When food is recalled, U.S. consumers get a lot of information to help them identify whether they have the potentially dangerous product.

They're told the product name, how it's packaged, if it has an identifying code, and the states or regions in which it was sold. They may even see a product photo. What they usually aren't told is where it was sold.

That's because the business ties between food manufacturers and their retail customers have been considered confidential business information. As such, retailer names aren't typically released unless a recall involves a store brand, such as Wal-Mart's Great Value peanut butter.

That may soon change, given a new law in California and a national proposal that reflects new thinking on the part of meat and poultry regulators but is staunchly opposed by meat processors and food retailers.

The California law, effective July 1, will authorize health officials in that state to inform consumers which retailers sold meat and poultry covered by the most serious recalls.

The national proposal comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which wants to post retailer names and store locations on its Web site for all meat and poultry recalls. The agency expects to finalize its plans by year's end. If it follows through, it will break ranks with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees other food recalls. The FDA has no plans to release retailer names, as it considers them confidential business information, says spokesman Michael Herndon.

The California and USDA measures are intended to help consumers avoid tainted meat, not to embarrass retailers who typically are blameless for the meat's condition, supporters say.

"Many consumers don't know what brand they buy, but they know where they shop," says Nancy Donley, president of not-for-profit health organization S.T.O.P., or Safe Tables Our Priority.

Donley says disclosing retailer names may be especially important for recalls of some items, such as ground beef that is repackaged by supermarkets and may not include a manufacturer's name.

The USDA says consumers are sometimes so confused in recalls that they return products that weren't recalled and don't return products that were recalled. If retailer names are disclosed, more consumers may think to check refrigerators and freezers for recalled products because they shop at those particular retailers, the USDA says.

"Detailed information is one of our greatest tools to prevent panic, to prevent illness and to prevent death," said Richard Raymond, the USDA's food-safety chief, according to a USDA transcript of a meeting last year with supporters and opponents of the measure.

While the California law affects just one state and has so far garnered few opponents, heavyweights have lined up against the USDA proposal. Among them are the American Meat Institute, which represents beef, pork, lamb and turkey packers and processors, and the Food Marketing Institute, which represents food retailers and wholesalers.

They say recalls will be less effective if retailers are named. Instead of checking their refrigerators and freezers for recalled products, consumers will check the USDA Web site for retailer names, they say.

During recalls, the USDA and FDA get customer lists from food manufacturers so that the agencies can verify that the recalls are being adequately carried out.

Because it may take days for such lists to be compiled, consumers may check the USDA Web site, not see their retailer and so not check their households, the associations argue. Meanwhile, consumers may miss their retailer if it is later added to the list — or forget where they bought a product — and end up eating recalled food, they say.

The "current system encourages (consumers) to do the single most important thing ... to protect themselves: check their refrigerators and freezers," the Food Marketing Institute said in its written opposition to the measure.

If the USDA implements the change, "The industry would immediately sue seeking an injunction," says attorney Denis Stearns of Seattle law firm Marler Clark, which represents consumers in food-borne illness cases against food manufacturers.

Mark Dopp, general counsel of the American Meat Institute, wouldn't speculate on what AMI might do. But he says the measure clearly runs afoul of laws that protect confidential business information, and he says the USDA has failed to explain why it thinks retailer names should now be shared when it has said in the past that they are confidential.

"I don't know too many companies that would gladly hand over their customer lists for their competitors to see," Dopp says.