Country-of-Origin Labeling

Cattle Industry Policy Risks 2026: Screwworm Response & Trade Uncertainty

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:58:03 GMT

Whether it’s a 20-year lawsuit over poultry litter in Oklahoma, the looming threat of New World screwworm (NWS) or renewed debate over origin labeling, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s Ethan Lane sees the same pattern: The burden eventually falls on cattle producers.

Lane, NCBA senior vice president of government affairs, was a guest Wednesday on “ AgriTalk ,” pointing out how regulatory shifts and legal settlements can quickly erode the certainty ranchers rely on, especially when border policies and labeling rules are decided without a clear plan for how they’ll play out in the countryside.

Here are the key takeaways from Lane’s discussion with Chip Flory.

1. Oklahoma Poultry Litter Lawsuit Has Wider Implications for Cattle Producers

Both NCBA and the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association made statements following the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma’s rejection of the state of Oklahoma’s negotiated settlement with four poultry companies in the decades-old State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., lawsuit regarding the application of chicken litter in the Illinois River Watershed .

Lane says though the case has to do with chicken litter, it has direct implications for cattle producers because it involves Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs), a core tool many livestock operations rely on for regulatory certainty.

He explains that if a state can settle in a way that undermines NMPs, it sends a message that even when producers “check all the boxes,” they can still “have the rug pulled out from underneath” them in federal court. If NMPs are invalidated in court, producers lose their safe-harbor status.

His warning is that settlements that go beyond established expectations should concern every cattle producer, because compliance burdens and liability ultimately roll downhill to producers.

2. NWS Response Playbook Is Critical Preparation

Lane says the New World Screwworm (NWS) Response Playbook is the product of months of collaboration between USDA, impacted states and state animal health officials.

“We know screwworm is coming, right? We know that despite the best efforts of the federal government, we are most likely going to have to deal with screwworm on U.S. soil,” he summarizes.

He explains the playbook is meant to:

Define how cattle will move, go to slaughter or move to the next production phase if NWS is present.
Integrate state and federal responses so the industry does not repeat the confusion seen early in the high-path disease issues in dairy cattle.
Provide clarity and predictability for producers and the supply chain when NWS cases occur.

Read more about the playbook and how surveillance, targeted treatment and movement controls will help protect cattle operations while preserving business stability when NWS invades:

Ready for the Risk: USDA Releases Updated New World Screwworm Response Playbook

How Will U.S. Producers Maintain Business when New World Screwworm Invades?

3. Border Reopening With Mexico Must Be Deliberate and Predictable

Lane emphasizes that deciding when to reopen the border for cattle commerce will be “more art than science.”

“The secretary has a really important job in determining whether or not our Mexican friends are meeting all the obligations that they have here and that they are being collaborative partners,” he says. “We continue to believe that what’s most important here is making sure that the reopening of the border is planned, it’s announced, it’s very predictable.”

NCBA’s priority is a planned, announced and predictable border reopening so supply chains can plan around it and speculation is minimized.

“We’ve seen what happens with speculation in the markets surrounding this, and it’s not good for producers,” he says.

Wednesday a report from a state official in Mexico incorrectly claimed that USDA has set a date to resume livestock imports from Mexico. According to a USDA APHIS social media post this is not accurate.

“USDA has not set a date for resuming livestock imports. USDA will resume livestock imports only when we determine that the risk of New World Screwworm introduction into the United States can be adequately mitigated.”

Read more about the impact of the U.S.-Mexico Border Closure:

The 1.1 Million Head Gap: Analyzing the Impact of the U.S.-Mexico Border Closure

Should Beef Producers Be Concerned About Potential Phased Reopening of U.S.-Mexico Border?

4. Skepticism Toward Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (MCOOL)

Lane acknowledges MCOOL’s political popularity with some stakeholders. He notes NCBA once supported it and later reversed policy because producers didn’t get the promised premiums and instead faced significant compliance costs.

“MCOOL doesn’t generate premiums for producers,” he says. “Giving the packer an extra 10 cents a pound on those cattle doesn’t help my members across the country make more money.”

He argues that consumers say they’ll pay more for “born, raised, harvested in the USA,” but in practice they buy on price and quality.

“We’ve been very supportive of closing the Product of the USA labeling loophole and putting some promotion behind it to educate folks about what’s possible,” Lane says. “That’s where we think we’ll find real premiums. MCOOL is a road to just higher consumer prices, and that’s the last thing the White House wants right now.”

He adds local and regional labels, like born, raised and harvested in Nebraska, are more effective at creating real producer premiums than a broad, mandatory origin label.

As the beef industry continues to navigate a volatile 2026, the intersection of legal precedents, biosecurity threats and trade policy continues to redefine the rancher’s risk profile. For Lane, the goal remains clear: ensuring that federal regulations and court rulings provide a predictable roadmap rather than an unexpected burden.

In a landscape where the “rug can be pulled” at any moment, maintaining a seat at the policy table is the only way to ensure that the burden of uncertainty doesn’t stop at the farm gate.

Rollins Promotes Product of USA Label, Announces Support of MCOOL

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:03:27 GMT

USDA is launching a national public awareness campaign to inform meat, poultry and egg producers of the “ Product of USA ” voluntary labeling standard, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2026, and increases consumer understanding of what the label means.

In a press release , Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins says, “Our great patriot ranchers and producers grow, raise, and harvest the world’s safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply. American consumers want to support America by buying American and this label will strengthen our food supply chain through transparency, fairness, and trust. This new standard policy ensures producers who invest in a fully American supply chain can compete fairly, and it gives consumers the confidence they deserve about the food they bring home.”

The “Product of USA” label is reserved exclusively for meat, poultry and egg products from animals that were born, raised, harvested and processed in the U.S. The claim is voluntary, but companies using it must meet this transparent and verifiable requirement. This ends the prior practice that allowed imported products to carry the claim after minimal processing and strengthens consumer confidence by aligning with what Americans expect and demand.

Friday’s announcement on enforcement and promotion of the strengthened “Product of USA” label is a key deliverable under this initiative, advancing the Trump administration’s priorities of fairness, competition and consumer trust.

Rollins: “Big Supporter” of MCOOL

Rollins says she is a “big supporter” of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (MCOOL) for U.S. meat products.

According to Agri-Pulse’s April 1 Daybreak , Rollins shared her support with reporters prior to a grazing roundtable discussing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to modernize federal grazing management on Tuesday.

Verifying her comments were intended for MCOOL and not in reference to the voluntary labeling rule, a USDA spokesperson says, “Yes, we can confirm the Secretary’s comments yesterday in support of MCOOL.”

Rollins says she considers the issue one of consumer transparency rather than market intervention.

“It’s just a transparency question,” she explains.

According to the USDA website , COOL is a consumer labeling law that requires retailers (most grocery stores and supermarkets) to identify the country of origin on certain foods referred to as “covered commodities.” The 2002 and 2008 farm bills and the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of muscle cuts and ground lamb, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng and macadamia nuts.

While in place for some products, MCOOL for beef and pork was repealed in 2015 following World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes. Efforts like the American Beef Labeling Act are actively trying to bring it back.

FSIS Releases Updated Guidelines for Verification of U.S.-Origin Label Claims

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:40:11 GMT

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued a directive for inspection program personnel (IPP) Dec. 10 that provides instructions for label verification of voluntary U.S.-origin claims.

As of Jan. 1, 2026, establishments that use a U.S.-origin claim on FSIS-regulated products will need to maintain and provide the agency access to documentation that demonstrates how the product meets the regulatory criteria for use of the claim.

FSIS published the final rule, “Voluntary Labeling of FSIS-Regulated Products with U.S.-Origin Claims,” in March 2024, amending the regulations to define the conditions under which the labeling of meat and poultry products may bear voluntary label claims indicating that the product is of U.S. origin.

The final rule also clarified requirements for voluntary state-origin claims. FSIS said it will initially focus verification efforts on “Product of USA” and “Made in the USA” claims beginning in January. FSIS may issue further instructions for state-origin claims in a future revision of the directive.

In addition to the directive, FSIS provided an updated guideline for label approval designed to prevent the introduction of adulterated or misbranded products into commerce. Labeling and Program Delivery Staff (LPDS) will implement a prior label approval system for labels intended to be used on federally inspected meat, poultry and egg products, including imported products. Without approved labels, meat, poultry and egg products may not be sold, offered for sale, or otherwise distributed in commerce.

Changes from the Previous Version

This guideline, dated December 2025, replaces the previous version dated March 2024. FSIS says it will update this guideline as necessary when new information becomes available.

This version incorporates the following changes:

Adds clarification to the section “Geographic Claims on Labels.”
Adds information and examples to the section “‘Product of USA,’ ‘Made in the USA’ and Other Voluntary U.S.-Origin Claims” that provides clarification on the requirements for the voluntary U.S.-origin label claims, “Product of USA” and “Made in the USA.”
Adds information and examples to the section “Factual Claims Other than ‘Product of USA’ and ‘Made in the USA.’”
Adds an example to the section “Required Documentation to Support U.S.-Origin Claims.”
Updates Appendix 9 to provide clarification about the impact of the final rule “Voluntary Labeling of FSIS-Regulated Products with U.S.-Origin Claims” on different types of state endorsement program logos.

The guidelines also confirmed that the meaning of “raised” is from birth to slaughter, and the term “harvested” may be used to mean slaughtered. In addition, FSIS says the U.S. origin requirements do not apply to sub-ingredients.

Upcoming Webinars on the Voluntary “Product of USA” Labeling Claim

To assist industry and state partners in understanding the new requirements, FSIS plans to host two informational webinars: one for industry stakeholders and the other for state government officials.

Visit the Voluntary “Product of USA” Labeling Claim Webinars 2025 event page on the FSIS website for event details. FSIS encourages all interested establishments, state inspection program officials, and trade associations to attend the appropriate session.

Industry stakeholder webinar: Dec. 15, 1-2 p.m. ET
State government official webinar: Dec. 16, 1-2 p.m. ET

The webinars will cover updated guidance and offer an opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions. An updated guidance document will be available in the Federal Register and additional background information on the webinars will be posted to the FSIS events page next week. These materials will provide additional clarity on eligibility, documentation and compliance expectations for establishments choosing to use the revised claim.

'Quit Making Money on the Backs of American Producers.' USDA Proposes U.S. Beef Labeling Updates

Thu, 09 Mar 2023 14:24:30 GMT

Seen as a point of contention for many U.S. cattle producers, an proposed update to meat labeling requirements was recently released by the USDA, closing the “loophole” that allows imported meat to be repackaged in the U.S. and given a “Product of USA” label.

Justin Tupper, president of the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), joined AgriTalk host, Chip Flory, to discuss the proposal.

Closing the Loophole

“U.S. Cattlemen, clear back in 2019 asked for this loophole to be closed up. Now, keep in mind labeling is voluntary,” Tupper notes. “What was going on, and we had seen many instances of this, [packers] were able to bring in product from another country, bring it to the United States, repackage it, and then label it ‘Product of the USA.’ We clearly felt that this was a disservice to the producer and absolute disservice to the consumer. And it could be a food safety issue by not knowing where it comes from.”

After petitioning USDA in 2019 to make changes, Tupper says this update is “real progress, even though it’s a little late.”

Currently, both trim and whole muscle meat products qualify to be repackaged in any way to earn the “Product of USA” label. Tupper explains this deception as “something the packers could use to their advantage to buy cheaper product” and bring it to the tables of U.S. consumers.

Potential Issues

While the updated labeling claim requirements are welcomed by many U.S. cattle producers and USCA, Tupper is aware that there will likely be some issues to be worked out, specifically with imports from Canada and Mexico.

According to the USDA press release , “The proposed rule allows the voluntary “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim to be used on meat, poultry and egg products only when they are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States.”

Tupper notes, cattle that are shipped to Canada to be fed, like many in the northern states, will not meet the requirement of this rule. Though, regarding the World Trade Organization (WTO), Canada is not necessarily the issue.

“There’s a lot of those cattle that go back and forth, especially across the northern border. That, I think, is a non-issue. They have high health protocols. They definitely have the same standards in the slaughter industry as we do, if not higher,” Tupper says. “I think when we look at the issues of where does the issue come in, especially when it comes to the WTO, we have no issues to the north. We have some issues to the south. Whether it be health protocols, whether it be quality credit protocols, there’s some different issues there.”

Voluntary, Yet Effective

While it’s important to note that this labeling will be voluntary, Tupper is encouraged that packers will “quit being able to make money on the backs of American producers, using our good name.”

Additionally, Tupper says any price premium for true U.S. beef will be left up to the consumer.

“I think as a producer and as USCA, we want to produce the highest quality, safest protein in the world, and we do that. I think we want to make sure we protect that. My belief is that the consumer will pick that and that’s where when we get into the talk about the northern cattle up in Canada, and we talk about quality and price and all those things—they’re equal. I think that if we were labeled, everything was labeled, ‘Product of USA,’ ‘Product of Canada,’ ‘Product of Mexico,’ ‘Product of Brazil,’ then the consumer would have a choice.”

There is a large misconception that all “Product of USA” beef was truly born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the U.S., Tupper says, and it’s not that cattle producers in favor of country-of-origin-labeling are trying to be “isolationists” or are trying to “root out the competition”—it comes down to safety and a quality product.

Play By the Same Rules

A recent Atypical BSE case in Brazil ignited the fire for many cattlemen groups, including USCA, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and R-CALF USA, urging the U.S. government to halt beef imports from the country.

Brazil’s inability to “play by the same rules” is a concern for Tupper.

“They don’t play by the same rules as us. So, we have no idea the transparency that’s going on,” he adds. “They’ve been caught in child labor laws here in the States and in Brazil. They’ve been depopulating rainforest. They give every reason to make sure that we don’t take any Brazilian beef, whether it be in boxes, or live or any other way, and we just haven’t acted on it. Again, we’re not asking to be isolationist, if they want to play by the same rules as us. That’s fine. But if they don’t, then there has to be action.”

Read More:

USDA Seeks to Limit Use of ‘Product of USA’ Label By Packers

Timely BSE Report in Brazil? U.S. Beef Imports Left Unphased

Two-Thirds of Consumers Deem Transparency Very to Extremely Important, Survey Finds

Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:06:24 GMT

Two-thirds of consumers say transparency in animal protein is extremely or very important, says Merck Animal Health, as part of the company’s results in its first consumer transparency research study.

The study focused on gauging consumers’ growing interest in transparency in animal protein and its importance in their purchasing decision and brand trust. Specifically, the study explored the consumers’ perception of industry transparency when to comes to animal welfare and sustainability and the crossover between transparency, traceability and their willingness to pay for transparency label claims.

Surveyed consumers were given the following definitions:
Transparency: knowing how food is grown, raised and made
Traceability: know where foods come from, or more specifically, being able to follow the movement of food products and ingredients through the supply chain

Study Results

Capturing the opinions of over 1,000 consumers who represent the U.S. shopper, highlights of the study’s results include:
• 66% reported transparency in animal proteins (meat, fish, eggs and dairy) as extremely or very important; reasons were considered personal, such as health and nutrition
• 86% of consumers who reported transparency as important also rank traceability as extremely or very important; 40% of those consumers also want to know where the livestock comes from
• Over 50% reported they were willing to pay a 5% premium for transparent labeling
• 55% reported environmental sustainability as very to extremely important
• 66% reported animal care and treatment very to extremely important

“The survey results tell us consumers want more information than ever in order to make informed decisions about the food they put on their dinner tables,” says Allison Flinn, DVM, executive director of value chain and consumer affairs at Merck Animal Health.

Merck Animal Health describes the company’s DNA TRACEBACK platform as one example of an animal protein traceability solution to accurately trace meat and seafood from farm to table that helps build trust in food labels. Utilizing “nature’s bar code”—DNA—this technology assigns a unique barcode number at slaughter to each animal that can be traced through the supply chain from the farm gate, to the processing plant and to the restaurant plate.

Sustainability, nutrition, food safety and animal welfare are all topics consumers want to know more about, and greater transparency builds trust, Flinn adds. This research also provides insights into how farmers, ranchers, food brands and allied industry partners, like Merck Animal Health, can collaborate to meet their expectations.

Groups Seek Reintroduction of American Beef Labeling Act

Thu, 12 Jan 2023 21:11:47 GMT

The United States Cattlemen’s Association, R-CALF USA, among 48 other groups and organizations recently sent a letter to U.S. Senate and House members asking them to reintroduce the American Beef Labeling Act in 2023, which would reinstate country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) for beef in the U.S.

As the letter states, “We the undersigned organizations would like to express our gratitude for your leadership and support of the American Beef Labeling Act ( S.2716, H.R. 7291 ). This commonsense policy has remained popular with the American people since Congress rescinded country of origin labeling for beef in 2015.”

This bill would re-insert the words “beef” and “ground beef” to the existing 2002 MCOOL law, which requires country of origin labels on other foods, such as lamb, chicken, fish, nuts, fruits and vegetables. The bill would further require all beef, including imported beef, to be labeled as to where it was born, raised and harvested.

The joint letter also notes a recent poll conducted by Morning Consult on behalf of the Coalition for Prosperous America (CPA), in which 86% of votes support the American Beef Labeling Act, with 64% of voters who strongly support and 22% of voters who somewhat support the legislation.

Originally introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) in September 2021, the bill was last referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

The letter addressed Sen. Thune and co-sponsors Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy.), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), as well as U.S. House of Representatives supporters, including Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Virg.).

“Although we did not cross the finish line in the 117th Congress we are confident that with your continued leadership and our support we can ensure that beef produced from U.S. born and raised cattle is distinguished in the marketplace and consumers will have accurate information as to the origins of the beef they purchase for their families in the 118th Congress,” the letter states.

The 118th United States Congress session began on Jan. 3, 2023.

The full list of groups signing in support of the American Beef Labeling Act can be found in the letter .

U.S. beef exports rebound in November

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 04:57:52 GMT

U.S. beef exports in November showed signs of a rebound, according to data released by USDA and compiled by the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF), contractor to the Beef Checkoff Program.

November beef exports totaled 211.2 million pounds, down 1 percent from a year ago but the largest volume since June, while export value fell 17 percent to $519.7 million. For January through November, beef exports were down 11 percent from a year ago in both volume (2.145 billion pounds) and value ($5.8 billion). January-November exports accounted for 13 percent of total production and 10 percent for muscle cuts only - each down one percentage point from a year ago. Export value per head of fed slaughter averaged $279.12, down 6 percent year-over-year.

Beef exports gain momentum in most Asian markets, but decline continues in Japan

November beef export volume increased year-over-year to several key Asian markets, including:

Exports to

Korea

increased 8 percent in volume (26.3 million pounds), while value fell 21 percent to $69.4 million. For January through November, exports were up 7 percent in volume (253.2 million pounds) but down 3 percent in value ($741.1 million). Korea’s imports of chilled U.S. beef were up 40 percent through November, with U.S. market share gaining 6 percentage points to 30.6 percent.
Export volume to

Hong Kong

was the largest of 2015 at 31.9 million pounds, up 2 percent, but value fell 30 percent to $79.6 million. For January through November, exports to Hong Kong were down 22 percent in volume (235.6 million pounds) and 29 percent in value ($720.7 million).
Taiwan

was up 16 percent in volume (5.9 million pounds) and 13 percent in value ($25 million). January-November exports were up 4 percent in volume (70.9 million pounds) and 10 percent in value ($290.3 million). U.S. beef dominates Taiwan’s chilled imports, with a 66-percent market share.
Export volume to the

Philippines

surged 192 percent to 3.1 million pounds, and increased 35 percent in value ($5.4 million). January-November exports were up 5 percent in volume (26.2 million pounds) and 11 percent in value ($60.3 million).

Japan was the notable exception to the positive November trend, with exports declining 21 percent in volume to 32 million pounds and 31 percent in value to $94.4 million. Through the first 11 months of the year, export volume to Japan fell 15 percent to 420.5 million pounds. Although Japan is still the leading value market for U.S. beef, export value declined 19 percent to $1.19 billion. Japan imported less beef from all suppliers in 2015, and still has large frozen inventories of imported beef weighing on the market. But the U.S. lost market share to Australia in 2015, with U.S. share dropping from 38 percent to 35 percent. This was due in part to Australia’s 10 percentage point tariff advantage following implementation of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement in January 2015.

November beef exports to leading volume market Mexico increased 3 percent year-over-year to 43.2 million pounds, while value dipped slightly to $86.9 million. For January through November, exports to Mexico were down 8 percent in volume (443.2 million pounds) and 5 percent in value ($994.5 million). Exports to Egypt, a key market for beef livers and other variety meat, increased by 33 percent in volume (23.6 million pounds) and 25 percent in value ($14.4 million) in November. Through the first 11 months of 2015, exports to Egypt were down 14 percent in volume (213.6 million pounds) but increased 5 percent in value to $143.1 million.

“November offered some encouraging signs for U.S. meat exports, though the results were certainly not at the levels we would like to see,” said USMEF President and CEO Philip Seng. “Despite the weak peso, our beef exports to Mexico have held up fairly well. Exports to most Asian markets are showing upward momentum, but clearly the need to defend and expand our market share in Japan has never been greater.”

Looking ahead to 2016, USMEF sees opportunities for U.S. beef to regain market share, with larger U.S. production and improved market access in some key regions, but the competitive landscape remains very intense.

Complete January-November export totals for U.S. beef are available from USMEF’s

statistics webpage . For more information, please contact Joe Schuele at

jschuele@usmef.org

or 303-547-0030.

Speer: COOL = Blunt Instrument

Thu, 05 May 2022 15:58:25 GMT

One of the emails I received following my first Drover’s column on COOL stands out. It succinctly summarized the broader sentiment among COOL supporters: “I can not understand why you would say that beef consumers do not care where there[sic] meat comes from and therefore cool should not be established?” The response highlights the need for some broader context.

First, let’s focus on “beef consumers”. Food purchases – especially meat – involve decision-making around all sorts of determinants: quality, color, health/wellness, food safety, convenience, brand, price, etc… Then there’s consideration of the occasion for which the item is being purchased (is it Friday-evening dinner or Wednesday-night spaghetti?). And last, all that occurs within a framework of the overall shopping experience (when and where). As such, the term “beef consumers” avoids all the intricacies in the marketplace when it comes to segmentation.

Now let’s go a step further and explore the issue of “where food comes from.” Undoubtedly, consumers increasingly want more transparency. But reference to “where food comes from” invokes very specific connotations – beyond just country-of-origin. The phrase references a multitude of credence attributes consumers may consider important when purchasing food products. And there’s a significant portion of the marketplace where those attributes establish differentiation.

The first graph highlights those distinctions as detailed in the Power of Meat 2022 study. In line with my reader’s email, the report indeed notes that, “Raised in the U.S. is the most popular label claim selected, at 48%.” However, there’s also a slew of other considerations that drive purchasing behavior: “Already representing 10% of sales, there is interest by four in 10 meat shoppers to add more meat raised without antibiotics. A higher 44% of consumers would like to see more meat raised without added hormones. Claims surrounding all natural and grass-fed remain popular as well.”

Finally, let’s circle back to COOL. Power of Meat also references a November ’21 survey by 210 Analytics that delved into the relationship between country-of-origin labeling and price differentiation – especially important amidst the recent surge of inflation (see second graph).

Among the 1,610 respondents, only 46% (in line with the 48% referenced above) stated, “I prefer my meat department source from the USA only, even if the product costs more.” However, that also means more than half seemingly are indifferent to a country label. And then comes the most important question among those responding positively: how much more would you pay? That question remains unanswered.

The November survey also provides some critical direction for the future. Overall, 53% of respondents state they trust their meat department to, “…source quality product at the best value regardless of country.” Most important is the deeper dive: nearly two-thirds of Gen Z and Millennials agreed with the statement. That is, the largest segment of consumers – and the ones who’ll be doing the majority of the spending in the next 20-to-30 years don’t really care.

Last year’s Power of Meat study describes Millennials position in the market place this way: “…future success requires a careful balancing of current spending patterns versus the very different wants and needs of the Millennial generation.” To that end, the second Drover’s column pointed out the costs of COOL are front-end loaded . Producers end up paying for COOL now, but given the generational discrepancy, that investment is especially unlikely to pay off in the future.

The marketplace is complicated. Frank Beurskens (Co-Founder of the former Shop-To-Cook concept) describes the enduring complexities best, noting that food purchases often represent a “portfolio of priorities.” Therein lies the challenge. The marketplace simultaneously requires both flexibility AND precision. Only the private sector can effectively facilitate that need. COOL goes in the opposite direction; it’s a blunt instrument that fails to create any lasting value.

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turrkeytrack.biz

COOL 2.0 Won’t Improve Producer Prospects

Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:16:23 GMT

My previous column addressed some of the touted claims in support of COOL . However, the evidence is clear the law failed to: 1. Slow beef import tonnage coming to the U.S., 2. Provide U.S. beef producers better prices compared to their foreign counterparts, and 3. Improve beef demand.

Some of the feedback I received was telling. Much of it proclaiming the data presented doesn’t really matter. The only thing that matters are the believed benefits. And even if COOL didn’t make things better for producers or consumers, let’s proceed anyway because there’s not really any cost associated with implementing the program. So, let’s tackle that perspective.

Let’s first review the issue on the demand / benefit side. As reminder from the previous column, USDA’s Report to Congress: Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling asserted COOL didn’t improve beef demand. The report states: “…we found no evidence that consumer demand for beef or pork has increased because of MCOOL. Thus, our economic analysis finds no measurable benefits to consumers as a result of the MCOOL rules.”

From the cost side, the mandate requires additional compliance measures (e.g. record-keeping, documentation, logistic complexities, etc…). To offset cost associated with those added requirements, the USDA report summarizes demand needed to improve more than 7%. But without any measurable shift in demand, producers are left holding the bag

To that end, USDA models the net outcome from a producer surplus perspective: “…the net gain that producers receive for producing and selling a good…[it] is a measure of the economic welfare or benefit that producers collectively receive for selling a good in the marketplace.” Based on the modeling estimates, implementation of COOL results in producer surplus declining nearly $1.6B (basis 2022 dollars) in the cattle sector over the span of ten years (see first graph). Undoubtedly, that decline will disproportionately harm smaller producers who inherently possess higher costs of production.

Never mind all that, there’s a new rationale for COOL that’s been thrown into the hopper: packer margins. The argument being that packer margins began to surge after COOL was repealed. As such, the law must have been holding the packer in check. And if we reinstate COOL, producers will get back to better days. Right?

That’s not what the data says. The second graph details annual packer gross profit both pre- and post-COOL. Gross margins averaged $191/head in the nine years leading up to COOL (’00-’08). However, that number barely budged during the next seven years (’09-’15) while COOL was in effect.

Widening margins during the past several years have occurred for multiple reasons. The timing of that occurrence post-COOL is coincidental. But it’s important to remember, the absence of COOL isn’t causal to that occurrence. It’s an important difference. And as such, the argument is a head fake. In summary, COOL did nothing to alter packer margins the first time around, so there’s little reason to think this time will be different.

The phenomenon of target-fixation originated during WWII. To make an accurate drop, bomber pilots become singularly focused on their target; but in doing so, they lose track of the altitude and end up flying into the ground. That’s seemingly where we find ourselves with COOL 2.0. It’ll leave producers worse off – not better.

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

Cornett: Do I detect some cognitive illiberalism?*

Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:50:25 GMT

You guys. I call myself a cynic, but you guys! Well, some of you guys. Did you see the responses on Facebook to Nevil Speer’s factual presentation on Mandatory Cool?

Speer made a very solid argument, backed up with numbers and graphs that read clear as day. To me, at least. The COOL experiment came at the start of a cyclical upturn in prices. It did not create the better prices. It didn’t impede imports. Imports increased. The cattle markets in Mexico and Canada increased with the US. Consumers expressed little interest.

The up market was a coincidence. You youngsters listen up: These markets are cyclical. Good times come. Good times go.

Speer’s piece was plumb, plain “what happened” history. At least it seemed so to me, a person who already thought that. (Who among us is immune to cognitive illiberalism?) And yet, the response from readers was over-the-tippy-top negative. Not all, of course. But of those who chimed in, it was like “The only way anybody could find fault with COOL is to be ‘in the pocket of the packers’.” Or, apparently worse, in cahoots with NCBA.

Speers’ case, hardly new, was so sound I would have figured anybody would see the logic of it. I mean, I don’t like the way my cows get to looking this late in winter, but the facts are the facts. My job is to deal with them as they are. Its ok to curse the weather, but add a little cake, too.

Why are so many people, good people, smart people, so adamant in denying plumb, plain facts?

I wondered enough to go to Psychology Today, where I found a reference to this paper https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1818&context=facpub on “cultural cognition.” It’s a little wordy, even for my taste (and there’s plenty of evidence I like wordy) but it basically reports a study in which conservatives and liberals were shown footage of a protest. One group was told it was against abortion. The other said it was against gays in the military.

“Cultural cognition” refers to the unconscious influence of individuals’ group commitments on their perceptions of legally consequential facts. We conducted an experiment to assess the impact of cultural cognition on perceptions of facts relevant to distinguishing constitutionally protected “speech” from unprotected “conduct.” Study subjects viewed a video of a political demonstration.

Half the subjects believed that the demonstrators were protesting abortion outside of an abortion clinic, and the other half that the demonstrators were protesting the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy outside a military recruitment center. Subjects of opposing cultural outlooks who were assigned to the same experimental condition (and thus had the same belief about the nature of the protest) disagreed sharply on key “facts”—including whether the protestors obstructed and threatened pedestrians. Subjects also disagreed sharply with those who shared their cultural outlooks but who were assigned to the opposing experimental condition (and hence had a different belief about the nature of the protest).

The two groups saw two different protests, apparently. Different levels of violence and such. Saw what they wanted to see.

And so I read some more about that sort of stuff.** Why do we insist on seeing what we want to see? Why, with facts laid before us, are we so stubborn about admitting we may have been wrong? And I say “we,” because I’m not immune. Part of it, I just don’t like admitting I was wrong. But 51 years of marriage and cattle buying and futures trading have given me some hard lessons n that illiberalism business. It’s one reason I’m so wishy washy. I’m like the out-cow considering what might be lurking in the “get-yer-butt-back in-hole” gate when it comes to making decisions.***

My favorite example of all this is a friend who, during the energy crisis of the 70’s,****invested in a machine that used water to create energy. Before he got rich, the lawmen took apart the inventor’s prototype and found it had a hidden battery that made it look like it was creating energy.

So, I said to my friend, “didn’t you maybe see that coming?” And he said to me that the inventor had contacted the investors to tell them he had put the battery in there to protect his secrets from the lawmen. And, by golly, my friend sank some more thousands into it.

Anyhow, I’ve noticed through the years the enthusiasm for COOL is stronger in the North Plains. I’ve always figured that had to do with all those high-grading Canadian cattle passing their front gates. But now I know a little about “cultural cognition,” which I believe we know better as living, and thinking, in an echo chamber.

When everybody you know seems to agree on something, it’s a lot easier to believe it, too. And believe it more!

A part of me envies the cock-suredness of the guy who said of Speer’s piece:

“Everybody’s in somebody’s pocket when it comes down to it. COOL is a definite win for the American producers. Will it be reinstated? Figure this guys in somebody’s pocket that wrote this article! As far as Washington political scene we will see who’s padding their pocket if it goes South!

No argument with the facts presented, you’ll note. Just “the only way anybody can think differently than me is if he’s corrupt.”

That is so intellectually easy. I know it’s the modern way. The internet way. But if a person isn’t willing to consider that she might be wrong and listen to an opposing opinion—much less plumb, plain facts—well… In this case it’s just blab. Neither he nor I have anything to do but yammer about the matter. But a business person that won’t question the echo chamber in unsettled times such as these? If she can’t look at the facts that are facts and adjust her thinking, she better have a rich mama or an altruistic banker.***

I’ve been a COOL agnostic since the debate started back about the time that stock photo of me Drovers uses was taken.**** I trust Speer’s numbers on what little good it did. Have no evidence of any great harm it did. But that’s not my suggestion for young folks planning a future in this tough and getting-tougher cattle business.

Open your ears and let uncomfortable thoughts circulate in your brain.

Send me your thoughts: scornett9163@yahoo.com

*”Cognitive illiberalism” was a strange new term to me. None of my friends use it. Looked it up and found it defined as “an inability to recognize how cultural background influences one’s own (as opposed to others’) decision making.” So, that’s like when I go to Austin and see the tattoos and funny clothes and I go, “what are these people thinking?” And they meet me and go, “Geezo, I thought he was panhandling. Why would anybody want to see pictures of that old man’s grand daughters?”

**If you want more of that learning, here’s an interesting piece https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201810/what-actually-is-belief-and-why-is-it-so-hard-change

***THE energy crisis of the 1970’s. Not MY energy crisis of MY 70’s. The former went away with Jimmy Carter. The latter lingers.

****If I’m to keep this up, I want a new picture. I want one where I have that Jack Elam look because I doubt everybody, too.

***** Which is why I dusted off the cobwebs and came back to the typewriter. I’d sure like to convince some of those folks that they’re fixated on the wrong shiny objects. And trust me, I am in nobody’s pocket. My thoughts are home grown and mesquite-aged. My dog in this fight is hoping to see a viable body of independent producers stay solvent until my kids come to their senses or my granddaughters get old enough to take over the place. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see COOL or government mandates on marketing methods as contributing to that goal. I think we’re scratching a phantom itch.*****

*****Which is what I’ve been saying all along and which could be confused with a case of cognitive illiberalism. If it were someone else, of course. Not me. (Says me, anyhow. But none of us is immune.)

Speer: COOL Zombie Walking Again

Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:46:56 GMT

Belief perseverance is the phenomenon in which people hold on to their convictions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That’s the only sensical explanation as to why we’re once again discussing mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL). Somehow the fervor grabbed hold of Reps. Gooden (R-TX) and Khana (D-CA). Their proposed legislation asserts : “…the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall determine a means of reinstating mandatory country of origin labeling for beef…”

COOL fans cling to the idea this matters to consumers. Consequently, it then strengthens market prices and boosts producers’ revenue. For example, the “ranch group” explains it like this : “American cattle producers are being unfairly displaced out of their own market. We have got to implement MCOOL immediately to give our cattle producers leverage at the meat counter and the American consumer the accurate information that they deserve. Without MCOOL, we will import ourselves out of a domestic market.” With that, let’s explore what the data says about all this.

First, imports. Claim: COOL will slow imports else “we will import ourselves out of a domestic market.” In other words, advocates promote COOL as an active, non-tariff trade barrier – but that’s the very reason it was struck down by WTO in the first place. Moreover, in an ironic twist, those hopes went unfulfilled the first time around. Rather, as a percentage of total beef supply, beef imports topped their highest levels in a decade (’14 and ’15) – while COOL was in effect. Since its repeal, imports have leveled off at 9-10% of total beef supply – largely in-line with the longer-run average.

Second, producer leverage. Claim: COOL will immediately “give our cattle producers leverage” in the market place. That’s a popular argument because prices reached record highs during COOL. But that didn’t happen because of COOL else Canadian prices wouldn’t have also been surging. In other words, the law made no difference to buyers and sellers – thus providing zero marginal benefit for U.S. producers.

Third, and most important, consumer demand. Claim: COOL provides “…the American consumer the accurate information that they deserve.” But do they care? USDA’s own commissioned research (Drs. Tonsor , Schroeder and Parcell ) noted there was , “…no evidence that consumer demand for beef or pork has increased because of MCOOL. Thus, our economic analysis finds no measurable benefits to consumers as a result of the MCOOL rules.”

The beef industry enjoyed the benefits of new pricing power during the COOL years (’09-’15) – much of that largely attributable to the industry’s previous work emphasizing quality and promotion. However, specific to beef demand, the price / quantity relationship during COOL was weaker compared to the trendline established the nine years prior (’00-’08). ( For more detailed discussion, see Dr. Tonsor’s detailed work regarding COOL and demand. ) Since COOL was repealed, beef demand has jumped to new highs. Seemingly, consumers have responded to what really matters in the marketplace: continuous improvement in beef quality and consistency.

We’ve run this gauntlet once before. But for whatever reason, the COOL zombie just keeps coming back. Undoubtedly, some will argue that this time is different. But that’s a weak argument given the track record. The industry is best served by killing it once and for all.

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

Appeals Court Dismisses “Product of the U.S.A.” Labeling Lawsuit

Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:34:27 GMT

A federal appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by cattle ranchers over the alleged mislabeling of beef as a “Product of the U.S.A.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th District in Denver ruled 2-1 on Friday to dismiss the class-action lawsuit filed in January 2020 by New Mexico ranchers Robin Thornton and Michael Lucero.

The original lawsuit named Tyson Foods, Cargill Meat Solutions, JBS USA and National Beef Packing Co., with plaintiffs claiming the companies mislead consumers by labeling beef as “Product of the U.S.A.” when the cattle may have been born and raised in another country.

At issue are USDA rules that allow the “Product of the U.S.A.” label to be used when the meat is further processed by U.S. companies. The lawsuit had been dismissed last year, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the lower court by ruling that the plaintiff’s arguments was preempted by federal law.

“Allowing plaintiffs to impose (a different label standard) would impose a requirement different from what USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has already approved as consistent with the Federal Meat Inspection Act,” U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Moritz said in the 21-page opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Senior U.S. Circuit Court Judge Carlos Lucero, said the label is misleading when it is used on products from animals raised outside the U.S. Lucero also said he believes the labels violate USDA’s regulation that bar meat from giving “any false indication of origin.”

Speer: Data Indicates COOL is Self-Defeating

Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:17:15 GMT

A recent Twitter post highlighted a graph comparing the trend of monthly U.S. fed cattle prices versus the retail cost of beef. The graph reflected the story of leverage and margin that’s at the forefront of debate and discussion within the industry. However, the graph wasn’t specifically addressing that issue. Rather, the purpose was to generate support for COOL including the following statement:

“During the nearly seven years since MCOOL for beef was repealed, U.S. cattle producers experienced lower cattle prices and were deprived the means to build demand for their U.S. produced cattle.”

COOL proponents contend the law provides competitive advantage to U.S. beef producers and enables farmers and ranchers to receive higher prices. But the tweet failed to paint the broader picture; it didn’t reflect Canadian fed cattle prices that have marched in lockstep with the U.S. market (the correlation is .93). (See chart below.)

U.S. vs Canadian Fed Cattle Price

With that in mind, we’re left with one of two take-aways. One, COOL must have also provided Canadian producers the same benefit, Or two, COOL never mattered in the marketplace and didn’t establish any differentiation between the U.S. and Canadian markets. Either way, the data indicates COOL is self-defeating and doesn’t really allow producers “…to build demand for their U.S. produced cattle.”

Nevil Speer is based in Bowling Green, KY and serves as Director of Industry Relations for Where Food Comes From (WFCF). The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of WFCF or its shareholders. He can be reached at nspeer@wherefoodcomesfrom.com .

Mandatory COOL Discussions Heat Up

Fri, 24 Sep 2021 15:23:06 GMT

On Thursday, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) joined Chip Flory, AgriTalk host. The conversation primarily revolved around two initiatives that impact cattle producers – mandatory country of origin labeling (mCOOL) and mandatory price reporting.

First things first, Flory says, the American Beef Labeling Act is not the same as the Product of the USA label. This act is focused on mandatory country of origin labeling.

“Mandatory country of origin labeling is an issue that has been around for a long time. It’s one I’ve been working on since my days in the House of Representatives. In fact, it was included in two previous farm bills, but in every circumstance, it got knocked out by the World Trade Organization, so we had to go back to the drawing board,” Thune says.

The primarily issue with the current beef labeling system is that it allows imported beef that’s finished but not born or raised in the U.S. to be labeled as a product of the U.S.

“Our producers want to be able to have a label that distinguishes their products, which are born, raised and harvested here in the United States, to the consumer — and the consumer, I think, has a right to know,” Thune says. “The shirts you and I are wearing today say where they come from, but the beef we put in the center of our plate doesn’t have to bear that label.”

To get the issue resolved once and for all, Thune says the best way is to get the people who defend it at the World Trade Organization, the U.S. Trade Representative Office and USDA, to be involved in the drafting process. According to Thune, both Katherine Tai, United States Trade Representative, and Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, promised at their confirmation hearings to help come up with mCOOL provisions that would withstand or be compliant with World Trade Organization rules.

“Secretary Vilsack gets it; he understands it and we’re trying to get Katherine Tai and others in the administration to share the view that this is an important piece of legislation because it is really important to the economy, the livestock and agricultural economy, in this country,” Thune says. “I hope we’ll have good cooperation from the administration, but we’ll see.”

Canada and Mexico are paying careful attention because they contested mCOOL in the past – and they’re the reason why it was repealed, he adds.

“They succeeded in a legal challenge at the World Trade Organization and, as a consequence, the World Trade Organization allowed them to levy retaliatory tariffs against American agriculture, so it was taken off the books,” he explains.

The American Beef Labeling Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It’s a first step, Thune describes, with a long road ahead.

“There are other countries with similar labeling laws. The United States, for whatever reason, every time we’ve tried to do this, we’ve run into these roadblocks,” he says. “It’s high time we develop a sense of urgency and thread the needle in such a way we can differentiate and under the American Beef Labeling Act allow for transparency that benefits both producers and consumers.”

There’s likely a segment of the cattle industry that wonders why voluntary country of origin labeling hasn’t worked.

“A voluntary law is pretty weak tea,” Thune says. “To ensure consumers know where their beef is coming from, and producers get the benefit of selling the highest quality beef in the world, we have to have a mandatory labelling system.”

Speaking of mandatory, Flory asks, are we going to get an extension for the mandatory price reporting by the end of the month?

“I think what will probably happen, I hope what happens, is we get a yearlong extension at least,” Thune says. “There’s also the possibility we could do a short-term extension. I don’t think we would be opposed to that either. At a minimum, we need to get an extension so when Sept. 30 rolls around that legislation doesn’t cease to exist.”

Senators Vie To Reestablish Mandatory COOL

Thu, 09 Sep 2021 03:58:15 GMT

The American Beef Labeling Act was announced by four U.S Senators on Wednesday that would reinstate mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef.

The legislation will be formally introduced next week by Senators John Thune (R-S.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). Thune and Booker are members of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

According to a statement issued by Senator Thune, the American Beef Labeling Act would require the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), in consultation with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, to develop a World Trade Organization-compliant means of reinstating MCOOL for beef within one year of enactment. USTR would have six months to develop a reinstatement plan followed by a six-month window to implement it. If USTR fails to reinstate MCOOL for beef within one year of enactment, it would automatically be reinstated for beef only.

“Transparency in labeling benefits both producers and consumers,” said Thune. “Unfortunately, the current beef labeling system in this country allows imported beef that is neither born nor raised in the United States, but simply finished here, to be labeled as a product of the USA. This process is unfair to cattle producers and misleading for consumers. When you see a ‘product of the USA’ label on the grocery store shelf, it should mean just that.”

(Of note is the fact one of the four U.S. Senators who support MCOOL is Cory Booker, who claims to be a vegan and who proposed legislation earlier this year that would - among other things - force the closure of controlled animal feeding operations (CAFOs) by 2040.)

Country of origin labeling was included in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills at the behest of northern U.S. ranchers who compete with the Canadian cattle industry. It also was backed by consumer advocates who said it helps shoppers know where their food comes from. COOL first became law on March 16, 2009, and also covered chicken, pork and several other products. Processed meat products, meat purchased at restaurants and certain commodity meats such as turkey were exempt.

Implementation of COOL, however, was criticized by trading partners Canada and Mexico who claimed it was a trade barrier that created an unfair advantage for U.S. producers. They took their case to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which agreed. In 2015 the WTO authorized Canada and Mexico to place retaliatory tariffs on American goods which totaled more than $1 billion.

“The WTO has warned us multiple times, and Congress has ignored the warning,” said then Chairman of the Senate Ag Committee Pat Roberts (R-Kan) in 2015. “Retaliation is real. Now more than ever, we need to repeal COOL.”

The Senate has debated mandatory COOL for three decades, and Roberts championed the opposition. In December 2015 the Senate and the U.S. House repealed mandatory COOL and avoided the retaliatory tariffs from the WTO. Roberts has since retired, and his successor, Senator Roger Marshall is also on the Senate Ag Committee. Marshall was noticeably absent from the group of senators proposing to reinstate MCOOL.

Since it was repealed nearly seven years ago, MCOOL has remained a flashpoint for some ranchers who believe its reinstatement could help level the playing field. Disruptions from the COVID pandemic have reinforced that belief among many.

“Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling has long been a top priority for the South Dakota Stockgrowers,” said James Halverson, executive director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association. “MCOOL is the only way every single American producer can differentiate their beef from foreign products without leaving it up to some arbitrary program. We greatly appreciate working with Senator Thune on this legislation and hope we can continue to work together to get this across the finish line.”

“During the nearly seven years since MCOOL for beef was repealed, U.S. cattle producers experienced lower cattle prices and were deprived the means to build demand for their U.S.-produced cattle,” said Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of R-CALF USA. “Senators Thune and Tester’s bill to restore MCOOL for beef will now provide that means.”

“We greatly appreciate the work of Senators Thune and Tester in continuing to push forward solutions to define what constitutes a U.S. beef product,” said Justin Tupper, vice president of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association. “From the perspective of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, that label should pertain only to beef that was born, raised, and harvested in the U.S.A.”

Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack said July 1 he will continue the Trump administration’s process of developing a country of origin labeling rule. The push will include a “top-to-bottom review” of the existing rules and what the terminology means to consumers.

“I am committed to ensuring that the Product of USA label reflects what a plain understanding of those terms means to U.S. consumers,” Vilsack said.

Vilsack Says He’s Open To COOL

Tue, 02 Feb 2021 20:16:19 GMT

During Senate confirmation hearings on Tuesday, Tom Vilsack, the former Ag Secretary who is President Biden’s nominee to return as Ag Secretary, said he is willing to consider reimplementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations for meat products.

Addressing a question from Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer about whether he beliees the current labeling policy adequately informed consumers, Vilsack said, “If it’s the same policy as it was four years ago when I left, the answer is no.”

As Ag Secretary under President Obama, Vilsack said, “We made every concerted effort to try to create better transparency and better information for consumers, because we understand that consumers want to know where their food comes from.”

Vilsack said the Obama Administration attempted on three occasions to strengthen COOL but was unsuccessful because of Canadian challenges to the law through the World Trade Organization (WTO). In December 2015, Congress repealed the COOL law for beef and pork because of a series of WTO rulings that prohibited labels based on country of origin on some products.

The Canadian government argued that COOL worked to the detriment of the meat industry on both sides of the border by increasing costs, lowering processing efficiency and otherwise distorting trade across the Canada-U.S. border. Mexico made similar claims.

In May 2015 the WTO ruled that U.S. COOL requirements discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock, and subsequently authorized Canada and Mexico to impose $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs against U.S. imports.

“I am absolutely willing to listen to anybody who has an idea” about how the U.S. can implement COOL where the WTO doesn’t “slap it down,”Vilsack said.

South Dakota Senator John Thune asked Vilsack about volatility in the cattle markets and “what actions (Vilsack) would take to strengthen the integrity of the cattle market.”

Vilsack responded he would use every “capacity we have with USDA to make sure that we have open, fair and transparent markets.” He said he would seek price discovery data and economic analysis to “determine whether or not there’s a problem,” and if so, “using the tools we have to provide greater competition, greater openness, greater transparency, greater fairness.”

Vilsack also expressed interest in expanding processing opportunities “so that we’re not overly reliant on a small number of processors.” He also said he would work with the Department of Justice to “determine whether or not they see reasons for additional action on their behalf.”

COOL: R-CALF, NFU Seek FTC Assistance

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:57:04 GMT

R-CALF USA has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to correct “substantive conflicts” it sees between existing federal law and USDA’s “past, present and future meat labeling schemes.”

Separately, the National Farmers Union also called on the FTC to “swiftly finalize” the recent proposed rule that would strengthen voluntary U.S. origin claims on labels and penalize those who incorrectly label products. NFU President Rob Larew urged the FTC to adopt the proposed rule and “vigorously enforce it.”

In a statement released Tuesday evening, R-CALF alleges USDA has been violating the Tariff Act of 1930 which requires imported beef to retain its foreign country of origin label throughout the marketing channels unless the product is subjected to substantial transformation. Current USDA regulations only requires minimal processing for the foreign label to be removed from the product.

R-CALF also alleges that USDA’s meat labeling policy is in “direct conflict” with the mandatory country of origin labeling (mCOOL) law that applys to lamb, chicken and other commodities. In comments submitted to the FTC, R-CALF said that “while USDA’s policy allows foreign lamb to bear a USA label when it too is subjected to only minimal processing, the mCOOL law expressly states that lamb cannot bear a United States designation unless it is from an animal that is exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States.”

R-CALF’s comments claim USDA’s policies favor the beef industry’s larger players, including the large beef packing companies. R-CALF claims such policies help those large entities in “deceptively labeling their foreign products” such that it causes harm to American cattlemen. The group claims USDA “is catering to only a handful of multinational beef packers” and a minority of cattlemen who purchase imported cattle.

In the statement, R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said American ranchers have received no help from Congress or the USDA in correcting USDA’s deceptive beef labeling regime. “We’re hopeful that the independent Federal Trade Commission can step in and help America’s independent ranchers.”

Perdue Nixes Revival Of mCOOL, Suggests Voluntary Labels

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:55:14 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue made clear his position on mandatory country-of-origin labeling on beef in his State of the Rural Economy testimony before the House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday.

Mandatory COOL “is not going to happen unless we want to do a billion-dollar litigation damage with Mexico and Canada,” he said.

However, the agency is seeking to use its existing labeling authority to find a path forward that conforms to World Trade Organization’s regulations. America’s previous country-of-origin labeling laws were repealed by Congress in 2015 under threat of $1 billion retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico through the WTO.

USDA is considering limiting the use of voluntary “Product of the USA” label to animals that are “slaughtered and processed in the United States.

In response to a question during the hearing, Perdue said USDA is “trying to thread the needle honestly, with transparency, so the consumer knows what they get and [we] help the producer feel they get value for cattle that have been grown and processed [in the U.S.].”

COOL, Packers To Clash In N.M. Court

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:54:57 GMT

America’s four largest beef packers are misleading consumers with their “Produced in the U.S.A.” labels, according to the claims in two class-action lawsuits filed in New Mexico. The suits allege the labels are misleading because the products often contain imported beef.

The lawsuits, filed by a rancher and a consumer and transferred to New Mexico’s federal distraict court, claim Tyson, Cargill, JBS and National Beef have been misleading the public with such labeling since 2015 when Congress rescinded the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) regulations for pork and beef. Current federal regulations allow beef packers to label products as U.S.-produced if the animal is processed in the U.S. Therefore, animals born, raised and slaughtered in another country can qualify as “Product of the U.S.A.”

The lawsuits claim packers have imported $6.2 billion worth of cattle/beef per year since 2015.

“By deceiving consumers about the true origin of the Products, Defendants are able to sell a greater volume of the Products, to produce cheaper products in other Countries, and to take away market share from competitors as well as pay lower prices to domestic producers, thereby increasing their own sales and profits,” plaintiffs state.

COOL was repealed in December 2015, just days before the World Trade Organization (WTO) was set to approve $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs against the United States. COOL required meat from other countries sold in the United States to bear a label indicating its country of origin. According to the WTO, COOL violated trade standards and could have led to millions of tariffs on U.S. exporters from Mexico, Canada and possibly other countries.

The New Mexico lawsuits claim the alleged misbranding of beef has cost American cattlemen $30 billion over the last four years, and that consumers should know what they are buying.

Opponents of COOL, however, say COOL is nothing more than a protectionist measure and that packers are not violating labeling laws as they are currently written.

Related stories:

COOL Resolution Introduced By Senator Tester

NCBA Seeks Clarity, Consistency in Beef Origin Labeling Practices

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:53:30 GMT

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has reaffirmed its policy supporting voluntary country-of-origin labeling (COOL).

In a press release, NCBA said because it takes the concerns of its members and stakeholders seriously, its Executive Committee has unanimously approved efforts to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) to address the Agency’s longstanding policy on geographic origin statements.

“Specifically, NCBA is seeking solutions to the labeling requirements and verification procedures in place for beef products labeled as ‘Product of the U.S.A,’ ‘Made in the U.S.A.,’ or similar origin claims, which will resolve the concerns of beef producers, work at the speed of commerce, meet America’s trade obligations and prevent confusion among consumers,” the statement said.

For several months, NCBA has been studying origin claims in use on some beef product labels. During the NCBA Summer Business Meeting in July, NCBA leaders formed a producer-led working group to examine the extent of these concerns and the federal regulations governing such practices. Although the working group has not determined whether such practices are occurring on a widespread basis, concerns remain that consumer expectations relative to beef product labels bearing origin claims may not be consistent with FSIS’s current policy.

“NCBA recognizes that product labels are a defining feature of the shopping experience for consumers. While the majority of beef products currently advertised, marketed, or labeled as ‘Product of the U.S.A.’ are likely compliant with current FSIS regulations, the potential for consumer confusion exists,” said NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. “The core mission of FSIS is to ensure all meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. While FSIS has policy regarding origin labels, ultimately origin claims are marketing claims and should be regulated as such.”

NCBA said it and its state affiliates are committed to working together with USDA to bring forward a meaningful solution to ensure that any voluntary country-of-origin claims are verified by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) prior to the approval of labels by USDA-FSIS. NCBA believes that beef labels with voluntary country-of-origin labeling marketing claims should be verified through existing USDA framework that is market-based and respects international trade commitments. It is critically important that any changes not trigger retaliatory tariffs from Mexico or Canada that have already been approved by the WTO.

NCBA believes that other recent efforts to address these concerns by Congress or other industry groups — while well-intentioned — miss the mark and don’t go far enough to address the situation.

“We look forward to working with USDA and other stakeholders – something NCBA is uniquely positioned to do – to ensure that accurate and voluntary origin labels are in place to benefit beef producers and consumers,” Woodall said.

To listen to the group’s podcast on the issue, click play below.

Related story:

USCA Says Producers, Consumers Deserve ‘Accurate Labels’

USCA Says Producers, Consumers Deserve 'Accurate Labels'

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:53:30 GMT

On Tuesday the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) issued a press release reaffirming its policy supporting voluntary country-of-origin labeling (COOL).

“Specifically, NCBA is seeking solutions to the labeling requirements and verification procedures in place for beef products labeled as ‘Product of the U.S.A,’ ‘Made in the U.S.A.,’ or similar origin claims, which will resolve the concerns of beef producers, work at the speed of commerce, meet America’s trade obligations and prevent confusion among consumers,” the statement said.

As a result of the NCBA statement, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association issued a statement calling for “accurate meat labels.”

“In October, the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) submitted a petition for rulemaking to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service requesting the use of certain labeling claims, such as ‘Product of USA,’ ‘Made in USA,’ and ‘USA Beef,’ to be used exclusively for meat products derived from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds recently introduced a bill in Congress that would aim to accomplish the same thing,” the statement said.

USCA said “USDA is accepting comments on our petition until December 24.”

Further, USCA says it “maintains a solid record of advancing solutions that would provide a pathway forward for truthful, transparent labeling on U.S. beef products. We are committed to working with any industry stakeholders who sincerely wish to increase truth in labeling at the meat counter.

“In 2015, USCA and key Members of the U.S. Senate championed a measure that would have ensured there was no confusion as to the origin of beef products in the retail marketplace. This bill would have kept the program at USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, and prevent the misuse of the label that we are seeing today. Both the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and RCALF-USA opposed that solution, the rule was entirely repealed, and the program went to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, which is where our petition currently resides.”

USCA said, “Warm tidings of cheer are nice during the holiday season, but the problems and distortions cattle producers endure in the cattle marketplace are real. Progress and solutions need to advance, and USCA won’t rest until transparency and true price discovery is a reality for every cattle producer across the U.S.”

Related stories:

NCBA Seeks Clarity, Consistency In Beef Origin Labeling Practices

Commentary: ‘Get In The Freaking Ark!'

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:51:59 GMT

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of Kacy Atkinson, a 5th-generation Wyoming rancher.

I’ll admit it. I’m angry and frustrated with several of my fellow producers. I wrote a version of this blog post several years ago. But, with what’s been going on lately, I felt the need to rewrite it a bit. To say it louder for the people in the back who seem to be missing the message.

I’m sure we’ve all heard the Bible story about Noah and his ark. And I’m sure you’re wondering what on earth that might have to do with the cattle business. Bear with me for a minute, I promise I have a point in this analogy.

When the flood came, and the animals all got on the boat, for 40 days and 40 nights, everyone got along. The lions didn’t eat the lambs, the elephants didn’t step on the rabbits, and the snakes didn’t strike the hippos. Everyone played nice, for the sake of their survival. And the flood came and went, and everyone got off the boat in the same shape they got on in. The entire animal kingdom managed to put aside their differences, their nature, their roles and get along…you know, so they’d still exist when the flood was over.

When I look at our industry and how fragmented we are becoming, I can’t help but wonder if we shouldn’t take a lesson from the ark. Because I don’t think it’s about NCBA vs R-CALF, or organic vs traditional vs grass-fed vs natural…the list could go on and on. I think it’s about the fact that we are all part of one very tiny beef community, and maybe it’s time we got in the same dang boat. I mean, we have enough enemies-animal activist organizations, bloggers and shareholders on a mission, poor news reporting, bad science…we don’t need to make enemies of each other. And the reality is, that today I see an industry becoming so fragmented—we don’t need anyone else to destroy us. We’re doing a mighty fine job of destroying ourselves from within.

So, I’m going to say it louder for the people in the back who don’t seem to be listening. I get it. You’re unhappy with how beef checkoff funds have been spent over the years. You don’t think you’ve gotten the return you should.

You think COOL matters. You think the packers play unfairly. Lest the angry comments start flooding my way, it’s not that I don’t agree those could be or aren’t things to work on. But in the grand scheme of our industry, they just aren’t the battles that matter at the moment. Those aren’t the battles to fight if we are going to keep people buying beef. You know why? Because NONE of those are things that matter to them (you know, the people buying beef), or determine if they are going to choose to buy beef to feed their family in the future.

To see fellow cattlemen giving money to an organization that is OPENLY in bed with the enemy known as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), organizations determined to put us out of business, is unfathomable. It’s unconscionable. It’s madness.

Do we have a perfect system? Of course not. But I think you are out of your mind if you don’t believe that the beef checkoff has done more good for our industry than we could have ever achieved as individuals, or even individual states. There’s a reason that the Costco in Seoul, South Korea sells more American beef every day than anywhere else on earth. There’s a reason why “Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner” is one of the most recognizable slogans of all time. There’s a reason why several new cuts of beef have been developed over the years (hello flat iron steak). There’s a reason why beef demand hasn’t significantly changed over the years (about an ounce less per day than the high in the 70s, with record high meat consumption predicted in 2019).

And it’s all thanks to the work being done by our check-off dollars. Has the money always been handled perfectly? Probably not. When does that ever happen in real life? If you don’t like the way the money is being handled—here’s a novel thought—pull up a chair and take a seat at the table where the money is and fix it. You know, instead of actively working to destroy it. (Oh, and us in the process.)

I’ve had so many conversations with cattlemen completely hung up on COOL. That’s why they’ve left NCBA. Well at the risk of the hate mail that’s about to come flooding my way—COOL didn’t work the way we wanted it to. People buying our beef don’t care enough to pay for it. And COOL is so far down the list of the major issues that people in this country care about related to beef it’s not even funny.

You want to know what IS actually impacting and attacking our industry in the minds of people who eat? Sustainability. Climate change. The safety of the food they eat (i.e. hormones, antibiotics, animal welfare). And I can tell you, everyone of the 700,000 of us in the industry ought to be thanking our lucky stars every single day for the work of people like Dr. Sara Place (who works at NCBA), screaming from her mountain top about how cattle are in fact sustainable (you know 80% of the land raising cattle isn’t fit to grow any other type of human food). How they aren’t destroying the environment (in fact they are taking low quality human-inedible feeds and converting them to high quality, high protein food for us).

How removing cattle from the earth won’t impact the climate (3.3% of GHG emissions are contributed to cattle according to the EPA, and eliminating them won’t impact that number significantly as it would certainly change the amount of carbon sequestration cattle accomplish among other things) but would certainly have a negative impact on the economy, animal and plant biodiversity, wildlife habitat and our diets to name a few. She’s working her tail off to tell our story—the part of the story that American’s actually care about. Sharing actual facts. Helping with actual research that might convince people we aren’t the enemy. That’s the part that will determine if people put beef on their plate. And she’s one of a few who are working every day to make our check-off dollars matter. And crazy as this is, I suspect she’s making a difference. Because she’s having the conversations the people buying our product care about. The conversations we ought to be having. The issues we ought to be focused on if we want to stay in business. We’re so blinded by the mini-battles we seem to be completely missing the war—and I’m sure she (and people like Dr. Frank Mitleohner at UC-Davis) could use our help there.

And yes. I know you’re frustrated with packers. And labels. And market prices. We all are. But our future, my future, the young generations future depends on dealing with the issues that our CUSTOMERS actually care about. Because none of the rest of it matters if people don’t buy beef in the end. If they don’t feel like it’s safe. And healthy. And sustainable. And has a positive impact on the climate and the environment. If the Ellen DeGeneres’ of the world speak louder than us.

We have to play on the same team. We have to learn to speak with one voice. We have to focus on the war that matters. Remember at the end of the day, we all want the same thing. To raise our kids in the way of life we love. To take care of our animals. To live on the land. To see something we’ve built passed on to the next generation in line. To know that we produced a product we are proud of that other people find enjoyment in.

It’s time to get on the same ship. It’s time to stop infighting. It’s time to move forward together. Look around at our country and see what differences are doing to us. See how our very country appears to be ripping apart. And make a different choice for our industry. Let’s all take a seat at one table, and move forward with one voice, trying to do the best we can.

Come together. Make the system better if you think it’s not working, don’t destroy it. Figure out how we make the best future we can. Because if we don’t, we won’t need HSUS or animal rights activists or Ellen or climate change activists or bad journalism or lies or myths to destroy it. We’ll destroy our industry all on our very own. And wouldn’t that be a win for them? It’s time to look around, take stock of what really matters in the long game, and choose to fight the actual war we should be focused on.

So, on behalf of the people in our industry who feel the way I do--for those who are tired and frustrated and fed-up. Tired of those who market their product by disparaging our production methods. Tired of those peddling lies. Tired of the fighting, the finger-pointing, the name calling. Tired of those who can’t see the forest for the trees. Tired of those stuck on fighting a battle and losing sight of the actual war. Tired of watching us tear ourselves apart. Tired of seeing our inability to work together provide openings for the enemy. Tired of seeing people try to destroy the one system we have in place that actually effectively markets our product and makes it better for all of us. Tired of wondering why we can’t just get along and do something good for our entire industry. Tired of watching our future be jeopardized. WE ARE TIRED. And we deserve better. Because we can be better and do better than this. So MUCH BETTER than this.

So, I’ll scream it again. One more time. As loud as I can. For the people in the back. It’s time to get along. It’s time to play for the same team. It’s time to be on the same side. It’s time to fight the same war. It’s time to do what’s best for the whole. It’s time to do what’s best for our young people and our future. It’s time to understand what the real issues-the issues that impact demand for our product are according to the people buying our product. It’s time to knock it off.

For the love of all things—GET IN THE FREAKING ARK.

Kacy Atkinson was born and raised on a cattle ranch in Southeastern Wyoming. She received a B.S. in Agribusiness from West Texas A&M University. She also received a Masters of Business Administration with an emphasis in Agriculture and a Masters in Speech Communications. After several years working in higher education at WTAMU and then for CSU Extension as a livestock agent, she has now returned home to the family cow-calf operation in Wyoming. As a 5th-generation cattle rancher, she is passionate about sharing beef’s story, along with her family’s daily ranch life, and does so through her website, kacyatkinson.com, as well as on social media under the handle @10milespastnowhere on Facebook and Instagram, and @10milespast on Twitter. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of Kacy Atkinson.

New Study on COOL Shows No Harm

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:42:16 GMT

A new study shows that Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) has not adversely affected trade with Canada and Mexico.

The study authored by C. Robert Taylor, agriculture economics professor from Auburn University, found no difference in pricing of imported cattle before and after COOL. Taylor came on AgriTalk this morning to discuss his findings.

The study was based on Mandatory Price Reporting (MPR) data that packers provide to the USDA. The data makes distinctions between imported slaughter cattle and slaughter cattle of domestic origin. Other previous studies had used data that had not been publicly available and showed COOL negatively affected the price basis of imported cattle versus domestic cattle.

“The MPR data shows that for most categories of slaughter cattle the basis actually narrowed, not widened. Also, looking at the imports of slaughter cattle and feeder cattle from Canada and Mexico there’s just no significant difference before and after COOL,” Taylor says.

During last Friday’s AgriTalk Jim Wiesemeyer, senior VP for Informa Economics, questioned some of the data within the study.

“The study NFU (National Farmers Union ) released cherry picked the years of analysis. Those years included 2005 when there were trade restrictions on live cattle coming in from Canada. Remember BSE? Had the analysis included the years before the Canadian BSE crisis, mad cow, it would have had nearly opposite results,” Wiesemeyer says.

Taylor points out that MPR data only goes back to 2004 and the data from 2004 was not clear on imports. The starting date of September 2005 was selected because that’s when the Canadians started reporting. Trade data was analyzed going back further in time and no significance was found.

“If I use a much shorter observation period with the monthly trade data I do find a significant negative affect of COOL,” Taylor adds. “However, when you consider imported and domestic captive supply that significance disappears.”

Imported slaughter cattle data was primarily all from Canada, while the feeder cattle data came from both Canada and Mexico. Approximately 80% of imported feeder cattle come from Mexico and nearly 20% from Canada, with the small remainder coming from other areas of the world.

Several studies have come out showing COOL would have negative impacts on live cattle trade from Canada and Mexico, but Taylor says they must not be looking at the same data.

“Again, the Canadian study that was presented to the WTO (World Trade Organization) is based on some detailed Canadian data that the consultants were provided, but was not publicly available to me,” Taylor relates.

Also coming on AgriTalk to discuss COOL was Danni Beer, president of U.S. Cattlemen’s Association .

Previous to this study the WTO was getting numbers from Canadian trade organizations that were different. “What we have now is publicly available data from Mandatory Price Reporting that is very detailed. I think it backs up what we’ve been thinking as a group,” Beer says.

If a North American label were to be used rather than individual countries Beer does not believe that would be an acceptable compromise. “At the WTO level there has been some history of saying that you need to give countries their individual identity on products.”

COOL continues to be hotly contested and the WTO still has a say if it can continue, so more studies will likely follow both in support and opposition.

Don't Drink The COOL-Aid

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:20:40 GMT

Mandatory Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) is back in the news. Dropped after WTO rulings and predictions of financial losses, the controversial labeling issue has resurfaced in a lawsuit against the USDA.

Supporters of COOL say USDA went too far when they stopped the program and went against the intent of Congress in doing so.

Along with the lawsuit, COOL is also expected to be part of NAFTA renegotiations and proposed legislation in Congress. Supporters believe they now have an advocate in the White House as President Trump pushes his pro-America agenda.

Will this three prong strategy bring back COOL? There are still some big hurdles to overcome. Finding a way to get WTO approval will be critical.

Whether you believe we should be a part of the WTO or not, as long as we are we should abide by their rules. Critics often overlook the WTO cases that are decided in our favor. Also, who really knows the intent of Congress?

I’m not sure even they know. And then there are the consumers. I understand how passionate COOL supporters are, but I don’t think that passion is shared by a majority of consumers who tend to look at the price tag more than a label of origin.

If companies felt there was an economic benefit to be gained from COOL, they would do it voluntarily. While the concept of COOL is appealing, that’s not enough to warrant bringing it back.

Will Trump Team Resurrect MCOOL for Beef, Pork?

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:19:31 GMT

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material, therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.

Whether the Trump administration would resurrect mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for ground and muscle cuts of beef and pork is a the question some are asking following President Donald Trump’s “American First” slogan and reports that some members of Trump’s advisory panels favor such labeling.

Contacts advise there has been “some” mention of MCOOL by those on Trump advisory panels, but those sources indicate that is extent of the situation at this stage.

The US MCOOL issue was settled with Canada and Mexico via a WTO dispute settlement panel ruling leading the US to withdraw its previous proposal that Canada and Mexico found wanting. If the US were to resurrect MCOOL, Canada and Mexico could retaliate immediately if they disliked the approach based on the WTO panel decision.

A return of MCOOL is not likely based on sources in Congress and observers of the Trump administration in its early days.

Comments: This issue is one that Canadian and Mexican contacts are also monitoring closely given the history of the dispute. They also point to the potential for immediate retaliation abilities by both countries as a hopeful factor that would deter the administration from pursuing a return to MCOOL for pork and beef.

Manufacturing and Ag Leaders: Current COOL Rules Threaten Jobs and Economic Growth

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:03:38 GMT

A decision by the World Trade Organization (WTO) could cause significant economic repercussions for U.S. manufacturing and agriculture, unless Congress intervenes. Today the WTO released a compliance panel report finding the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rule on muscle cuts of meat violates U.S. international trade obligations.

In response, a broad coalition of U.S. industries called on Congress to immediately authorize and direct the Secretary of Agriculture to rescind elements of COOL that have been determined to be noncompliant with international trade obligations by a final WTO adjudication. If the final ruling finds the U.S. in noncompliance, Canada and Mexico will have the opportunity to retaliate against U.S. goods resulting in lost sales in the billions and put thousands of jobs at risk.

“Canada and Mexico are the two largest markets for U.S. exports,” said U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President for International Policy John Murphy. “The disruption of these trade ties by WTO noncompliance and the resulting retaliation by our North American neighbors will have a devastating economic impact on U.S. industries including food production, agriculture, and manufacturing.”

Canada and Mexico challenged the revised COOL rule in the WTO shortly after the USDA issued a revised rule. They argued that COOL has a trade-distorting impact by reducing the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market, thus violating the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement.

The coalition sent a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in June asking members to take action.

“If Congress fails to ensure that U.S. COOL requirements comply with our international obligations, U.S. jobs and manufacturing will be put at risk,” said Linda Dempsey, Vice President of International Economic Affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers. “The United States helped create the WTO to ensure that all countries play by the rules. U.S. leadership in complying with our own obligations is critical to the United States’ ability to address effectively unfair and WTO-violative trade barriers by our trading partners around the world.”

The WTO dispute settlement body adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report in July 2012 which ruled against a previous version of the COOL rule. It found that the COOL rule treated imported livestock less favorably than U.S. livestock (particularly in the labeling of beef and pork muscle cuts), and did not meet its objective to provide complete information to consumers on the origin of meat products. The international trade body gave the U.S. until May 23, 2013, to bring the rule into WTO compliance. It is that revised rule on which the WTO ruled today and that the coalition is seeking to suspend.

A compilation of products likely to be targeted by Canada and Mexico and the potential economic impact for each state can be found on an interactive map at COOLReform.com .

Source: COOL Reform Coalition

Tyson Stopped Buying Slaughter Cattle from Canada

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 01:56:28 GMT

Tyson Foods Inc., the largest U.S. meat processor, says it has stopped buying slaughter-ready cattle from Canada as of mid-October due to the higher expense of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rules that require labels showing where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered. But the company will continue purchasing cattle born in Canada that are finished in U.S. feedlots.

The COOL rule matter is being challenged both domestically and internationally. Opponents say the labeling is burdensome, costly and could result in additional World Trade Organization (WTO) challenges. Proponents say COOL satisfies consumers’ wish to know where their food comes from and say this could boost U.S. meat sales.

Earlier this year, a District Court judge rejected a request by several U.S. and Canadian meat/livestock groups for a preliminary injunction to prevent USDA from implementing the rule on the grounds it violates first amendment speech rights and that USDA doesn’t have the authority to enact it. The judge said the industry failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if COOL was in effect while the case is being decided.

Meanwhile, members of the World Trade Organization have agreed to a second request by Canada and Mexico that it set up a dispute panel to rule whether the U.S. complied with a previous WTO ruling against COOL rules for meat products.

The amended COOL measure “only serves to deepen the discrimination found in the original labeling requirements,” Canada told the Dispute Settlement Body, while Mexico said the new rules deepen distortions to cross-border trade in meat and “unnecessarily increase” costs to operators in the sector.

Both countries have indicated they plan to take retaliatory actions against the U.S. -- Canada, with WTO approval, and Mexico, possibly regardless of approval.