Tina Smith: “I rise today in reference to the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate. Obviously, there are strong emotions on this issue. One…”

“I rise today in reference to the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate. Obviously, there are strong emotions on this issue. One of the problems with this program is the ambiguous nature by which Congress authorized it. In particular, I would call my colleagues' attention to the most recent regulation proposed by USDA. During consideration of the 2002 farm bill, Congress wisely exempted processed foods from country of origin labeling requirements. The complex nature of such labeling would have discouraged the use of U.S. grown products as ingredients and thus would have harmed, not helped, American agriculture. Yet there is tremendous confusion in the food industry and at USDA, I might add, on what constitutes a processed product as it relates to country-of-origin labeling. I also would like to remind my colleagues that many of these processed products, for example, frozen produce, are already required to be labeled. Frozen processed products of foreign origin are required to be labeled for country-of-origin under section 304 of the Tariff Act and have been so required since the Tariff Act was passed in 1930. I certainly do not believe it was the intention of Congress to create a costly, duplicative program that provides absolutely no benefit to American growers, consumers, or producers.”