COOL Comment - California Grape and Tree Fruit League

From the federal docket on country of origin labeling, a comment from Barry Bedwell about COOL. He points out that too much flexibility in labeling can result in a variance in demands by buyers, and he also observe that a six month phase in period would do tree fruit growers little good since their season is all but over anyway.




September 29, 2008
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: www.regulations.gov
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
Attn: Country of Origin Labeling Program
Room 2607-S; Stop 02541400 Independence Avenue
SWWashington, D.C. 20250

Re: Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0081; Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL)

With origins dating back to 1911, the California Grape & Tree Fruit League (League) is non-profit public policy and advocacy organization representing growers, packers, shippers, and exporters of California’s table grape and deciduous tree fruit communities. The League’s members collectively account for approximately eighty five percent of the volume of California table grape and tree fruit production. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on certain elements under the COOL Interim Final Rule. While we believe the rule is a vast improvement over the regulations as interpreted under the requirements of the 2002 Farm Bill and will serve well the needs of consumers and the produce industry, there are three specific areas we wish to provide input.The first concerns the reality that while the large majority of tree fruit is individually stickered, and even though under normal packing and handling procedures an estimated 10 to 30 percent of the stickers fall off prior to being displayed at retail establishments, the fact that a majority of the fruit remains identified should present no further problems in these cases. However, for growers and shippers who deal with shipments of non-stickered fruit, these entities may find themselves disproportionately impacted as retailers have the ability to require different labeling standards from their suppliers, all or none of which will be identical. We are concerned that the lack of a specific minimum labeling requirement could ultimately require suppliers to have multiple containers and packaging inventories available. In addition, a possible scenario is that a producer supplying fruit for bulk sale that is not currently stickering fruit may now be required by retailers to sticker individual pieces of fruit because the rule only “encourages” retailers to use placards or other methods. Under this rule, the fact is that a retailer will be able to pass the burden on to the supplier. This is going to be expensive, and those producers who can not comply could possibly be subject to a material loss in revenue. We believe the rule should have allowed for a minimum standard to ensure greater consistency in compliance. With a minimum standard, if a single requirement were in place (i.e. labeling on shipping container, individual clam shells, bill of lading, invoice, etc.) the supplier could meet, without question, the minimum requirement and thus the burden could be more equitably distributed. We firmly support the rule’s flexibility in making available various ways to discern origin information. The ability to comply through marking on a bill of lading, invoice, sticker, container or other vehicle carrying the covered commodity is a clear recognition that the marketplace is dynamic and will demonstrate the ability to adapt to various compliance methods.The second area of concern revolves around the creation of a reasonable phase-in period for the rule so that suppliers could use existing inventory to the greatest extent possible. We would support a one year phase-in as opposed to six months in that given the shipping season for table grapes and tree fruit, which generally runs May through October, a six month phase in from October through March would be of no benefit for our sector.The third and final area of comment concerns the use of state abbreviations in labeling practices. While we do not see this as a major issue for California, in the spirit of cooperation and flexibility and at the same time meeting the intent of the law, we believe that state abbreviations should be acceptable.As the September 30, 2008 compliance date approaches we look forward to both your response to these questions and to the educational outreach on retailer compliance to follow. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Barry Bedwell
President