WG: comment on COOL

From the federal docket on COOL, the comment from Western Growers and Matt McInerney. WG addresses abbreviations, documentation, third party audits, bulk displays and USDA guidance.




September 29, 2008



Country of Origin Labeling Program, Room 2607-S
Agricultural Marketing Services
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Stop 0254
1400 Independence Avenue, SW Facsimile: 202-354-4693
Washington, DC 20250-0254 http://www.regulations.gov

Re: Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0081 - Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling

Western Growers (WG) has commented on the two previous COOL notices and hereby submits its comments on the final interim rule.

WG is an agricultural trade association representing nearly 3,000 growers, packers, and shippers of fresh fruits, nuts, and vegetables. WG members grow, pack, and ship 70 percent of the fresh fruits and nuts and 90 percent of the fresh vegetables produced in the states of Arizona and California.

WG supports the Department’s streamlined approach final interim rule; however, we offer the following comments relating to specific provisions in an effort to provide greater clarity, particularly in areas where we have noted some confusion or ambiguity on the part of our growers and shippers of fresh produce commodities.

Abbreviations – Section 60.300(e)

We agree with the Department that country abbreviations should be unmistakably identifiable. The Department refers to CBP which maintains a list of approved country abbreviations, however, a review of the CBP approved country abbreviations reveals that many abbreviations may not provide consumers with an identifiable country of origin and would not, therefore attain the set goal of COOL. In addition, the referral to CBP is an extremely difficult website to navigate and therefore not workable. The produce industry needs clear examples and USDA should publish guidance lists from as many reliable sources as practical, including CBP, in order to maximize flexibility to allow the produce industry to have as many abbreviation sources as possible.

As for shipping documentation, WG does not believe that shipping documents exchanged within the trade distribution channels should be required to include a legend for origin abbreviations on each document as most within the industry will be familiar with the majority of commodities and their origins. Additionally, virtually all shipping cartons will contain the full printed name of the country of origin. Therefore, this requirement is not all necessary and would be duplicative.


Audit and Enforcement – Section

WG would request that the Department amend the requirement for producing documentary evidence material from a 5 day to a more reasonable 30 day period. WG believes that a 5 day period may not always allow a retailer or other entity sufficient time to produce all necessary records without causing disruption to the normal business practice. Further WG believes that a 30 day period would not be unreasonable and would be consistent with the same time frame provided by the Secretary for a retailer or supplier to take corrective steps in order to be compliant.

Also, the Department must emphasize that 3rd party verification audits are not a requirement. Consistent with PACA, a buyer is entitled to rely on seller representation.

Markings – Bulk Displays

WG urges the Department to adopt a reasonable standard for labeling by stickered commodities displayed in bulk. WG believes that a threshold of approximately 30 percent should be set for commodities in a bulk display as stickered with the overall industry goal of 50 percent. This should provide more than adequate information/notice to the consumer as to the origin of the commodity.

Processed or Blended Commodities

WG urges the Agency to be consistent when determining exemptions. The purpose of COOL is to enable a consumer to determine the source of the commodity being considered for purchase. While marketplace influence will help determine the extent of labeling practices, providing exemptions for some covered commodities and not others does not provide consistent labeling requirements.

The Agency has determined that when distinct covered commodities are packaged together they are exempt from labeling requirements, while two different covered commodities of the same genus botanical family are apparently required to be labeled. As an example lettuce and carrots packaged as a salad blend are exempt, but iceberg lettuce and red leaf lettuce mixed together would not be exempt.

WG believes that the Agency must be consistent in the guidance. The Agency needs to give specific guidance whether it is based on commodities from the same genus, family, order or sub-class, etc. Merely citing an example of two commodities does not provide the needed definite guidance in determining whether labeling is required.



Finally, WG requests that when discussing or issuing a rule, the Department refrain from referring to non-related commodity groupings or previous COOL rulings rather than citing specific examples. Previous Agency comments have actually caused some confusion within industry segments when using examples of shell-fish or meat when addressing fresh fruits or vegetables. While some of the basics may be the same, detailed explanations using unrelated commodity groupings may actually lead to greater confusion rather than clarification for those seeking Agency advice or rulings.

Sincerely,



Matthew M. McInerney
Executive Vice President