Country of origin labeling shows your steak's from three countries

After a seven-year congressional wrangle among trade groups angling for a leg up, supermarkets finally deployed country-of-origin labeling across the fresh food departments.

Now you know the cantaloupe came from Costa Rica, the tilapia from Thailand and the porterhouse from Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Huh? Yep, all three, because the calf came from Mexico, was fattened in Canada and slaughtered in Kansas City.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture started enforcement two weeks ago after a multi-year phase-in that most recently rolled through the meat counter.

Inspectors will find Tampa Bay grocery chains printing the required information on price tags, posting it on shelf signs or both. Some stores use only one sign. Some did a better job training their clerks than others. And none offered customers brochures of the rules that come laced with as many loopholes as the coasters at Busch Gardens.

First, labeling is required only at supermarkets because congressional types labored under the fiction that butcher shops, produce markets and small grocers only trade in local goods, not imports. The ingredients of most dried, processed and prepared foods are exempt. So are pet foods, some kinds of nuts like almonds, organs like liver, all turkey and any meat byproduct. Meat mixtures such as lunch meats, hot dogs and sausage are label-free, too; their making's too hopelessly scattered to identify as foreign or domestic. Besides, customers probably don't want to learn the birthplace anyway, much less where they've been.

Make no mistake. Any law that offers consumers more information on what they are eating is good news. That's why groups like Consumers Union laud country-of-origin labeling (COOL) record-keeping as a big step in food safety.

But know this law was conceived as a "Buy USA" incentive to compete with imports that are 13 percent of fresh-food sales.

Does the added record-keeping help with food recalls? Not really. The necessary food tracking information already was stockpiled to comply with bio-terrorism laws, said Deborah White, chief legal counsel for the Food Marketing Institute. This just added country of origin to a list of more specific tracing data.

"COOL was created as a marketing program, not a food safety program," said USDA spokesman Billy Cox.

Phil Lempert, a marketing consultant, calls the meat labeling rule "an unkind cut" that makes all imports suspect while offering an illusion of food safety.

His surveys found three of every four shoppers willing to switch stores just for a U.S. meat label.

He foresees a handful of giant chains trying to corner all of what can be labeled "Product of the United States" as a competitive edge.

When this all started in 2002, the safety of domestic foods over imports may have been more of a promotable feature. But no doubt that's been eroded since American customers have endured a series of such big domestic salmonella scares with California spinach in 2006 (innocent), Florida tomatoes in 2008 and Georgia peanut products this winter.

COOL compliance is more complex than it sounds. The record-keeping and keeping meats separate costs food companies and retailers about $506 million a year, estimates the USDA Economic Research Service. That ends up in food prices.

Bang for the buck? Compare that to about $2 billion in annual government spending on all federal food safety programs.

Mark Albright can be reached at albright@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8252.