With trillion dollar deficits and mounting federal debt, will Congress finally get serious about cutting farm subsidies? We’ve been disappointed before, but there are a few hopeful signs—like the front-page story in this morning’s Washington Post—that this Congress may be serious about cutting billions in payments to farmers. As the Post reports:

In their recent budget proposals, House Republicans and House Democrats targeted farm subsidies, a program long protected by members of both parties. The GOP plan includes a $30 billion cut to direct payments over 10 years, which would slash them by more than half. Those terms are being considered in the debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Biden, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The Post story profiles a freshman Republican from Kansas, Tim Huelskamp, a fifth-generation farmer himself, who has been traveling his sprawling district telling his farmer constituents that they can no longer be exempt from budget discipline. Many farmers in his district appear to agree.

It remains an open question whether the Republican freshman class will live up to Tea-Party principles of limited government when it comes to agricultural subsidies, as we have speculated ourselves (here, here, and here) at the trade center.

Farm subsidies have certainly been a weak spot of Republicans in the past. According to our online trade-vote feature, more than half of the GOP House caucus voted in May 2008 to override President Bush’s veto of the previous, subsidy laden farm bill. In July 2007, more than half the GOP caucus voted against any cuts in the sugar program, and more than two-thirds opposed any cuts in cotton subsidies. (Of course, Democrats were just as bad overall on farm subsidies.)

The next farm bill, due to be written by this Congress, will tell us a lot about whether the Republicans really believe what they’ve been saying about limiting government and reducing the debt.

Will the GOP Finally Cut Farm Subsidies? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Heartening news from the Appropriations Committee yesterday: they voted to cut aid to farmers generally, and to make significant changes to an egregious cotton program. But first, some background.  You’ll recall the embarrassing deal made by the Obama administration last year to head off Brazil’s right to impede American exports in retaliation for WTO-illegal cotton support. The United States is, in other words, now sending almost $150m worth of “technical assistance” and “capacity building” funds to Brazil, just so we can continue to subsidize American cotton growers without penalty (so much for U.S. promotion of the rule of law in international commercial relations). Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) tried to end that deal earlier this year, but to no avail. Big Ag’s friends in Congress argued, unfortunately successfully, that any changes to the cotton bribes should be dealt with in the context of the 2012 Farm Bill, and by the agriculture committees (good luck with that).

But yesterday, the Appropriations Committee approved by voice vote an amendment from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to take the fiscal 2013 payment to Brazil from funds that would normally go to supporting U.S. cotton growers. According to an article [$] in the Congressional Quarterly, Rep. Flake argued that “American cotton growers should pay the bill since the United States was making the payment on their behalf.” Well played, sir.  Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) filed an amendment that would send the FY2012 cotton payment to the Women’s, Infants and Children nutrition program instead.

The Committee also voted to lower the income eligibility cap to $250,000 AGI.

The CQ article did contain this worrying footnote, however:

Support for the amendments may be tenuous — especially if lawmakers cannot hide behind the anonymity of a voice vote. After winning the voice vote in committee, Flake sought a roll call, prompting appropriators of both parties to suggest that he did not need the recorded vote. Flake took their advice and demurred.

 Leglislators are usually shy about publicizing their positions only when they think it could get them in political hot water, so let’s not uncork the champagne yet.

The (Beginning of the) End of the Shameful U.S. Cotton Deal? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The Washington Times says that the upcoming farm bill re-write could “sow division in the GOP.” While House Republican leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy voted against the 2008 farm bill, the new chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), is a dedicated supporter of farm subsidies.

The Times recalls Boehner’s comments on the 2008 farm bill:

“The farm bill has often been abused by politicians as a slush fund for bizarre earmarks and wasteful spending projects, and the latest version … is no different,” Mr. Boehner, then the GOP minority leader, said at the time.

It’s too bad then that the Boehner-friendly Republican Steering Committee, which decided the committee chairs, didn’t appear to blink at handing the agriculture committee gavel to a key supporter of the “slush fund.” And it’s not as if Lucas has been circumspect in his intentions. Lucas’s agriculture issues section on his website, which hasn’t been updated since the Republicans took back the House, makes that perfectly clear:

As Ranking Member of the Agriculture Committee, I have long been a champion of voluntary agriculture conservation programs. During the drafting of the 2002 Farm Bill, I worked to secure the largest ever increase in programs such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and many others. In the 2008 Farm Bill, I advocated for renewable energy provisions to be included in the farm bill which would allow rural areas to play a larger role in making the U.S. less dependent on foreign sources of energy. I am proud that the 2008 Farm Bill devotes a funding stream to renewable energy research, development, and production….

[I] will work closely with Chairman Peterson and other members of the committee to ensure that cuts are not made to agriculture producers – farmers and ranchers.

Lucas isn’t shy about touting his support from the myriad farm lobby groups either:

I have been proud to receive recognition from various agriculture groups for my work in support of their concerns. The American Farm Bureau Federation has presented me with its “Friend of Farm Bureau” award for supporting Farm Bureau issues in Congress in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006. In both 2002 and 2003, the National Farmers Union recognized me with the “Presidential Award for Leadership” for issues important to rural America. NFU also recognized me with the “Golden Triangle Award”, which is given to those who have demonstrated outstanding leadership on issues affecting family farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. In 2002 the Oklahoma Wheat Commission presented me with their “Staff of Life” award for voting in favor of wheat growers and farmers 100 percent of the time. And for two years running, the National Association of Wheat Growers named me one of only 11 “Wheat Champion” Members of Congress for superior action in Congress in support of the wheat industry.

Last year, Lucas criticized the Obama administration for proposing some minor agriculture program cuts, including a proposal to limit direct subsidy payments to farmers with more than $500,000 in annual sales.

Frank Lucas criticized the Obama administration for merely wanting to deny farmers with a half million dollars in sales from grabbing taxpayer money, but take a look what he has to say in a section on his website on “lower taxes and government spending:”

Spending in Congress has reached historic levels during the 111th Congress. The fiscally irresponsible behavior of former Speaker Pelosi and President Obama has driven our national debt level to the point that it is almost equal to the size of our entire economy. This is unacceptable and it must stop.

I have opposed – and will continue to oppose – spending initiatives that dramatically increase the size and scope of the federal government while adding to our already massive national debt. I have long been a supporter of tax reform and will continue to fight against increases in taxes and wasteful federal spending. Congress must get back to the business of fiscal responsibility and strive for a balanced budget without raising the taxes of hard-working Americans.

Lucas must know that “taxes of hard-working Americans” are pouring into the pockets of generally high-income farm businesses at the rate of $15 billion to $35 billion annually. While Lucas may be a “Wheat Champion” he sure isn’t a Taxpayer Champion, at least not on agricultural issues.

See this Cato essay for more on agriculture subsidies.

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Farm Subsidies) is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Where will the new Tea-Party-backed members of Congress come down on trade issues, such as the newly revised trade agreement with South Korea or the next farm bill?

Those elected to the House are the biggest question marks because very few of them have had to think much about trade, never mind actually cast a vote on it. In an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer this week, I try to discern what direction the new members will take the generally pro-trade Republican Party, and which direction they should take it in light of the movement’s free-market, limited-government principles.

For my full take, see “Are Tea Partiers Anti-trade?”

Are Tea Partiers Anti-trade? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

My colleagues have done a thorough job of analyzing the policy implications of Tuesday’s federal election outcome as it affects trade policy, health care, immigration, education, and the scope and size of government generally (more here on federal spending). Most of them are cautiously optimistic that a Republican-controlled House is good news for liberty-minded folk. Let’s hope so.

Unfortunately, there are fewer obvious reasons for optimism that Tuesday’s result will mean big changes in agricultural policy, a depressingly bipartisan area of federal intervention. Even Rand Paul, the poster child for the Tea Party, expressed “moderate” views on farm subsidies during his campaign.

On the positive side of the ledger, our friends at the Environmental Working Group make the excellent point that being a friend of Big Farming was not enough to shield many Democrats from defeat. Earl Pomeroy (D, ND) represents the congressional district that ranks Number One in farm subsidy receipts (now there’s a source of pride!) and even he got the boot. As did Senator Blanche Lincoln, chairperson of the Senate Agriculture Committee and shameless architect of a bailout package for farmers that was funded we-don’t-exactly-know-how. At least 15 (possibly 16 if Rep. Jim Costa (D., CA) loses his too-close-to-call race) Dem members of the House Agriculture Committee — friends of the farmer all — are now looking for work. In other words, support for Big Ag is not a sufficient shield.

On the other hand, it’s not clear that their replacements are an improvement as far as agriculture policy is concerned. With a new farm bill due to be written in 2012 (although soon-to-be-former House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson (D., MN) was trying to get that ball rolling earlier), it is not certain that the fiscal conservatism exhibited during most Republicans’ campaigns extends to farm policy. Indeed, probable new House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas (R., OK) has said he disagrees with getting rid of the fiscally offensive (but less trade-distorting) direct payments that flow to farmers regardless of what, or even whether, they farm.  That was an area of reform that Collin Peterson was at least willing to look at. (More on the implications for direct payments here).

Chuck Abbott, agriculture reporter for Reuters, has more analysis on the outlook for farm policy. His is a more optimistic take, and I hope he’s correct. For my part, my skepticism is based on statements such as those by the CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, speaking on a conference call yesterday:

[F]or the most part those that may have been defeated were replaced with equally strong advocates for value added agriculture and ethanol. Does anyone believe that Kristy Noem (R-SD) will not be a strong voice for ethanol?

Exactly. The fight’s not over yet, folks.

Post-Election Outlook: Agriculture Edition is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The president’s fiscal reform commission started off with some breathtaking chutzpah from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND):

Rising federal debt is like a tsunami that could swamp the country at any moment…Our economic strength and security is on the line. Now is the time to act. And we need everyone, Democrats and Republicans, working together on a solution.

If now is the time to act, why did Sen. Conrad just pass a budget plan out of his committee that promises massive spending, deficits, and debt?

From a transcript of Conrad’s opening remarks:

I personally believe that saying, ‘everything is on the table’ is critical. I hope none of us will take things off the table prematurely, because I think it is clear it’s going to take dramatic changes on the spending side of the ledger, and it’s going to take changes on the revenue side of the ledger.

Does Sen. Conrad consider farm subsidies to be on the table? In February, the Wall Street Journal exposed Conrad as a hypocritical big spender. For example, Conrad doesn’t miss an opportunity to shower his farm constituents with federal largesse:

He has been a defender of the state’s grain farmers ever since [his election to the Senate in 1986]. He voted last April against a proposal to cap federal payments to the nation’s farmers at $250,000 per farmer per year, a measure that Mr. Conrad criticized as disastrous but that supporters said would have saved $1 billion a year.

He also helped draft a five-year, $300 billion farm bill in 2008 that boosted overall farm subsidies. The bill created a $3.8 billion emergency “trust fund” for farmers who lose crops or livestock to natural disasters, which was Mr. Conrad’s idea. Since 2008, North Dakota ranchers have received $23 million under the fund, second only to Texas.

What about federal entitlement programs, which represent the biggest budgetary threat going forward?

In 2003, Mr. Conrad joined most Democratic senators to support Mr. Bush’s plan to provide Medicare prescription-drug coverage to seniors, at a cost of around $40 billion a year. The plan required Congress to scrap the spending controls Mr. Conrad once championed. Republicans won the votes of Mr. Conrad and other rural senators by agreeing to expand the program by pumping $25 billion more into rural hospitals and doctors over 10 years.

Then there’s that health care “reform” bill Conrad just voted for, which will cost an estimated $2.6 trillion once fully implemented.

Not to be outdone, the president had his own galling comments:

Flanked by the co-chairmen of the new commission, Obama challenged the two parties to join in taking a “hard look” at the growing gap between what the government spends and raises in revenue, and to “think more about the next generation than the next election.”

The “growing gap” the president cites is one of his own doing. The following chart shows the projected gap between spending and revenues according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the president’s latest budget proposal:

The chart shows that revenues are already set to consume a larger share of the economy. The problem is that spending is on an elevator going up.

The politicians with the most power in Washington are precisely the ones pretending that they are powerless to steer the nation away from a looming fiscal disaster. Their claims are total, utter, complete nonsense. Both Obama and Conrad could have proposed budgets this year that actually cut spending to reduce the deficit. Both chose not to. They are the ones fueling the “tsunami.” They are the ones who don’t have the guts to cut off this generation’s subsidy recipients for the sake of the next generation. It’s that simple.

Cheap Talk from a Fiscal Commissioner is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

I’ve written before about Rep. Collin Peterson’s (D, MN) disdain for the World Trade Organization, and its rulings against U.S. farm programs. However, in launching his 2012 Farm Bill listening tour, the Brownfield blog reports that he sees that perhaps some changes might be necessary after all. And, lo and behold, he cites the WTO rulings as the reason:

One of the key issues [in the 2012 Farm Bill] will be what to do about the way that cotton farmers are subsidized. The committee’s chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said today that the cotton program will have to be overhauled in the wake of Brazil’s successful challenge to the subsidies at the World Trade Organization. The Obama administration agreed to change the program in a deal to avert retaliation against U.S. exports to Brazil. [link added]

Subsidies for cotton currently mirror those for corn, soybeans, wheat and other commodities, but there’s no reason why they have to be the same for each crop in the future, said Peterson. “In the past we’ve tried to have a one-size-fits-all approach, but maybe that’s not the case in the future. I’m willing to consider that,” he said. “If we don’t address it, we may be back in the soup again with potential retaliation issues.” [emphasis mine]

Finally, the penny drops.

Peterson (Finally) Changes His Tune is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

This priceless quote from Barack Obama comes from 2007 apparently, but is depressingly instructive:

We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the farm bill immediately

From Jacob Sullum at Reason, via Megan McArdle

Change You Can Be Deceived In is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

It’s become standard fare for senior government leaders to declare that any and all subsidies are good for economic growth. Two weeks ago it was the Economic Development Administration’s John Fernandez. This week it’s USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

From GovExec.com:

In his speech, Vilsack called the increase in supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits “an economic driver” that helps truckers, grocery stores and farmers. Those benefits, which used to be known as food stamps, have gotten the most funding of any USDA program.

Vilsack also cited increased funding to bring high-speed Internet service to rural America; accelerated implementation of the energy title of the farm bill; and USDA investments in small, local processing and slaughtering plants for “creating a framework for a 21st century America.

Food stamps are an economic driver? Extending Vilsack’s logic, if the government put all citizens on food stamps it would create the economic equivalent of heaven on earth. There’s just one tiny problem: what the government gives with one hand it takes with the other.

Whether it is food stamps, high-speed internet, or slaughter houses, the government has to tax or borrow the resources to pay for these programs out of the private sector economy. One can debate the merits of these programs, but one cannot deny that they come at a cost. And with history and practical experience as a guide, it is clear that the private sector is more effective than the government when it comes to feeding the poor, fostering technology, and processing animals.

See here for information and essays on how to downsize the USDA.

Food Stamps = Economic Driver? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson (D, Sugarbeet Farmers) announced yesterday [$] that he would begin hearings on the 2012 Farm Bill this spring. I’m still recovering from the traumatizing 2008 Farm Bill fight, so I heard this news with some trepidation.

But wait! Put those red pens away, folks, because Chairman Peterson plans to keep on spending on agricultural programs. Heaven forbid that agriculture should take any of those “cuts” we’ve been hearing so much about :

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said… he is determined to write a bipartisan bill that is within the funding baseline that exists in 2012.

The funding baseline is the amount of money that the Congressional Budget Office determines would be spent on all programs in the farm bill if the same programs were to continue after 2012. CBO projects the funding levels based on spending in programs in past years.

Peterson said at least initially he expects each major farm bill section — the farm program, conservation and nutrition — to stay within its 2012 baseline.

He also specifically pledged to fight off any attempts to lower direct payments, which flow to current or past farmers of certain crops year-in-year-out, regardless of whether they still farm or not.

Some further details on his plans for the next farm bill can be found in this National Journal article [$ again, sorry] but the gist of it is that Chairman Peterson doesn’t want reformers interfering the way they did last time, even if farmers were left practically unscathed from the battle.

In a speech to the National Association of Wheat Growers and U.S. Wheat Associates, Peterson said that reformers “who don’t understand how this works … defined what reform is” in 2008. Peterson said there should be changes to the farm bill, but he ridiculed one of the reformers’ biggest goals: limitations on payments to big farmers.

The campaign to lower payment limits “is not reform. It’s an ideology,” he said. Reformers want Congress to decide what size farms should get subsidies, a notion that Peterson rejects. “We are not smart enough in government to decide what farm size is,” he said.

(Sidebar: Isn’t it cute how Chairman Peterson couches his opposition to farm payment limits in libertarianish terms about how government “isn’t smart enough.” His support for a 80+-year-old suite of government interventions suggests he is not as skeptical about government’s smarts as he indicates in this little political aside. But I digress.)

And in a charming dismissal of the importance of free trade (he’s an old-hand at dismissing international obligations in this area), Chairman Peterson offered this:

Peterson said he did not think pressures to comply with trade agreements would be too much of a problem in the farm bill because “the trade situation is dead in the water,” and negotiators realize they cannot get approval from Congress if agriculture is not satisfied. “We’ve got some power over that system,” he said.

“I am not going to turn myself into a pretzel to accommodate this latest trade agreement,” he said.

A disappointing start to the 2012 Farm Bill fight, to be sure, but my hope is not dashed. With any luck, the recent signs of voters’ disgust with Washington will translate into some extra political support for those of us working for real reform. (see examples here and here.)

Agricultural Exceptionalism is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Well here’s an interesting, if three-weeks-old, story. Apparently the North Dakota Farm Bureau’s annual convention recently passed a policy calling for the elimination of all agricultural programs.  Reading between the lines of the original press release indicates that the call was part of a broad political position by the NDFB to move away from government intervention in many areas of the economy apart from farm programs, including cap-and-trade and health care:

“As people in this country expect more from the government and less from themselves, our delegates are urging everyone, including farmers, to step away from the public trough and get back to the principles of individual responsibility and initiative,” said NDFB President Eric Aasmundstad….
The only way government can get money is to take it from its citizens. We don’t believe raising taxes to pay for health care or climate change will help our country get out of our economic slump or even improve health care or the environment. And the more they take, the less we have to find the innovative solutions to the problems we face.

He sounds like a Catoite.

To what extent the NDFB’s position flows through to the rest of the farm lobby remains to be seen, so hell hasn’t quite frozen over yet. But this is positive news. At the very least it spells sweet, sweet trouble for long-time free trade nemesis and farm bill supporter Sen. Byron Dorgan (D), who is up for reelection next year.

HT: Chris Edwards.

Hell Freezes Over (Or At Least Gets Cooler) is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Mexican sugar growers want “in” on the cozy little arrangement that domestic sugar growers have here in the United States.  They have formed an alliance with the U.S sugar lobby to recommend that the U.S. and Mexican governments work to “avoid importing sugar from other countries to help boost the market between the neighbours” (full article here [$]).

This proposal is not new, of course, having previously been suggested to lawmakers’ during the 2008 farm bill debate (see here). The “recommendation” was rebuffed at that time, but these people are nothing if not tenacious.

In what surely must be a contender for the “Understatement of the Year” award, the article ends with this: ” Sweetener users and free trade advocates are likely to find the recommendations controversial”. Someone at CongressDaily has a sense of humor.

If At First You Don’t Succeed is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Pardon me while I pile on the post earlier today by my colleague Sallie James about the Obama administration refusing to allow more sugar to be imported to the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture this week declined to relax the quotas the federal government imposes on imported sugar despite soaring domestic prices and understandable complaints from U.S. confectioners and other sugar-consuming businesses about potential shortages.

For all his talk about change, President Barack Obama has shown no inclination to pursue meaningful reform of U.S. agricultural programs. He supported the subsidy-laden and protectionist farm bill that finally passed Congress in 2008. On the eve of the U.S. presidential election in October 2008, he wrote a letter to the U.S. sugar industry reminding growers that they were one special interest that had nothing to fear from an Obama administration.

In his letter, he offered the sugar lobby this assurance:

With respect to the sugar program specifically, while it’s true I have had concerns about the program, I will commit to listening and working with you in the future to ensure that we have a safety net that works for all of agriculture.

He then went on to criticize his opponent John McCain for opposing the farm bill and voting consistently against the sugar program (or, as Obama put it, “against sugar growers”).

In my new Cato book, Mad about Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization, I call the sugar program “the poster boy for self-damaging protectionism.” As I write in the book,

When the program is not raising prices for consumers at the store, it is savaging the bottom line for American companies. Artificially high domestic sugar prices raise the cost of production for refined sugar, candy and other confectionary products, chocolate and cocoa products, chewing gum, bread and other bakery products, cookies and crackers, and frozen bakery goods. Higher costs cut into profits and competitiveness, putting thousands of jobs in jeopardy.

If the president is looking for good bedtime reading on why he should dump the sugar program, I suggest he go straight to pages 147, 154-55, 160-62, and 170-72.

Obama Administration Sides With Special Interests and Status Quo on Sugar Imports is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Karl Rove should have been named Man of the Year at some point by the Democratic National Committee. The political consultant/Bush adviser played a big role in expanding the burden of government, convincing Bush to saddle the nation with fiscal disasters such as the “no-bureaucrat-left-behind” education bill, the corrupt farm bills, the pork-filled transportation bills, and the horrific new entitlement for prescription drugs. He also helped ruin the GOP image with his inside-the-beltway version of “compassionate conservatism,” thus paving the way for big Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008.

I can understand why libertarians have no desire to listen to his advice, but I’m baffled why Republicans or conservatives would give him the time of day. Yet he is a constant presence on FOX News and has a weekly column in the Wall Street Journal. With no apparent irony, his latest WSJ column is entitled “How to Stop Socialized Health Care.” Too bad he didn’t follow his own advice in 2003 when pulling out all the stops to enact the biggest entitlement in four decades.

Beyond Irony is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Come Monday you can thank the federal government for making food more expensive by requiring retailers to provide useless information.

On March 16, federal regulations will finally kick in that require perishable food at the grocery store to sport “country of origin labeling,” known as COOL. The rules were originally passed by Congress as part of the 2002 farm bill, but are only being implemented now because of understandable resistance from retailers.

The COOL regulations will require that all perishable food products be labeled at retail to indicate the country of origin. The regulations cover beef, pork, lamb, goat, chicken; wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish; fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables; peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, and ginseng.

In a recent statement announcing final implementation, Obama administration agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack said, “I strongly support Country of Origin Labeling — it’s a critical step toward providing consumers with additional information about the origin of their food.”

This is nothing but a form of regulatory harassment designed to play to anti-foreign prejudices. COOL provides zero health or safety information; foreign meat and produce must conform to exactly the same health and safety standards that apply to domestic-made goods.

In the past, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had estimated that COOL regulations will cost $89 million to implement in the first year and $62 million annually. (My Cato colleague Dan Ikenson wrote the definitive critique of COOL not long after Congress first mandated the rules.)

The fact that a piece of meat or a fresh vegetable comes from a foreign country tells us nothing about its quality or safety. In the past three years, Americans have been sickened and even killed by baby spinach from California and ground beef from Nebraska tainted by E. coli bacteria, chicken from Pennsylvania tainted with listeria, and peanut butter and peanut products from Georgia tainted with salmonella. Would Americans have been any safer if those products had been labeled, “From California” or “From Georgia” or “From Nebraska”?

Country-of-origin labeling was not meant to serve the public but instead to provide yet another unfair advantage to domestic producers at the expense of the public.

Not-so-COOL Rules Stoke Xenophobia is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog