WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (NCBA) and U.S. Cattlemen’s Assoc. (USCA) last week opposed the USDA move toward allowing beef imports from Brazil and Argentina. But the two groups remain on different sides about the USDA country of origin labeling (COOL) rule for meat sold in the United States.

COOL requires meat sold here to specify where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered. The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled this does not comply with international trade standards. Statements from trade officials in Canada and Mexico, sent to Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), imply the countries will only be satisfied if Congress repeals the law establishing COOL.

There is much at stake – $3.2 billion in possible trade sanctions, according to a statement from House Republicans. Agricultural trade would lose big. "We at ADM have calculated that the cost to our company alone would exceed $700 million per year," added Chris Cuddy, its senior vice president, in June 25 testimony to the Senate.

Most livestock and meat groups are urging Congress to repeal COOL as soon as possible. "COOL is a failed experiment," said Jaret Moyer, president, Kansas Livestock Assoc. "We have two options: repeal or face retaliation from two of our largest export customers."

But many consumer groups, along with the smaller cattle group, say trade sanctions are threatened all the time around WTO action. "In fact, the WTO process is still ongoing, as the WTO must determine the level of retaliation, if any, Canada and Mexico are allowed to impose on the U.S.," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA). "That process will take several more months."

Leo McDonnell, a prominent cattle rancher with operations in North Dakota and Montana, represented USCA at a June 25 Senate hearing. He said the beef industry should take the opportunity to work with consumer groups on COOL.

"We should be stepping forward to meet those interests of consumers wanting to know where their food comes from, instead of stepping backwards to repealing this and going back to deceptive practices," he said.

But beef and consumer groups cannot agree that consumers care much about the countries meat comes from. Consumer advocates, such as the CFA, cite studies they say show consumers do want to know where meat originated. On the other hand, COOL opponents cite a report to Congress earlier this year by agricultural economists from Kansas State University and the University of Missouri.

The university study calculated consumers, as well as the beef and pork industries, experienced losses from COOL. Consumers lost due to higher costs from labeling compliance passed along by meatpackers. According to the study, the only winner under COOL was the chicken industry, which the researchers calculated would experience more sales because of higher beef and pork prices.

The Senate is considering the House’s repudiation of COOL. Stabenow has proposed language that would remove mandatory beef and pork origin labeling and put in its place a voluntary "Product of the U.S." label. "This approach is a pathway to finding a solution on country of origin labeling," she said.

Recent statements made by NCBA and USCA officials indicate they might be able to agree on provisions for voluntary labeling that would not violate WTO guidelines. "We support voluntary labeling efforts that provide consumers with information they want and benefit cattle producers who can provide that information," said NCBA President Philip Ellis, after the House vote to repeal COOL.

McDonnell told the Senate while he still supports the original COOL, he would also support a voluntary label.