By Goody L. Solomon
Special to The Washington Post
Wednesday, August 22, 2007; F06

John Michael of Bethesda stood in the supermarket aisle comparing labels on two cans of mackerel. One said "product of China"; the other, "product of Peru." For Michael, it was a no-brainer. No seafood from China for him, given the recent news of tainted Chinese imports.

He wants to know where his food comes from. "Country-of-origin labeling is important to me for food safety reasons," said the 75-year-old grandfather. "My family's health is top priority."

Eighty-two percent of U.S. shoppers agree with Michael, according to a survey released in March by the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch. And a Consumers Union survey in June found even stronger sentiment: 92 percent of respondents said imported-food labels should identify the country of origin.

Though concerns over Chinese imports are paramount right now, the concept extends beyond current controversies, said Urvashi Rangan, a Consumers Union senior scientist and policy analyst. "We see country labeling as basic information, just like the ingredient panel or nutrition label."

U.S. farmers and cattle ranchers, competing against an influx of imports, also like the idea. They are banking on the notion that shoppers will buy U.S. products over imports if they can easily identify them.

Some labels already disclose the information. The Tariff Act of 1930 requires it for many products, including processed foods, toys, vehicle tires and appliances. That's why Michael saw country names on that canned mackerel, and that's why we know when olive oil comes from Italy and ham from Denmark, for example. Also, some suppliers -- notably of fresh fruits -- voluntarily affix country-of-origin stickers, so consumers know that their shelves hold apples from Chile, pears from Argentina and American nectarines.

But the existing rules are not enough for some farmers and consumers, who have been pushing for decades for a law to fill the gaps. They won a partial victory with the passage of the 2002 Farm Bill, which required country-of-origin labeling on fresh meats, seafood, produce and peanuts but exempted poultry and poultry products, tree nuts and any food processed in the United States with imported ingredients. The U.S. Department of Agriculture got the job of crafting specific regulations under the bill and putting them into effect by Sept. 30, 2004.

Then, during appropriations talks in Congress, food processors, packers and grocery chains railed against some of the bill's requirements, including "onerous" record keeping, and persuaded lawmakers to postpone new labeling rules for meats, produce and peanuts until 2008. Not for seafood, however: Alaska fishermen favored the law and had champions on the Hill. So the USDA enacted interim seafood rules effective in April 2005 that require disclosure of not only the country source but also whether the seafood is wild-caught or farmed. On my last shopping trip, as a result, I bought tilapia "farm-raised in Ecuador."

The struggle over labeling laws continues. During talks on the 2007 Farm Bill, negotiators struck a deal that addresses the processors', packers' and grocery chains' key objections. Companies would be able to rely on records that they already maintain instead of having to create new ones. Adjustments also were made to certain label terms. "Idaho potatoes" or "Washington apples" could signify a U.S. product with no additional information needed, for example -- something not allowed by the 2002 law. The compromise passed the House on July 26 and will go before the Senate in September.

But the Food Marketing Institute, which represents large retailers and wholesalers, did not sign on to the House compromise. "We are not ready to tie our hands," said Tim Hammonds, FMI president. And the Bush administration has threatened to veto the 2007 Farm Bill because it contains hot-button provisions on subsidies, nutrition and conservation.

There's another complication. While the 2007 legislation is in flux, the USDA still must promulgate regulations for the 2002 law by the Sept. 30, 2008, deadline. To that end, a department spokesman said, the USDA is reviewing comments it received on proposals covering meats, produce and peanuts, and on the interim seafood rules. In their comments, industry sectors voice support for the basic concept of country-of-origin labeling but protest requirements they deem troublesome and costly. Consumer advocates argue that "the time has come for full disclosure about where food comes from," to use the words of Consumers Union.

Parties to the compromise awaiting Senate action predict that if the 2007 Farm Bill fails, the new provisions will be inserted into other legislation because country-of-origin labeling has a growing appeal. "Of all the issues I've worked on -- and I've farmed 20 years and worked on farm advocacy another 20 years -- I have never seen a more popular issue in rural America. And all consumer groups fully support it," said Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union.

Should the compromise become law, as is widely expected, the USDA would have to modify its proposals and whip up final rules by next year's Sept. 30 deadline.

Goody L. Solomon is executive editor of the Washington-based Food Nutrition Health News Service.