WASHINGTON, D.C. — Supporters of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) laws for beef last week called on the Trump administration, Congress and federal trade officials to figure COOL into North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiations.

 

A June 6 letter to the White House, from the National Farmers Union, advocated for COOL to be a priority in NAFTA renegotiations. “We’ve called on the U.S. Trade Representative to ensure the U.S. can reinstate mandatory COOL under any new NAFTA framework,” said Andrew Jerome, NFU Communications Director. “Practically, this is most likely through a specific provision that stipulates Canada and Mexico would allow the U.S. to implement a mandatory COOL system for all agricultural products.”

The NFU and other COOL supporters, including the U.S. Cattlemen’s Assoc., want trade agreements where partners acknowledge the United States has the sovereignty to require COOL language on its meat products. “Whether beef is purely a U.S. product, or a mixture from our NAFTA trading partners, the consumers must know,” said Leo McConnell, U.S. Cattlemens Assoc., in May.

The USCA has long supported a USDA rule that would require beef sold in the United States to include specific information on the countries where the animals were grown and processed. The group participated in a Washington, D.C., fly-in last week, where USCA members reiterated their support for COOL.

A USCA representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Farm World. The largest beef producers group, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc., has opposed a mandatory COOL standard but supports a voluntary, industry-driven COOL standard. Meat industry groups also oppose mandatory COOL labeling. Both the NCBA and meat industry groups have cited, in their opposition to a mandatory rule, the impacts and costs of tracking, auditing, verification and compliance. 

 

The NFU also cited its concerns about meatpacker concentration in its letter. “These multinational corporations take advantage of rules in NAFTA that allow companies to operate across borders,” wrote NFU President Roger Johnson.

“Because of this, companies often raise cattle in Mexico and Canada and then bring the cattle back to the U.S. for slaughter and sale.”

Generally, supporters of mandatory COOL labeling believe the policy would benefit U.S. consumers who wish to know where meat animals were raised, while encouraging markets for U.S.-raised beef.

Those who oppose mandatory COOL labeling have pointed out lower-cost processing in neighboring countries, under the same food safety standards required in the United States, could benefit U.S. consumers by keeping food prices low.

Consumer preference for COOL is not always clear. Research by University of Arkansas in the Sam M. Walton School of Business, shows consumer purchasing preferences may be more dependent on how much information is presented about meat processing systems in different countries, rather than the presence of labels indicating where the product is processed.

In that research, published in a 2015 issue of the Journal of Retailing, consumers did not show a difference in preferences between U.S. processed meat and meat processed outside the United States, as long as consumers are presented with details indicating the meat was processed in a similar way as in the United States.

The prospect of mandatory COOL labeling in the United States has before created tension between the United States and Canada, whose agriculture minister has in the past threatened trade retaliation if the United States puts a COOL mandate in place. Canada has encouraged a voluntary COOL approach for meat sold there.