MEAT+POULTRY - June 2015 - 10

WA S H I N G T O N

The co$t of COOL
In the opinion of the American meat industry, Country of
Origin Labeling (COOL) could cost the American economy
billions of dollars. The COOL rule is also burdensome
and onerous to meat processors, packers and livestock
producers. The huge economic cost could happen to the
United States because the US lost its appeal to the World
Trade Organization (WTO) on May 18. If Congress doesn't
take some action, the US is going to experience economic
retaliation from both Canada and Mexico.
"Since the US lost the appeal from WTO's Appellate
Body, which upheld the compliance group's ruling for
the fourth time, both Canada
and Mexico will seek retaliatory
tariffs," says Chase Adams of
the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA). "In fact,
Canada already released a
list of products they will seek
retaliatory tariffs on. The Embassy
of Canada's tariff list is already
online." The Canadian tariffs
would be on American meat
products imported into Canada,
as well as many other products
including wine, potatoes and
orange juice, to name a few. "It is
extremely important for Congress
"It's an
to get rid of this broken rule, to
irritant, a
pass legislation to repeal COOL,
failed program, before Canadian and Mexican
retaliation is awarded," he says.
without any
The North American Meat
benefits."
Institute (NAMI) earlier said
the rule doesn't allow the US to
- Chase Adams, NCBA
conform to its international trade
obligations. Canada and Mexico
say the rule puts their products at a disadvantage in the
American market. WTO says the requirements in the rule
provide "treatment less than favorable."
USDA says it's impossible to "fix" the rule. At one point,
industry had urged USDA and the US Trade Representative
(USTR) to work with Congress and the beef industry to
amend the COOL law, but it doesn't appear that's going to
happen. A couple of months ago, NCBA testified before
the House Agriculture Livestock Subcommittee about the
effects of COOL on the cattle industry, finally calling for its
repeal as the only way to "fix" COOL.

10

MEAT+ POULTRY | 06.15 | www.meatpoultry.com

Mike Smith of Harris Ranch in California told
committee members his company's experience has been in
line with a study conducted by Kansas State Univ. He said
COOL is a mandatory marketing program that consumers
pay little or no attention to. "Why then would we incur the
costs of a program that the consumer is not demanding?"
Smith asked. He added that as a cattle feeder and packer,
Harris Ranch has been paying the costs, including
burdensome record keeping, line sorting and segregation,
to the label itself since October 2008.
Adams says NCBA is again calling on Congress to fix
COOL as soon as possible "before the tariffs from Canada
and Mexico are put in place." This would be done by
repealing the statute that established the rule. "There is no
regulatory fix to bring this rule into the US's international
trade obligations," he adds.
If that were to happen, the COOL program would just
go away. And in the view of most US packers, processors
and cattlemen, that would be a good thing. "It's an irritant,
a failed program, without any benefits," Adams says.
According to the K-State study, which looked at
consumer habits, the program hasn't impacted demand for
beef. Consumers don't value origin information.
How would the beef industry replace COOL? "We
support volunteer programs and the free market. COOL is
a mandatory program, and it doesn't even have anything
to do with food safety," Adams says. In an effort to fix the
rule, it was amended to provide more information about
where an animal was "born, raised and slaughtered" and
prohibiting the commingling of muscle-cut meat from
different origins.
COOL supporters like this revision, but opponents do
not. During his testimony, Harris Ranch's Smith asked
Congress, "Why would our own government want to hurt
our own industry for a simple marketing program that the
vast majority of industry doesn't want and the consumer
doesn't use?" The US has been found out of compliance
with WTO trade obligations three times, beginning in 2010.
Smith urged the committee and Congress to repeal COOL
before Canada and Mexico begin retaliatory measures.
According to NCBA, there's support in Congress for
COOL's repeal.
The American beef industry has strongly opposed
COOL, while organizations claiming to represent
consumers say supermarket shoppers should know where
the meat they buy originates.
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 - June 2015

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