Details

Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 03:52

Written by Christy Hemken

Casper — Although the final rule for mandatory country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) took effect March 16, many of the details of its implementation and oversight are yet to be clarified.
    USDA Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) Public Affairs Specialist Billy Cox says March 16 began a six-month period of industry education and outreach. “The goal is to help retailers fully understand what the law is about and how they’re supposed to label their products to be in compliance with the law,” he explains of the transition period.
    Retailers are subject to COOL implementation when the invoice cost of all purchases of perishable agricultural commodities exceeds $230,000 during a calendar year. The term “perishable agricultural commodity” means fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables.
    “There are products already in the food supply chain before the law took effect, so we’re waiting for those to move through, as well as give the industry a chance to understand the law,” says Cox.
    The law allows country-of-origin information to be provided to consumers by means of a label, stamp, mark, placard or other clear and visible sign on the covered commodity at the final point of sale to consumers.
    He says AMS has already done a number of outreach sessions with the industry, and is working directly with the industry to answer questions and hold one-on-one meetings.
    “Right now compliance is too early to tell,” he says. “We should know in three to six months how meat processors will react to this, and then we’ll have a better feel for how things are working within the industry.”
    USDA will contract with various groups such as state departments of agriculture to monitor COOL labeling compliance. The agency will also conduct industry audits, and Cox says fines will be up to $1,000 per offense.
    In Wyoming COOL compliance will be monitored by the Wyoming Department of Agriculture’s (WDA) Consumer Health Services Department.
    “If USDA runs this part of COOL like it did seafood, we’ll go to some training and they’ll explain what to look for and how to write up violations,” says WDA Consumer Health Services Manger Dean Finkenbinder.  
    Although Finkenbinder has been in contact with USDA regarding the training, he doesn’t yet know when it will take place. “We won’t do any inspections until we go through the training,” he says.
    After the seafood training, Finkenbinder says USDA gave the WDA a list of establishments to check for proper labeling. “I suspect that’s how they’ll do it this time, and we’ll most likely conduct those inspections along with our regular ones.”
    Although the WDA was only sent to three establishments to check the seafood labeling, Finkenbinder expects the most recent list of commodities will involve many more locations.
    According to AMS, cooperative agreements are in place with 42 states with enforcement infrastructure to assist with retail surveillance reviews. The agency says retail surveillance reviews will begin by April 2009 and for those states not entering into a cooperative agreement AMS will conduct the reviews itself. AMS will begin audits of firms that supply retailers with covered commodities in July 2009.
    Current information on COOL and the final rule can be found on the AMS website at: www.ams.usda.gov/cool. Christy Hemken is assistant editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 07:57

Written by Christy Hemken

Casper – On May 13, 2002 the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, known as the 2002 Farm Bill, became law. One of its many provisions required country of origin labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts.
    However, on Jan. 27, 2004 Public Law 108-199 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until Sept. 30, 2006. On Nov. 10, 2005, Public Law 109-97 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until Sept. 30, 2008.
    Now it’s 2008 and mandatory COOL is officially scheduled, as of July 29, to take effect Sept. 30. The 2008 Farm Bill expands the list of covered commodities to include chicken, goat meat, ginseng, pecans and macadamia nuts.
    Commodities covered under COOL must be labeled at retail to indicate their country of origin. However, they are excluded from mandatory COOL if they are an ingredient in a processed food item.
    USDA has also revised the definition of a processed food item so that items derived from a covered commodity that has undergone a physical or chemical change (e.g., cooking, curing, smoking) or that has been combined with other covered commodities or other substantive food components (e.g., chocolate, breading, tomato sauce) are excluded from COOL labeling.
    “With the increase in food safety concerns, the source of our food is a much greater concern now than in the past,” says R-CALF Region IV Vice President Randy Stevenson of Wheatland. Although foodservice is not currently included in the rules, he thinks it will soon follow, either of its own accord or by requirement.
    “COOL is going to keep the spotlight on the origin of food. I think price is of a concern, but I think, when it comes to food, that any mother’s number one concern is safety,” continues Stevenson.
    Although Wyoming Farm Bureau Executive Vice President Ken Hamilton says COOL is not primarily a food safety issue, he does agree it will help highlight those countries with poor track records. “It’ll give the consumer the opportunity to not buy from that country, and from that standpoint I think it’ll inspire producers and processors in that country to be more diligent,” he says.
    “We’ve been trying to get COOL for 10 years now, and I think the sheep industry will be happier with a more level playing field,” says Kemmerer rancher and Wyoming Wool Growers Association President Dave Julian. “Our government just gave us another predator and took away the right to protect our property, while in New Zealand you can’t even import a predator. Because of that they’re miles ahead of us right now in raising lambs. I think COOL is a good thing.”
    “Our focus now is on how best to implement COOL in a manner that provides maximum benefit and minimal disruption to our ranchers,” says National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) President Andy Groseta in a released statement. “NCBA will continue to work on behalf of our cattlemen to put in place an effective and accurate labeling system. Additionally, we will be leading the effort to educate producers on how to comply with the new rule.”
    Few people have voiced concern over the current COOL regulations becoming too cumbersome to producers. “Producers will have to have a record of the animal’s origin when it’s sold, and the USDA will audit to see if a producer does have the records to prove the animal was born and raised in the U.S,” says Hamilton, adding that calving or lambing records and brand inspections will suffice.
    “I hope consumers choose our U.S. product, because when we have lamb chops next to a New Zealand or Australian product, ours is better to begin with,” says Julian. “It behooves all of us, as producers, to market a product the consumer wants and not just rely on the U.S. label. I think we’re already there with the U.S. lamb, because it is a superior product over New Zealand’s.”
    “Consumers know high quality and great taste is a trademark of American beef, and we look forward to showcasing that quality when they’re shopping for our products,” says Groseta.
    “If we have an opportunity to have a label for U.S. beef we’ll have to show the consumer why they should buy it,” says Hamilton. “I think it’s something that can be done, but I think there will be other countries doing it as well. We need to point out the U.S. produces a good product, and we also have to be careful as producers that we don’t let an inferior product slip into the supply. When a consumer buys a U.S. beef product and can’t cut it with a knife, that has consequences as well.”
    “I’m hopeful this doesn’t result in a lot of additional paperwork, but I’ve dealt with bureaucrats and regulations that start simple but can snowball and become cumbersome,” says Hamilton of its effect on livestock producers.
    The full text of the interim final rule was published in the Aug. 1 Federal Register. Copies of the interim final rule and additional information can be found at: www.ams.usda.gov/COOL. Christy Hemken is assistant editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 10 March 2012 12:45

Written by Christy Martinez

In December 2008, Canada initiated a dispute process with the World Trade Organization (WTO), objecting that mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) was not WTO compliant.
    The dispute settlement panel proceedings were initiated in 2008, when Canada and Mexico filed a complaint with the WTO alleging that U.S. COOL requirements were designed to achieve a protectionist objective, and argued that COOL requirements breached WTO obligations by discriminating against Canadian and Mexican livestock exports to the U.S.
    The countries alleged in their WTO complaint that their respective livestock industries were at a competitive disadvantage by COOL because of higher segregation costs at the point of harvest for foreign cattle.
Panel rules on COOL
    The dispute panel’s extensive report affirmed the right of the U.S. to require country of origin labeling for meat products, but disagreed with specific implementation measures.
    In November 2011, WTO ruled largely in favor of Canada, Mexico and other countries that joined in to file the complaint, and the U.S. has until March 23 to respond, either by adopting COOL to become WTO compliant or by appealing to the WTO panel.
    On Feb. 17 the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA)said it supports a “vigorous appeal” of the WTO dispute settlement panel’s ruling. USCA President Jon Wooster of San Lucas, Calif. says his organization is actively engaged in the matter, and will continue working with the Obama administration as the appeals process unfolds.
Truth in labeling
    “Contrary to the misinformation some groups insist on spreading, the dispute settlement panel affirmed the right of the United States to require country of origin labeling for meat,” says USCA Director Emeritus Leo McDonnell in a statement from USCA. “The bottom line is that our foreign competitors and the packing industry want to weaken the eligibility requirements for the ‘A’ label, ensuring their meat supply is a generic product that can be marketed under the guise of the U.S. born, raised and processed label. Their argument is that feeding or processing a live animal is substantial transformation and that the meat derived from that carcass qualifies for the ‘A’ label. The ‘A’ label meat is the most desired category by consumers, packers and retailers, and it provides price discovery for all categories of meat. Differentiation of product and branding of product provides for a more competitive pricing structure that ultimately benefits all producers.”
    “What gets entirely lost in this argument is the consumer’s right to truth in labeling and U.S. cattle producers who have a right to differentiate their product in the retail case,” continues McDonnell. “Following the dispute panel’s ruling, some U.S. cattle groups have urged the administration not to appeal, and have stated publicly that the solutions lie in making statutory changes to, or weakening, the COOL law. This fractured message undermines U.S. cattle producers.”
    Nineteen U.S. Senators, led by Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mike Enzi (R-WY), sent a letter to the Obama administration urging it to maintain its support and defense of COOL at the WTO level.
Careful response
    However, Kansas State University ag economist Glynn Tonsor cautions that Canada and Mexico are important beef export markets for the U.S., and he says that international response to the COOL debate in general may not necessarily be meat retaliation.
    “If the U.S. chooses to fight the ruling, Mexico could put additional tariffs on pork exports, which wouldn’t be good, because that makes pork more expensive for the U.S. to export into Mexico, and that would adversely hurt beef, as well,” says Tonsor, adding that tariffs could also be put on non-agriculture products. “There might be a commodity more politically sensitive than a meat product that would still be within the WTO response allowances that Canada and Mexico would be allowed to put a tariff on that might force the U.S. meat industry to answer to a non-meat segment in the U.S. – it may not be just a meat-oriented discussion as we go forward.”
Perception is reality
    In a statement from USCA, USCA Director and COOL Committee Chairwoman Danni Beer says, “Perception is reality. Go to your local grocery store and take a look at the meat labels in the retail case. You’ll discover that retailers are demanding meat labeled as U.S. origin, and that’s because consumers are demanding it and purchasing it. Whether consumers prefer a product of the U.S. over one from Canada is their decision to make, and the ability to identify the difference in origin should be readily available to consumers so they can make informed purchases.”
    “I am optimistic that the WTO appeals process will ultimately keep the consumers’ best interests in mind. I applaud the amount of resources and attention the Obama administration has devoted to this issue, and I am confident the administration will mount a vigorous appeal to the dispute panel’s flawed decision,” continues Beer.
‘Reasonable’ objections
    Tonsor says his opinion is that Canada and its accompanying countries are being reasonable.
    “The WTO ruling was highly expected, and going forward I would encourage the U.S. to recognize that fighting it is probably unwise,” he says. “I think the free market can address the issue of providing information such as origin. I don’t think we need to do it in a way that’s non-WTO compliant.”
    “I think Canada and the others are not only reasonable in filing the complaint, but even reasonable in what they’re expecting in terms of changes going forward,” adds Tonsor.
    Christy Martinez is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Report: consumers correlate origin and quality
    A newly released study titled Navigating the Product Mindset: Food Industry Report analyzes the differences between consumer and manufacturer perceptions regarding the make-up of today’s food industry.
    The study found that the vast majority of manufacturers that were polled believe there is a distinct correlation between the perceived quality of unprocessed food products and the country of origin. The study also finds that more than 50 percent of consumers also believe the country of origin of food products will become more important over the next five years.

Origin labels explained
    Under COOL, there are four categories of country of origin labels to be applied to muscle cuts, and a fifth label is reserved for ground meat.
    Label “A” is reserved for “U.S. Origin” meat and is applied to meat derived only from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. Label “B,” or the “Multiple Countries of Origin” label, is used on meat derived from animals not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. Label “C” is used for meat derived from animals imported into the U.S. just prior to slaughter. Label “D” is used for foreign country of origin meat. The ground meat labels list all “reasonably possible” countries of origin of the animals from which the meat is derived.

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 31 March 2012 15:52

Written by Christy Martinez

On March 23 the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of its decision to appeal the Dispute Settlement Panel’s ruling issued in November 2011 against the U.S. country of origin (COOL) law.
    While the Dispute Panel’s findings took issue with certain implementation rules, the panel did affirm the right of the U.S. to label food products with country of origin.
    U.S. Senators Mike Enzi and Tim Johnson, (D-SD), applauded the decision to file an appeal, saying they see the move as an effort to ensure the law is implemented as intended, and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) agrees.
    “We disagree with the panel’s assessment that the law offers less favorable treatment to meat products imported from Canada and Mexico, and USCA membership feels strongly that those aspects of the ruling should be re-examined by a higher authority,” said USCA President Jon Wooster in response to the news.
    “Recent reports show that exchange rates have affected trade flows in beef and cattle from Canada,” continued Wooster. “The CME Group published an analysis titled ‘Feeder Cattle From Mexico Aid U.S. Supplies’ on March 21, 2012. This analysis provides evidence that COOL is not a deterrent to imports. According to the report, in 2011 the U.S. imported about 1.4 million head of feeder cattle from Mexico, up about 190,000 head or 15 percent more than the year prior. It’s notable that neither Canada or Mexico have referenced this fact in the COOL debate.”
    “The USTR has a strong appeals case, and it is USCA’s intention to support the appeal,” noted Wooster.
    USCA also supports efforts by Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mike Enzi, along with 17 other U.S. Senators who sent a letter last fall urging the USTR to appeal the ruling and to continue supporting the consumers’ right to labeling.
    R-CALF USA, a long-time supporter of mandatory COOL, said they are thankful the USTR chose to defend the COOL law, which the organization refers to as “constitutionally passed.”
    “We’re in a no-win situation regarding this frontal attack on our COOL law because our nation should not tolerate for an instant a foreign entity’s efforts to undermine our constitutionally-passed domestic laws in the first place,” said R-CALF USA Region VI Director and COOL Committee Chair Mike Schultz.
Appeal sparks NCBA
concerns
    However, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has issued a statement expressing concerns that the appeal will do more harm than good.
    “We are very disappointed in this decision. Instead of working diligently to bring the United States into WTO compliance, our government has opted to engage in an appeal process, which jeopardizes our strong trade relationship with Canada and Mexico, the two largest importers of U.S. beef,” said NCBA vice president Bob McCann. “An appeal is the wrong answer and a waste of valuable resources. This appeal will do nothing but escalate tension with our valuable trade partners and will prolong an issue that could be resolved quickly. We should be working toward a solution instead of creating a bigger problem.
    “NCBA will engage with Canada and Mexico to prevent any retaliatory action that could occur from this unfortunate decision made by the U.S. government. Cattlemen deserve a government that fights for and protects our opportunities. We need a government that not only demands WTO compliance of our trade partners, but one that ensures the United States is abiding by these same guidelines.”
    Christy Martinez is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

COOL background
    The Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rule makes it mandatory for grocers to label where their beef, pork, chicken and ground beef originate. Animals born, raised, and processed in the U.S. can only be labeled as U.S. origin. Meat from other countries must be labeled a mixed origin product.
    The mandatory version of COOL went into effect in March 2009. Six months later, Canada filed a complaint with WTO, and Mexico quickly followed suit. The two countries’ trade officials said cattle and hog exports dropped sharply, and argued that U.S. mandatory COOL amounted to an illegal, non-tariff trade barrier.
    U.S. Senators Mike Enzi and Tim Johnson, D-S.D., sent a letter in December 2011 with 17 other Senators asking United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to appeal the decision of the WTO that ruled against the implementation of the U.S. COOL law. The law would require all imported goods to indicate the country in which the product originated and provides consumers with information about where their food comes from.
            On Nov. 18, 2011 a WTO Dispute Settlement Panel (DSP) ruled on complaints from Canada and Mexico. While the DSP ruled that the U.S. has the right to require COOL, it ruled that the labeling provides less favorable treatment to imported meat from Canada and Mexico. Johnson and Enzi worked together to write the original COOL law in 2002 and have worked tirelessly over the years to defend the law.