Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin is supporting a bill to reinforce a bill passed in 2002 regarding the labeling of food products.

The bill, which Harkin co-sponsored and introduced Nov. 17, will make country-of-origin labeling on meat and produce mandatory by 2006 instead of pushing it back to 2008, said Dave Townsend, press secretary for Harkin. He said the provision was included in the 2002 farm bill and has been suspended by the appropriations committee since then.

“Three years ago, we put COOL in the farm bill because consumers demanded more information about the foods they eat and producers wanted to add value by informing consumers of the origin of food products,” Harkin said in a press release.

Harkin voted against the appropriations bill because it delayed the labeling provision until 2008, Townsend said. This bill would reverse the appropriations committee decision to delay labeling until 2008.

Townsend said country-of-origin labeling is already required on fish and shellfish, but this bill would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enforce the bill passed in 2002 requiring the labels on meat and poultry. He said Harkin was the chairman of the Senate agricultural committee when the 2002 farm bill was passed.

“Fish and shellfish already have COOL; this bill is just to ensure the USDA follows through with meat and poultry,” he said.

Townsend said the concept of labeling is to help consumers know where their food is coming from.

“When you’re in a grocery store, you ought to be able to know where [the meat or poultry] comes from,” he said. “Large food processors have sought to kill COOL since its inception because they say it is too expensive.”

Jacinto Fabiosa, technical director for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, said he thinks the competitiveness of the United States in the world market could be affected by country-of-origin labeling.

“[The bill] will raise the cost and prices in the U.S. because there will be new procedures,” Fabiosa said. “It could also decrease the competitiveness of the U.S. in the world market.”

He said he thought the more logical approach would be to label for information such as when or where it was processed and when it was slaughtered. He said the provision is too superficial.

“The COOL is too general for consumers to make their decision,” Fabiosa said.

Dennis Olson, professor of animal science, said he recognized that different parts of the meat industry have strong views on both sides of this issue. He said the problem for the USDA could be the enforcement and following up with truth in labeling of the meat and poultry products.

“Some people look [at COOL] as similar to labeling beef all-natural or hormone-free,” Olson said. “This could be niche marketing.”

Olson said he could understand both sides of the debate but couldn’t offer an opinion yet as to whether the bill would be a benefit or just an unnecessary expense.

Townsend said he is not sure when the bill will come to a vote.