is available to trust the safety of GMOs, and consumers should have the right to make their own decisions concerning their health. 


Pro-labeling vs. Anti-labeling

Health and consumer rights' groups advocate a mandatory labeling law, which would require all products containing GMOs to be clearly labeled. According to the group Citizens for GMO Labeling, the movement is focused on food and government transparency. The food industry, including companies such as Pepsi Co., biotech seed producers such as Monsanto, and organizations such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) have invested time and money to oppose mandatory GMO-labeling policies. They argue that without scientific evidence to support concerns, labeling would place an undue burden on producers. It could also lead to higher grocery prices. 

As a compromise, the GMA proposed a SmartLabel system, which would provide product information to shoppers who scan a bar code, go online, call a 1-800 number listed on the package. Most policy makers and industry leaders are willing to support a voluntary labeling program, but there is much opposition to mandatory, on the package labeling. Conversely, pro-labeling advocates are not willing to accept SmartLabel as a compromise. A statement released by the GMA stated more than 300 million Americans have access to the program through the Internet. However, pro-labeling advocates argue this program would discriminate against the elderly, low-income shoppers, and minorities. To see full statements about SmartLabel, visit this link.

Over the last month, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has facilitated meetings between the food industry and labeling advocates. Vilsack testified to the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in early February that the two sides were unable to find enough common ground to proceed. 


State-labeling vs. Federal-labeling

Labeling advocates knew they would be unable to find enough support to push a mandatory program through Congress, so they began focusing their efforts at the state level. After a few states failed to pass mandatory labeling laws, advocates finally succeeded last year. Mandatory GMO-labeling will take effect on July 1, 2016, in Vermont. Similar legislation is pending in other New England states, according to Food Safety News. While labeling advocates see these laws as small successes, others believe a patchwork set of food standards will hinder the market and confuse consumers. 

In response to Vermont, the House of Representatives passed a bill to block state GMO-labeling laws and implement a national voluntary program. However, this bill, nicknamed DARK (Denying Americans the Right-to-Know) by opponents, has been unable to gain bipartisan support in the Senate. In a report by Agri-Pulse, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Minority Leader Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) both expressed resolve to pass federal legislation. No one wants to see a collection of varied state laws. In the meantime, House Republicans have called for more public education about GMOs by the USDA, but Vilsack said it is up to the federal government to resolve this issue and public relations efforts should be left to the food industry. 

Role of Communication

The Right to Know campaign supports
mandatory labeling of GMO products.

As this debate continues to unfold, both sides have courted the favor of the public. Despite having scientific evidence and a majority of policy makers on its side, the food industry has fallen behind pro-labeling groups in the public relations war. I believe three communication principles demonstrate why the Right-to-Know campaign has been gaining traction.



1. Speak with one voice, one message 

• Labeling groups push one message: transparency + consumer rights
• Anti-labeling groups push multiple messages: scientific evidence, rise of grocery costs, market difficulties, legal rights, etc.

2. Understand the audience

• Labeling groups focus on the impact and desires of consumers
• Anti-labeling groups have not adequately addressed consumer concerns 

3. Provide credible information and resources

• Pro-labeling videos, advertisements, and blogs have exploded on the Internet
• Anti-labeling information is difficult to find; consumers distrust information coming from politicians and large companies

Looking Ahead

To hear the most recent Congressional updates about GMO-labeling, watch the video below. Labeling advocates and industry leaders continue to wait for Senator Hoeven (R-ND), Senator Stabenow (D-MI), and the rest of the Senate Agriculture Committee to reveal a bipartisan compromise, which could be released soon. Share your views on the GMO-labeling debate in the comments or contact your state representatives.

Understanding Obama’s FY2017 Agriculture Budget

Obama announced his 2017 budget proposal on February 9, including provisions and cuts to agricultural programs. The budget proposes $24.6 billion in discretionary spending for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), about $1.1 billion less than 2016 spending levels. 

"The budget that we're releasing today reflects my priorities and the priorities that I believe will help advance security and prosperity in America for many years to come," said Obama. 

 Those priorities include increased research funding, nutrition and renewable energy programs, and cuts to crop insurance. Some of the key provisions of the budget include:

• $700 million for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) grants
• $12 billion over 10 years to expand the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT)
• $450 million for the Rural Energy for America Program
• Cut $18 billion over 10 years to crop insurance subsidies and payments

The budget received support from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), but legislators from agriculture states expressed their unwillingness to support the president's cuts to crop insurance. Obama received criticism from Senate and House members and Republicans and Democrats alike. 

"The harmful changes to U.S. farm policy contained in the Obama Administration budget come on the heels of attempts by the Administration last year to kill federal crop insurance," said Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX), the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

"While this budget request moves us forward on many fronts, I disagree with the President's suggestion that we make additional cuts to crop insurance," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the ranking minority member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. 

Proposals to cut crop insurance have increased since 2008 but have been largely unsuccessful. The Agricultural Act of 2014 set the most recent funding levels (see left).

The crop insurance industry has defended the need for federal subsidies. Farmers pay in advance for insurance protection that manages risk in a timely, efficient system which minimizes taxpayer harm, said a joint statement by the industry.

Sen. Roberts and Rep. Conaway

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said these cuts come after the USDA estimated a 56 percent decline in farm income over the past three years. Roberts called the budget "dead on arrival." 




Vilsack defended the budget cuts, stating he believes the government and farmers should share the cost of crop insurance premiums 50/50 and the majority of Americans support the President's position. 

For a complete discussion of the budget by Vilsack, follow this link.

The budget's other provisions received more support. The Summer EBT program will provide summer food benefits to families who qualify for free or reduced school meals to ensure children have access to healthy food options year-round. 

The biggest change in Obama's last budget was a significant increase in research funding. The proposal doubles discretionary spending for AFRI grants, which look for innovative solutions to farm challenges such as climate change, pollinator health, bacteria, and bioenergy. 

After nearly 350 researchers from agriculture universities and other institutions asked for increased USDA support, the UCS said it is thrilled with the President's decision to prioritize research.

"President Obama's budget shows he has his eye on the right priorities," said Ricardo Salvador, director of UCS's Food and Environment program. 

Budget Process Overview

The President proposes a budget each spring for Congressional review. Members of the budget and appropriations committees submit final limits in the annual spending bills, which are voted on by Congress and signed into law by the President. In the past, Congress has not supported the President's attempts to cut crop insurance, and FY2017 is unlikely to differ. 

Industry leaders, government agencies, and researchers will have to wait for the final spending bills to celebrate or denounce the budget. You can share your opinion by contacting your state delegation. 

Why Should You Care About Ag Policy?

First, what is ag policy?

Agricultural policy refers to the laws ruling domestic and foreign agriculture. This broad definition demonstrates the wide range of topics and issues encompassed in ag policy. While many people associate agriculture with farming, agricultural policy is involved in all aspects of the market. The video below demonstrates how agriculture can be found all around us:

Who are the key players?

     -  Consumers
     - Producers, manufacturers, distributors
     - Organizations, associations
     - Legislators, policy makers
     - Government agencies
     - Media

From the raising of products on farms and ranches,

To the packaging and labeling of products,

To the way products are sold and traded,

And all of the sales and practices in between,

Legislators guide the agriculture industry by creating policy.

Why should you care about ag policy?

Agricultural policy impacts all citizens. In fact, agriculture is one of the only policy areas that interacts with people in their daily lives. Policy sets guidelines for ag industries. According to statistics published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), agriculture-related industries contributed $789 billion to the U.S. economy in 2013 and employed millions of Americans. Even citizens with no connection to the agriculture industry rely on the policies passed by legislators and upheld by government agencies to keep us safe.

So far in 2016, legislation has been debated on the following issues:

• Senate Ag Committee passed child nutrition guidelines
• Congress appropriated funds for university research on food-borne illness, bees, and crop diseases
• President Obama vetoed congressional repeal of federal water regulations
• America negotiated an international trade agreement with 12 nations
• State and federal legislators are debating new GMO labeling regulations

How is policy created?

Lastly, it is important to understand how the key players interact to create policy. Congress may pass legislation, but they receive input from industry leaders, associations, the other branches of government, and constituents. While ag policy may not receive as much popular media attention as other issues, legislators still take it seriously. (In fact, Senator Ted Cruz was the first Republican presidential candidate to win the Iowa caucus without the support of the corn industry.) 

Legislators are most interested in the opinions of their constituents, so it is important for all citizens to remain informed. The purpose of this blog is to help readers cultivate a broader knowledge of agricultural issues and policy.