Congress repeals COOL after WTO rulings

Posted January 6, 2016

After more than a decade battle, Congress repealed a Country of Origin Labeling Law (COOL) in December, according to a NBC News article available here. The Capital Press also published an article available here and the Chicago Tribune here.

Lawmakers said they had no choice but to get rid of the labels after the World Trade Organization repeatedly ruled against them. The WTO recently authorized Canada and Mexico, which had challenged the law, to begin more than $1 billion in economic retaliation against the United States.

The COOL repeal has been a growing topic in livestock circles for several years and more recently when the World Trade Organization (WTO) sanctioned $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports by Canada and Mexico, according to Capital Press.

The dispute resulted in four WTO rulings against the U.S. that were found to be in violation of trade obligations by COOL’s discrimination against cattle and hogs imported from Canada and cattle from Mexico.

Representatives of industrial meatpacking and processing stated that they didn't want to stop Americans from knowing the origins of their meat, but claim that there are other ways to find out, according to the Chicago Tribune.

"If meat comes from another country direct to retail it must be labeled from that country," says Eric Mittenthal of the North American Meat Institute. "That has long been the law. Otherwise if it's processed in a U.S. facility under (Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service) inspection it is marked as such. If companies decide to offer more detail they may, but we believe that should be voluntary so that consumers may be the ultimate judge of what they value."

The issue is expected to come up again in 2016, with Vermont set to require labeling on genetically modified food this summer, according to NBC News.

The day the spending bill passed, Vilsack said he would try to help Congress come up with a middle ground on labeling of engineered foods "in a way that doesn't create significant market disruption, while at the same time recognizing consumers' need to know and right to know basic information."

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WTO authorized $1B COOL retaliation

Posted December 8, 2015

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has authorized Canada and Mexico to place tariffs on over $1 billion of American-made goods in retaliation for the country of origin labeling (COOL) law being incompliant with WTO standards, according to an Ag Web article available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and Agri-Pulse here.

The WTO has upheld multiple times Canada and Mexico’s claim that the label creates an unfair advantage to U.S. products.

“As I’ve said time and time again, whether you support or oppose COOL, the fact is retaliation is coming,” said Chairman Roberts. “Today, the WTO announced just how much that retaliation will cost the U.S. economy. With the WTO announcement, farmers, ranchers and small businesses will soon be smacked with over $1 billion in tariffs.”  

This announcement is the final step in a WTO dispute that has been ongoing for over seven years. Despite efforts by the USDA to amend the rule, the WTO has repeatedly ruled that the U.S. COOL rule discriminates against imported livestock in violation of our trade agreements, according to Feedstuffs.

The WTO determined that the COOL measure “increases the record-keeping burden from imported livestock entailed by the original COOL measure.” Furthermore, the panel noted that “between 57.7% and 66.7% of beef and between 83.5% and 84.1% of pork muscle cuts consumed in the U.S. convey no consumer information on origin despite imposing an upstream recordkeeping burden on producers and processors that has a detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for imported livestock.”

Prior to the decision, Capitol Hill sources told Agri-Pulse that COOL repeal in the Senate is a likely outcome, but the size of the retaliatory figure would be a factor. Sources have indicated that a repeal provision may be attached to either the omnibus spending bill expected to be debated this week or a customs enforcement bill also expected to be considered before Congress is scheduled to adjourn for the year next week. 

However, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said NFU, one of the most ardent supporters of COOL, will “raise hell if any repeal bill or language gets included that falls short of maintaining the integrity of COOL,” according to Agri-Pulse.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Stabenow proposes voluntary COOL

Posted June 25, 2015

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) released a draft proposal which would remove beef and pork mandatory labeling provisions under Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and put a completely voluntary Product of the U.S. label in its place, according to a Feedstuffs article available here. Agri-Pulse also published an article available here. A recent COOL blog post is available here.

Stabenow said she hopes her proposal offers a pathway forward on COOL following a May World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling which found the United States out of compliance again.

“This proposal offers a viable alternative and I look forward to discussing it at our hearing and with my colleagues in the Senate as we work to come to agreement on a bipartisan solution,” she said.

House Agriculture Mike Conaway, R-Texas, rejected Stabenow's proposal. He said he would continue to insist on full repeal of the law. A voluntary labeling program is OK but only as long as it is run by the industry and not subject to requirements of the law, according to Agri-Pulse.

“If there's teeth in it, if there's requirements in it … we're not going to do that. A voluntary program that's strictly run by the industries, that's fine with me,” he said. 

The North American Meat Institute continues to support his strategy. “The real opinions that count about this bill are those of the Canadian and Mexican governments,” said their president and CEO, Barry Carpenter. “Change that doesn't satisfy our trading partners or the WTO still results in billions in tariffs.”

For more information, a copy of the legislation is available here.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

House votes to repeal COOL

Posted June 12, 2015

The House of Representatives has voted to repeal country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef, pork, and chicken, according to a Food Safety News article available here. Meating Place also published an article available here and Feedstuffs here.

Texas Republican Rep. Michael Conaway’s Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 passed Wednesday by a 300-131 vote.

Conaway introduced the bill on May 18, which was the same day the World Trade Organization rejected a U.S. appeal of its decision that COOL unfairly discriminates against meat imports and gives the advantage to domestic meat products.

The 2002 and 2008 farm bills mandated Country of origin labeling (COOL), and meat processors have been lobbying for the law to be changed ever since. Consumer protection activists and livestock producers have lobbied just as hard to keep the law in place, according to Meating Place.

In response to the House vote, the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) issued a statement calling it "an essential first step."

“Chairman Conaway and Representative Costa have shown incredible leadership in encouraging the U.S. live up to its obligations and abide by World Trade Organization rules,” NAMI President and CEO Barry Carpenter said in the statement. “It's an issue of marketing, and that should be decided in the marketplace. We hope the Senate will move quickly to vote for repeal so the President can sign the bill and put this failed experiment behind us.”

COOL supporters urged the Senate to quickly vote. Peterson said in his closing comments on the House floor that “we feel repeal is not where we’re going to end up or where we should end up.” He said as it heads over to the Senate he hopes there’s a way to work through the ruling without needing retaliation, according to Feedstuffs.

Roberts added, “We can sit here and let this happen. Or we can move. Let’s get a move on.”

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WTO Rejects Cool Appeal, House Rejects COOL

-->

Posted May 20, 2015

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has rejected a U.S. appeal of its decision that country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on meat unfairly discriminates against meat imports, according to a Food Safety News article available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and The Packer here.

The latest U.S. labeling rules require meat sold in grocery stores to indicate the country, or countries, where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered.

According to a WTO report, the labeling rules unfairly discriminate against meat imports and give the advantage to domestic meat products. But the WTO compliance panel also found that the labels do provide U.S. consumers with information on the origin of their food, countering Canada and Mexico’s assertion that the labels do not serve their intended purpose.

Canadian cattle groups urged Canada to seek immediate permission from the WTO to impose billions in retaliatory tariffs on a wide variety of U.S. exports to Canada, according to The Packer.

Produce industry leaders said specialty crop exports to Canada and Mexico could be at risk if Mexico puts in place retaliatory tariffs, but there is no indication that mandatory COOL regulations for fresh fruits and vegetables will change.

A joint statement from Ed Fast, minister of international trade, and Gerry Ritz, minister of agriculture and agri-food, jointly with Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal, Mexico’s secretary of economy, and Enrique Martínez y Martínez, Mexico’s secretary of agriculture, called on the United States to repeal the COOL legislation, according to Feedstuffs.

“In light of the WTO’s final decision, and due to the fact that this discriminatory measure remains in place, our governments will be seeking authorization from the WTO to take retaliatory measures against U.S. exports,” the statement added. In a separate statement Fast and Ritz said in June 2013 Canada released a proposed list of targeted U.S. imports for retaliatory tariffs and they are now preparing its request to retaliate.

National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson also believes there’s still a future for COOL on meat, according to Food Safety News.

“As we have seen in other disputes, once decisions are handed down, WTO members often work together to find a solution that will work for them,” he said. “In this case, such a solution must involve continuation of a meaningful country-of-origin labeling requirement.”

Update:  The House Agriculture Committee approved H.R. 2393, a bill that would repeal mandatory country of origin labeling requirements (COOL) for beef, pork, and chicken, while leaving intact the requirements for all other covered commodities, according to a Meating Place article available here.

The bill, which amends the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1946, passed the committee by a vote of 38 to 6. A combination of 68 Democrats and Republicans joined Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas) in introducing this bipartisan bill.

“We must do all we can to avoid retaliation by Canada and Mexico, and this bill accomplishes that through full repeal of labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken,” said Conaway in a statement. “We will continue working to get this to the House floor as quickly as possible to ensure our economy and a vast range of U.S. industries and the men and women who work for them do not suffer any economic implications of retaliation.”

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

COOL Not Economically Beneficial, USDA Study

-->

Posted May 6, 2015

Country-of-origin labeling (COOL) is not beneficial for American consumers, according to a Food Safety News article available here. Cattle Network also published an article available here and Journal Star here.

COOL does not provide “measurable economic benefits” and costs producers, packers, and retailers in the United States $2.6 billion a year for all covered commodities, USDA’s chief economist report.

The report was mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill and was created by a team of agricultural economists from Kansas State University and the University of Missouri.

“In terms of consumers, USDA’s regulatory impact analyses concluded that while there is evidence of consumer interest in COOL information, measurable economic benefits from mandatory COOL would be small,” according to the report. “USDA’s regulatory impact analyses also found little evidence that consumers are likely to increase their purchases of food items bearing U.S.-origin labels.”

The study estimated that implementation of the 2009 COOL law resulted in $405 million in economic welfare losses in the first year in the U.S. beef industry, according to Cattle Network.

COOL law was included in the 2002 farm bill, and it was amended in the 2008 farm bill and implemented in 2009. COOL has been the focus of a World Trade Organization (WTO) lawsuit for more than five years. Shortly after being implemented, Canada and Mexico established a case against the United States in November 2009. The WTO ruled that certain COOL requirements discriminate against foreign livestock and gave the United States a May 2013 deadline to comply with its findings. This report was issued a few weeks short before the WTO is expected to issue its final ruling on the matter.

WTO rulings have previously gone against the U.S. If the U.S. loses this last appeal, it’s possible that Congress will repeal COOL, according to Journal Star.

USDA did successfully defend the COOL regulations in U.S. courts.

Bill Bullard, CEO of the United Stockgrowers of America, recently told Congress COOL means that, “No longer can meat from animals born and/or raised in a foreign country be passed off to unsuspecting U.S. consumers as meat deserving of the U.S. farmers’ and ranchers’ reputation.”

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

COOL Lawsuit Dismissed

Posted February 11, 2015

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dropped their U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) case against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), according to a Feedstuffs article available here. The Minneapolis Star Tribune also published an article here and Farm Futures here.

American Meat Institute (AMI) et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture et al. was originally filed in July 2013 by domestic and international meatpackers and trade groups to stop the labeling law that requires a label identifying where the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered.

The meat groups stated that COOL violates the constitution by mandating speech without a public interest, and it creates unnecessary and costly burdens for producers and packers, according to Farm Futures.

The American Meat Institute, now known as the North American Meat Institute, which includes Minnesota-based Cargill and Hormel Foods, led the free speech lawsuit.

North American Meat Institute CEO Barry Carpenter issued the following statement:

“While we remain disappointed with the court’s ruling on country of origin labeling (COOL), we agree with the World Trade Organization’s assessment that the U.S. rule is out of compliance with its trade obligations to Canada and Mexico,” Carpenter said. “As (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack has said, a statutory fix is needed to bring the U.S. into compliance to avoid retaliatory tariffs and we’re committed to working with Congress to fix COOL once and for all.”

COOL supporters stated it provides additional information to inform customers’ buying decisions, according to Farm Futures.

“This is a clear and indisputable win for American consumers and producers, and it's a huge relief to know that common-sense labeling laws, like COOL, can prevail in court despite the deep pockets of the multinationals,” said National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Senators Making Efforts to Keep COOL

Posted October 8, 2014

On Monday, a group of 32 U.S. Senators urged Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Richard Shelby to ensure legislation that would eliminate Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is not included in fiscal year 2015, according to a Farm Futures article by Janell Thomas available here. KEVN also published an article here and Food Safety News here.

COOL provides consumers with trustworthy information regarding the origin of meat by labeling the country in which the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered.

Thirty-two senators have written a letter to leaders of the Appropriations Committee requesting that they delay the COOL rule until the trade dispute between Canada and Mexico has resolved, according to Food Safety News.

“As the Senate debates how to provide funding for the federal government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2015, we urge you to reject efforts to weaken or suspend [COOL] through any continuing resolution or omnibus appropriations bill,” wrote the signatories, who include Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and Mike Enzi (R-WY).

The letter also states that it is "critical that Congress not short–circuit ongoing efforts to support American producers and consumers," according to KEVN.

The Senators also noted that efforts to undermine the COOL rule before completion of the World Trade Organization (WTO) process would "disadvantage American producers and roll-back the transparency within out meat markets," according to Farm Futures.

COOL supporters have suggested that if the rule is upheld, it will continue to put a burden on the packing industry and put pressure on trade relations with both Canada and Mexico.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Cattle Groups Pleased with Cool Appeal

Posted August 6, 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that required meat producers to label their products with country-of-origin information does not violate free speech rights, according to a Capital Press article by Mateusz Perkowski available here. Agri-View also published an article available here.

The ruling stated that the government has a “substantial interest in enforcing the [country of origin labeling] (COOL) law even though the mandatory labels are not meant to correct consumer deception.”

Even though the decision was unanimous, the Appeals Court ruled 8 to 3 to reinstate the specific judgment by the original three-judge panel of the Appeals Court that decided in March that COOL did not violate the meatpacker lobby groups' First Amendment free speech protections, according to Agri-View.

The appeals court rejected the meatpacker lobby's claim that the only purpose for COOL was to satisfy consumers' “idle curiosity” and stated that COOL information has an historical pedigree.

Advocates of labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) believe the ruling supports their argument that such labels are constitutional, according to Capital Press.

“You have a factual disclosure. The court ruled that companies don’t have the right to hide that information from consumers,” said George Kimbrell, attorney for the Center for Food Safety.

The Appeals Court also supported congressional members’ statements by stating that COOL served a “food safety interest by enabling consumers to make purchasing decisions based on such factors as U.S's supervision of the entire production process for health and hygiene and by containing the market impact of a disease outbreak that COOL can do by enabling consumers to avoid products from countries where an outbreak may occur.”

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Groups Urge Congress to Take Action on Cool Dispute

Posted June 30, 2014

A broad coalition of industries is urging Congress to take action on the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) dispute with Canada and Mexico to prevent billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., according to an article on Feedstuffs available here. Drovers Cattle Network also published an article here and KTIC here.

The new coalition, which represents major commodity and livestock groups as well as food companies, sent a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees requesting Congress to take action directing the Secretary of Agriculture to “suspend the revised COOL rule indefinitely if it is found to be in violation of U.S. international trade obligations.”

"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, according to Cattle Network.

Since the 2011 World Trade Organization (WTO) rule that certain COOL requirements discriminated against foreign livestock and are not consistent with U.S. WTO trade regulations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has revised the law requirements and implemented a new set of COOL requirements in May 2013.

The new labeling requirements for covered meat products require details of each production step, including where the animal is born, raised, and slaughtered, to be a part of the MCOOL label. Also, the final rule prohibits the use of multi-country labeling and eliminates the mixed-origin labeling.

Canada released a list of products that they would seek retaliatory tariffs against. These tariffs would harm coalition members and create economic hardship to the U.S. economy.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

NFU Submits Testimony to Congress on Country of Origin Labeling

Posted May 13, 2014

The National Farmers Union (NFU) recently submitted additional testimony to the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Rural Development and Credit, following an April 30, 2014 hearing on the state of the livestock industry, according to an article by KXLO-KLCM available here.  The Pig Site also reported on the story here.

NFU President Roger Johnson’s comments respond to discussion on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) during the hearing.  The additional testimony is available here.

“Witnesses and congressional [COOL] opponents insist that COOL hold no value to consumers, but NFU knows that is simply not true,” said Chandler Goule, NFU senior vice president of programs.  “A 2003 Colorado State University study confirms that consumers are willing to pay a premium to know the origin of their food.  Furthermore, COOL compliance costs amount to less than one-third of a cent per pound of meat, which certainly doesn’t justify the protests of packers and processors reaping billions of dollars of profit.”

Only two of the seven witnesses testifying at the April hearing represented strictly farmer or rancher members, whereas the other five witnesses represented packer-producer organizations or meat companies.

“Congress acted in favor of COOL by including it in the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills and demonstrated support for COOL by defeating an effort to undermine it in the 2014 Farm Bill.  All parties in the livestock sector would be well-served to look toward a future in which consumers wish to know more about their food – an objective fulfilled in part by COOL,” said Johnson.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

NPPC Testifies Before Congress on Country of Origin Labeling and Deadly Pig Virus

Posted May 5, 2014

The National Pork Producers Council recently testified before Congress on two issues impacting its industry – country of origin labeling (COOL) and the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), according to an article by the National Hog Farmer available here.

NPPC President Dr. Howard Hill said that the COOL requirement has caused the Canadian pork industry to reduce production and that the outcomes of the trade cases brought by Canada and Mexico at the World Trade Organization (WTO) are expected this summer. 

Hill also said that PEDV has already killed 7 million pigs in 30 states since last April.  NPPC “is calling on USDA to conduct a thorough investigation on the pathway PEDV and other viruses used to gain entry into the U.S. swine herd, to conduct research on viral propagation of the diseases and to commit more resources to determining pathogenesis of and ways to control the viruses.”

The latest ruling in the ongoing COOL lawsuit, American Meat Institute, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, was recently vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The full court will rehear the case, en banc, on May 19.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.  

Appeals Court Vacates COOL Ruling, Full Court to Rehear Case

Posted April 8, 2014

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated the March 28 ruling denying the American Meat Institute’s attempt to block USDA’s final rule on country-of-origin labeling (COOL).  The Court will rehear the case en banc on May 19, according to an article by Agri-Pulse available here.  Farm Progress also reported on the story here.

In the order vacating the ruling, available here, the Court directs the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the following issue: “Whether, under the First Amendment, judicial review of mandatory disclosure of ‘purely factual and uncontroversial’ commercial information, compelled for reasons other than preventing deception, can properly proceed under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985), or whether such compelled disclosure is subject to review under Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. PSC of New York, 447 U.S. 56 (1980).

The original panel ruling concluded that the goals of the regulations are worthy of a “minimal” intrusion on the meat industry’s First Amendment rights.  The opinion is available here.

Mark Dopp, AMI’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs, said that he hopes the rehearing will lead to an injunction against the COOL rule.

The lawsuit, American Meat Institute, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, was filed on July 8, 2013, alleging that the COOL final rule violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, violates the Agricultural Marketing Act, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint is available here. 

The COOL final rule, available here, became effective on May 23, 2013 and modified certain provisions of the COOL regulations after the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that aspects of the regulations violated U.S. trade obligations.  The final rule requires labels on certain cuts of meat to provide information on where it was born, raised, and slaughtered. 

For more information on COOL, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Appeals Court Upholds Country of Origin Labeling

Posted April 1, 2014

On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the meat industry’s request for an injunction to block USDA’s Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) regulations, according to an article by The Hill available here.  The opinion is available here.

The court concluded that the goals of the regulations are worthy of a “minimal” intrusion on the meat industry’s First Amendment rights, according to an article by the Associated Press available here. 

Judge Stephen F. Williams stated, “Obviously it enables a consumer to apply patriotic or protectionist criteria in the choice of meat…And it enables one who believes that United States practices and regulations are better at assuring food safety than those of other countries, or indeed the reverse, to act on that premise.”

The lawsuit, American Meat Institute, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, was filed on July 8, 2013, alleging that the COOL final rule violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, violates the Agricultural Marketing Act, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.  The complaint is available here.  The District Court Judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to stop implementation of the final rule on September 11.  The memorandum opinion is available here.  Plaintiffs, then, appealed.

The COOL final rule, available here, became effective on May 23, 2013 and modified certain provisions of the COOL regulations after the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that aspects of the regulations violated U.S. trade obligations.  The final rule requires labels on certain cuts of meat to provide information on where it was born, raised, and slaughtered. 

For background information on the lawsuit and WTO ruling, recent posts from this blog are available here and here.  For more information on COOL, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.