MEAT+POULTRY - July 2015 - 14

WA S H I N G T O N

COOL's disappearing act
With the Obama Administration pursuing fast-track trade
agreements and making efforts to get Congressional
Democrats as well as Republicans to support such
agreements, you have to wonder how the Country of
Origin Labeling, or COOL, for America's meat and poultry
industry, ever came to be.
One thing is for sure - COOL is disappearing (and by the
time you read this it may already be gone) - because it will
cost the American economy a huge amount of money if it
doesn't. It has already damaged the relationship between
the US and its closest trading partner and best friend in the
world, Canada, as well as damaging
its relationship with its immediate
neighbor to the south, Mexico.
But with Trade Promotion
Authority, also known as "fast
tracking trade," a high priority
for the United States - as well as
American priorities to make various
free trade agreements around the
world an important part of this
country's economics and foreign
affairs - it became obvious there
could be no fast tracking if the
country had a regulation that was
a major violation, according to the
World Trade Organization (WTO).
COOL was
And "fast track" is the only way to
really another
get trade agreements negotiated
way to hurt the and set up these days.
But another major reason
industry by
COOL
has been such a disaster
discouraging
for the US, and is disappearing
the consumption finally thanks to Congress, is
politics. Despite claims to the
of meat.
contrary, most of COOL's backers
- although not all of them - used the idea of identifying
where the animals and meat consumed in America come
from as just another way to hurt the meat and poultry
industry in the United States.
In the end, the COOL regulation came to be a source
of partisan politics and political strife during its 13-year
history. Just like virtually every other public issue that has
to be decided these days, COOL became a means for people
and politicians who don't like a particular industry or its
products - in this case, the meat industry - to try and hurt
it as much as possible. The fact is, with some exceptions,

14

MEAT+ POULTRY | 07.15 | www.meatpoultry.com

Republicans in Congress always opposed the plan. And with
some exceptions, Democrats on the Hill always thought
it was a good idea. That's because most Congressional
Republicans, although not all, knew the plan was basically
formulated to hurt the industry and its products.
COOL proponents, mostly Democrats, who fashioned
and fought for the USDA regulation - a plan that the Dept.
of Agriculture readily admits it can't fix - claimed COOL
would help American consumers know more about the
meat they buy. But COOL was really another way to hurt
the industry by discouraging the consumption of meat.
The COOL plan goes back to 2002 when Congress put
provisions in that year's Farm Bill requiring meat labels to
note the country of origin on fresh beef, pork and lamb.
Supporters of COOL always called the plan a "right to
know" for consumers. Even when the US lost its final
appeal of the WTO ruling and faced trade retaliation from
Canada and Mexico, there were still some calls for more
efforts to "fix" COOL, even though American consumers
have no interest in using the labels to guide their buying
decisions. The Obama Administration, represented by
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, acknowledged there was no
way to "fix" the regulation.
There was also great concern that continuing COOL
would result in many lost American jobs and a great
decrease in export products to other countries, in the
view of the North American Meat Institute. That's because
products made in the United States and exported to other
countries would face a "COOL tax" making them more
expensive and less competitive in markets overseas.
It looks as if the Congressional outlook on COOL finally
became more bipartisan, if the votes in Congress to repeal
the law and regulation were a good indicator. No doubt, the
huge retaliation threats from America's neighbors have a
lot to do with this. Canada announced it was going after $3
billion a year in retaliatory duties from the US. Mexico was
seeking $675 million a year to get even.
Even with the repeal of COOL, there still may be
indicators of where American meat comes from if there's
any interest. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association
says consumers should receive information, if they want,
through voluntary labeling efforts, and some cattlemen
will likely do that, since some small cattlemen's and
ranchers' associations support that. But it shouldn't be at
the risk of endangering American employment and trade
with trading partners.
B E R N A R D S H I R E | M E AT P O U LT RY@ S OS L A N D.CO M
http://www.meatpoultry.com
MEAT+POULTRY - July 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of MEAT+POULTRY - July 2015
