Q&A: Country of Origin Labeling

With U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Q: What’s the status of the meat labeling law known as the COOL Act? 
 
A: More than a decade ago, I helped secure consumer friendly transparency measures and producer marketing tools in the 2002 farm bill. Under the Tariff Act of 1930, many agricultural imports were exempt from labeling requirements, at least by the time farm commodities reached the final point of sale. The Country of Origin Labeling Act (COOL) of 2002 required the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to implement new food labeling requirements for retail-ready commodities that would allow consumers to know where their food comes from and give producers an opportunity to promote food made here in the U.S.A. 
 
The bipartisan COOL Act required mandatory retail labeling of certain foods, including shellfish, peanuts, fruits, vegetables and meats.  The labeling requirements would specify country-of-origin details and methods of production for commodities sold directly to consumers.
 
However, COOL hit a number of regulatory roadblocks and trade barriers along its extended bureaucratic journey through the USDA and World Trade Organization (WTO). Canada and Mexico filed a lawsuit against COOL at the WTO, specifically targeting muscle cut meat commodities. As a result of the WTO findings, the U.S. amended COOL to achieve compliance. Despite a subsequent appeal by the U.S., the WTO again ruled against the amended COOL provisions. As a result, Canada and Mexico have indicated they will retaliate against U.S. products if the law is not changed. 
 

Q: What can the U.S. do to resolve this situation and save the labeling law? 
 
A: This summer I joined a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to introduce the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and Trade Enhancement Act of 2015. As a longtime supporter of the core principles of COOL, I’m working to find a way to avoid trade distorting barriers with the world trade community upon which the agriculture economy and millions of good-paying U.S. jobs depend for growth and prosperity. Our legislation would give producers a viable option to label their products and restore U.S. compliance with our trade agreements. Canada has taken a similar approach with its own voluntary “product of Canada” labeling for meat. In fact, Canada previously endorsed a voluntary labeling program for U.S. products to resolve the COOL dispute. From that standpoint, a U.S. voluntary labeling law ought to resolve the trade dispute and give America’s producers the ability to promote their products in the marketplace.
 

Q: Why is a voluntary label even necessary?
 
A: A voluntary labeling program is a reasonable path forward that protects the rights of U.S. livestock producers to stake out a fair share of the market and protect the consumer’s right to know. American consumers are becoming increasingly savvy about their farm to fork purchasing power. A voluntary meat labeling law is a good transparency tool for conscientious shoppers. Specifically, our bill would end the mandatory requirement and enact a strictly voluntary label for the U.S. origin of beef, pork, chicken and ground meat. If a meat company does not want to label the origin of its products, it will not be required to do so. It’s that simple. What’s more, establishing a voluntary labeling law would protect the integrity of the label and keep the playing field level for independent producers or regional co-ops trying to market authentic American products with international food conglomerates and meat processors who may label meat sourced from other countries as products of the U.S. This is achieved by keeping the definition of U.S. meat based on “born, raised and slaughtered” in the United States. Meat from an animal that spent its entire life in another country should not qualify as U.S. beef or U.S. pork, as an example. Eliminating COOL would enable meatpacking companies to set their own labeling definition for products of the U.S. Something tells me that American consumers and U.S. livestock producers would see that as a bone-headed approach that wouldn’t do a whole lot to protect the definition of U.S. beef or pork. Consider that Americans have long taken for granted the consumer’s right to know where their t-shirts are produced. U.S. consumers ought to have the same right to know where the food they buy for their families is produced. A voluntary meat labeling law is a sensible solution.