|
             
|
WASHINGTON —(AP)— Some farm-state senators are asking the Bush administration to explain how it developed its latest cost estimate for labeling the origin of meat and other foods. ``Right now we've got the worst of both worlds: We're not being allowed to know the origins of meat that our families are served, and we are placing our meat exports in jeopardy by not having a country of origin labeling requirements as other countries do,'' Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said last week. Last Monday, USDA released figures doubling to $4 billion its estimate of what the labeling program, commonly called ``COOL,'' will cost. The 2002 farm bill President Bush signed requires that the labels start appearing on meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and peanuts by next September. Packers and retailers have pushed to get the labeling program rolled back, arguing it costs too much for too little benefit. Supporters say the program will allow U.S. producers to sell more meat at a premium price and will help consumers know what they are buying. The new estimate predicts that producers and packers could spend $3.3 billion to keep separate pigs, cattle and sheep before they're slaughtered. USDA said it would cost at least another $500 million to establish and maintain records. In an initial estimate last year, the department put the record-keeping cost at almost $2 billion for the first year. Last month, congressional auditors said in a report that the department could not show how it supported that estimate and questioned its assumptions about how many of the records are already kept. Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., requested that review and, in a letter sent last Wednesday, questioned whether the latest estimate was inflated. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., agreed. ``I think they're playing games,'' he said of the USDA. ``They say they'll implement what the Congress passes, but I think indirectly they're trying to undermine the legislation,'' Baucus added. USDA officials said they would not debate the merits of the legislation, but did contend that the cost estimate was studied for a year and included visits to retailers, a dozen ``listening sessions'' across the country, and 3000 written comments, among other analysis. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., also has called on the administration to justify the recent estimates. And Republican Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming said he thought the estimate was too high, though he did not go as far as the Democrats in his criticism. ``The USDA continues to focus only on the costs of implementing COOL, but it fails to recognize the benefits of this law ... If COOL is implemented in the most effective manner, I believe the cost would be on the lower end of that estimate,'' Enzi said. The House passed a measure this year to block the requirement from taking effect next year by cutting off money for it in a spending bill for farm programs. The Senate version of the bill includes the funds, however, and Johnson and Daschle plan to offer an amendment to that bill directing Senate negotiators to keep the money in the compromise legislation worked out between the two versions. |
|
 |
|
Questions? Comments? Suggestions? |