WASHINGTON — Labels telling grocery shoppers where their meat comes from are viewed as a godsend by cattle ranchers and consumers but a nightmare for supermarkets and meatpackers.

Packers and retailers won the latest argument as the House voted Wednesday to block the federal government from requiring country-of-origin labels for meat.

(Nebraska members of Congress were split on the vote. Reps. Tom Osborne and Jeff Fortenberry voted with those favoring country-of-origin meat labeling.  Rep. Lee Terry of Omaha voted to continue blocking the labeling.)

The industry estimates it could cost as much as $4 billion in the first year.

The postponement was part of a $100 billion spending bill for food and farm programs in the budget year that begins Oct. 1. The House later passed the bill 408-18.

Congress has already delayed the labeling, which was originally set for 2004, then scheduled to begin in September 2006.

Lawmakers voted Wednesday to delay it again, by forbidding the Agriculture Department from spending any money on the new requirement.

Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., said Texas cattle producers are fighting the labels because they don't want grocery shoppers to know they buy cheap Mexican calves to fatten and sell in the U.S.

"It's time we send a message to those who are standing in the way, and allow us the opportunity to tell the American consumer: Born, raised and processed in America means something," said Rehberg, a rancher himself.

Rehberg tried to amend the bill to let the labeling proceed as planned, but the House refused on a 240-187 vote.

The delay applies only to meat and meat products; labels went into effect in April for fish and shellfish. Labels aren't required for restaurants.

Some Nebraska cattle producers are disappointed about the delay while others are content to wait for a better law.

"It's amazing that the clothes we wear, we know where they come from. But the food we put in our mouths, we don't know where it comes from," said Chris Abbott, president of the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska, affiliated with the national R-CALF group.

The Nebraska Cattlemen group, however, said Thursday it's happy to wait for a better law. Michael Kelsey, executive vice president, said his 5,000-member group is comfortable with the House of Representatives vote to delay labeling.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the House Agriculture Committee chairman, said the labels would add $10 per head to ranchers' costs and make U.S. producers less competitive with foreign meat producers.

Nebraskan Abbott disagreed.

"If that were the case, I think us producers would cover some of that cost," Abbott said. "But until we do it we don't really know the cost.

"In order to trade globally, which is where our country is headed," Abbott said, "we have to be able to differentiate our product in order to compete."

Kelsey of the Nebraska Cattlemen says his group favors the labeling.

"However … the law as written is not very workable," he said Thursday.

His group favors mandatory animal identification for disease-surveillance purposes but the current regulations don't require it, Kelsey said.

Kelsey's group also wants simplification and consistency in labeling.

Right now the labeling would be only on fresh beef. He said his group prefers labeling on all products — fresh, frozen or combinations — so that consumers know the beef even in their packaged dinner mixes is from the United States or elsewhere.

BELOW HERE CAN BE CUT IF NECESSARY, BUT IT'S INTERESTING.

Other parts of the spending bill, which would provide money for the Agriculture Department and Food and Drug Administration, would:

— Cut nearly $6 million from the Food and Drug Administration's budget for next year because the White House directed acting administrator Lester Crawford not to testify before the panel. FDA has an overall budget of $1.5 billion.

— Allow the purchase of cheaper prescription drug imports from Canada or other countries by keeping FDA from spending money to stop it.

— Stop the slaughter of U.S. horses to feed European and Asian customers. The bill would prohibit Agriculture Department inspections of horse meat to be shipped overseas for human consumption.

— Boost spending on food stamps by 16 percent to $40.7 billion. The Agriculture Department program has grown steadily, both because of recession and unemployment and because the government has signed up people who weren't receiving food stamps even though they were eligible.

— Cut conservation spending by $37 million for a total of $794 million. Agriculture Department programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program pay farmers to help the environment by taking sensitive land out of production.

The Senate must pass its own spending bill, and a conference committee must resolve differences between the two versions, before Congress can vote on a final version.

The food and farm spending bill is H.R. 2744.

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/