Ranchers will ask Trump, Congress to reinstate COOL after lawsuit dismissal

Ranchers say they will ask the Trump administration and Congress to reinstate country-of-origin labeling on beef after a federal judge dismissed their lawsuit against the USDA but found evidence that the lack of labeling had damaged the industry. U.S. District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson of Spokane on June 5 dismissed the lawsuit filed by R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America and Cattle Producers of Washington. Peterson ruled in favor of the USDA because ranchers failed to pursue the lawsuit within the six-year timeframe to challenge the 1989 federal Foreign Products Rule and because the regulations follow Congress’ clear intent, according to her ruling. But the judge agreed with ranchers that the government’s decision has caused them financial harm. “The court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated that their alleged injury is fairly traceable to defendants’ action,” Peterson wrote. “We’re obviously disappointed that we lost the lawsuit, but we’re actually elated that the court specifically found the lack of country-of-origin labeling on beef has harmed U.S. beef producers,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF...MORE

I'd prefer the ranching industry spend their efforts on revoking those regulations that do them harm, rather than seeking more regulations.

Cattle ranchers sue to return to country-of-origin labeling

Ranchers on Monday sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture, seeking to force meat to again be labeled if it's produced in other countries and imported to the United States. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Spokane, seeks to overturn a March 2016 decision by the Department of Agriculture to revoke regulations requiring imported meat products to be labeled with their country of origin. That change allowed imported meat to be sold as U.S. products, the lawsuit said. "Consumers understandably want to know where their food comes from," said David Muraskin of Washington, D.C., an attorney for Public Justice, which filed the lawsuit. "With this suit, we're fighting policies that put multinational corporations ahead of domestic producers and shroud the origins of our food supply in secrecy." Between 2009 and 2016, the USDA required country-of-origin labeling on meat. The lawsuit said the change violated the nation's Meat Inspection Act, which required that slaughtered meat from other countries be clearly marked. The Department of Agriculture on Monday declined to comment on a matter that is in litigation. The lawsuit was brought by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, the nation's largest group of independent cattle producers, and the Cattle Producers of Washington...mor

The complaint is embedded below  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Yd5M8kgeNtUU5VTExhTTFCSUk/view?usp=sharing
e

Will Trump Revive COOL and Make American Meat Great Again?

By Elizabeth Grossman

The question “Where does my meat come from?” took on new urgency last month when a corruption scandal at JBS, the world’s largest meatpacking company, prompted countries around the world to ban imports of Brazilian beef to avoid tainted meat. Although the scandal hasn’t directly impacted the U.S. yet, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it was stepping up inspections of Brazilian beef, while lawmakers called for both a ban and more oversight of such imports. But U.S. consumers have no way of knowing whether the beef in their local grocery store comes from Brazil. That’s because while the USDA requires some meat imports to be labeled, beef and pork became exempt last year following Congress’s repeal of the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law. COOL was—and is—supported by many U.S. ranchers and food safety advocates. But the regulations ran afoul of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and would have resulted in massive tariffs on U.S. products, prompting lawmakers to rescind the rule. Big meat producers and their trade associations lobbied against COOL requirements and continue to oppose them, arguing that they’re costly and provide few benefits. But now, some COOL advocates see an opening to push for this labeling under President Trump’s call to “Buy American.” Their efforts raise important questions about what, if anything, country-of-origin labeling can do to support safely—and fairly—produced meat. Under current USDA regulations, beef, pork, and turkey need not carry country of origin labels, while chicken, lamb, and other meat products do. All meat must pass USDA inspection and typically caries a USDA “inspected” label. But what consumers see at the supermarket varies widely. Costco and Safeway/Albertsons both confirmed that they no longer require country-of-origin labels on beef or pork per the new federal rules. Kroger’s QFC stores label the certified Angus beef they sell with “Product of USA” stickers, but those labels won’t necessarily appear on all U.S.-produced beef. And some retailers’ packages don’t include a USDA “inspected” label. Meanwhile, stores that support labeling and local food go well beyond federal requirements. Whole Foods uses country-of-origin labels on all of its meats, including beef, pork, and turkey. And the Oregon-based New Seasons chain’s meat has shelf-tags with specific language about the source, such as “Oregon & Washington” or “Western States” and often include the name of the farm that supplied the meat...more

COOL Unlikely to Make a Come-Back After All

The U.S. livestock industry was up in arms late last week when it was reported that support for country-of-origin labeling (COOL) may be a point of discussion by the new administration, as part of a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, an article on Politico this morning states, “COOL will not be making a comeback under a Trump administration, and that's apparently thanks to Trump's Agriculture Advisory Committee. “…They were quick to mobilize and inform Trump's transition team that such a policy - which has been litigated in both the U.S. court system and the World Trade Organization - is a non-starter for most farm groups,” the news report stated...more

USDA Removes Labeling Requirements from Beef and Pork

The federal government has wiped off the books the controversial law that required grocery stores to label cuts of pork and beef with their country of origin. The rules around Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) require retailers to note where the animal that produced cuts of meat was born, raised and slaughtered. The World Trade Organization, however, said last year that the labels were an unfair trade barrier for meat producers in other countries. Congress repealed mandatory labeling on beef and pork late last year, after the U.S. lost a World Trade Organization dispute with Mexico and Canada. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has now made repeal official via a notice in the Federal Register, although labels are still necessary for poultry, fish and a list of other foods. Over 90 percent of the beef, pork and poultry consumed in the U.S. is produced by American farms. But some ranchers wanted protection from foreign competition and viewed the labels as the meat version of a "Made in the U.S.A." sticker...more

Meat of the Matter: Not so COOL anymore

By Dan Murphy

The ill-advised, poorly written and wholly ineffective Country of Origin labeling law is finally getting a decent burial. Some folks are in mourning, but they should be celebrating.

Finally, the end is near.

After more than a dozen years of debate, controversy and disappointment for all parties involved, the ill-advised law with the incongruously inappropriate nickname appears to be on its way out.

Country of Origin Labeling, better known as COOL, has been tentatively repealed by a vote of Congress as part of the recently approved omnibus spending bill.

The meatpacking side of the industry was obviously pleased.

“We are enormously grateful that lawmakers have included language in the Omnibus bill to repeal mandatory country of origin labeling for certain meat products,” North American Meat Institute CEO Barry Carpenter said in a statement. “This congressional action is an important step in avoiding the financial harm so many industries will incur once Canada and Mexico initiate the tariffs sanctioned by the WTO’s ruling earlier this month. This trade dispute’s tentacles extend far beyond agriculture, and it’s time to put an end to this costly trade barrier.”

In perhaps the most important part of his statement — a sentence that could have covered everything that needed to be said — Carpenter emphasized that, “The marketplace, with consumers as the drivers, should determine what labeling is meaningful and should appear on meat products — not protectionists who fear free and unfettered trade.”

That’s the issue with COOL, the primary problem from which the legislation suffered from all along. If consumers don’t respond with their wallets to product labels that proclaim “Made in USA,” which is what the law’s proponents were counting on to make the measure meaningful, the net result is a classic case of fixing something that wasn’t broken.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

Congress shivers at $1 billion tariff threat, kills COOL

The battle over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) between the U.S. and its North American neighbors may finally be, well, cooling off. Thanks to its inclusion in the omnibus spending bill passed Friday, COOL has finally been repealed after years of controversy. Intended to provide more transparency to consumers about their food, COOL has been a sticking point with Canada and Mexico. Those two countries have asserted that the law violates their trade agreements with the U.S. and puts their products at an economic disadvantage. After the WTO recently ruled in Canada and Mexico’s favor on the labeling, the two countries threatened to slap as much as $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. products. “U.S. exporters can now breathe a sigh of relief,” said Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), who chairs the Senate Agriculture committee. “From the ranchers in Kansas to the jewelry makers on the East Coast, every state had something to lose from keeping mandatory COOL intact. Those worries can now be put to rest." In terms of meat labeling, USDA said it would take quick action in response to the law's repeal. “Effective immediately, USDA is not enforcing the COOL requirements for muscle cut and ground beef and pork outlined in the January 2009 and May 2013 final rules,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a statement Friday...more

Omnibus spending bill would repeal COOL, no WOTUS language

House and Senate Appropriations committees have agreed on a $1.15 trillion federal spending bill that includes potential “fixes” to SOME agricultural issues. The spending measure, released early Wednesday morning, would repeal mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) in hopes of preventing retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico. COOL repeal would come just in time as the World Trade Organization (WTO) is scheduled this Friday to approve Canada and Mexico’s $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. products. National Farmers Union president Roger Johnson says NFU is frustrated by the language because it would repeal labeling for not only muscle cuts of beef and pork but also for ground beef and ground pork – which were found to be trade-compliant. The spending measure also includes language that would try to limit the impact of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines and reinstates the expired biodiesel tax incentive. However, the bill abandons several controversial policy riders that would have rolled back the EPA’s clean water rule (formerly known as Waters of the US, WOTUS); it also does not contain language that would pre-empt state GMO-labeling laws...more

Repeal of country-of-origin meat labels may be tucked in U.S. budget bill

California ranchers hope a massive spending bill can be used to end a country-of-origin labeling law that could otherwise cost them serious money. Facing possible tariffs from Canada and Mexico, the ranchers and their Capitol Hill allies are scrambling to include a repeal of the labeling law in the so-called “omnibus” appropriations package needed to fund the federal government after Friday.
“This is a big problem needing fixing quickly,” said prominent San Joaquin Valley rancher John Harris. “The House has already passed a legislative fix. The Senate needs to get something done.” A World Trade Organization panel ruled May 18 that U.S. country-of-origin labeling requirements for beef and pork, known as COOL, violate U.S. international trade obligations. Labeling meat products as foreign provides “less favorable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs than to like domestic products,” the appellate panel concluded...more            

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/agriculture/article48679740.html#storylink=cpy

North Dakota officials, ranchers want meat labeling changed

As part of a final push to resist the imposition of retaliatory tariffs by Canada and Mexico, on June 22, 2015, the United States exercised its right under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding to have an arbitrator determine the value of retaliatory measures Canada and Mexico could take against the U.S. The decision issued on December 7, 2015, marks the end of this WTO dispute, leaving Canada with some clear options to consider in connection with taking retaliatory measures in order to put pressure on the U.S.to withdraw the COOL measures. About 250 USA companies and trade associations have sent a letter to every member of the U.S.Senate, urging them to do away with country-of-origin labelling on Canadian and Mexican beef and pork. "Mandatory COOL is one of the most costly and cumbersome rules ever imposed on the agricultural sector and the WTO announcement sets in motion Canada's and Mexico's ability to impose tariffs, a move they will likely complete before Christmas", says Barry Carpenter, president and CEO of the North American Meat Institute (NAMI). Canada is working on duties on a range of imported US-made food products following authorisation from the WTO it can collect C$1.05bn (US$772m) annually in compensation for illegal United States country-of-origin labels. "NCC supports legislative action that will bring US laws and regulations pertaining to meat and poultry into full compliance with our global trade obligations". The ruling not only applies to livestock produced in the USA, but to fish, shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables and certain nuts. It ruled Monday that Canada could impose $780 million in retaliatory tariffs and Mexico could impose $228 million. But, Colin Woodall, NCBA vice president of government affairs, emphasizes that both Canada and Mexico said since the outset that beef would be among the products. All eyes now turn to Washington to see if the U.S. Congress will pass legislation repealing COOL...more

COOL: Countdown to a showdown

With the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) final report on U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) retaliation now due December 7, the issues seem intractable, despite non-stop conversations among all parties since May, said Sarah Little, communications director for U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kans.), chairman of the Senate Ag Committee. Canada and Mexico could implement retaliatory tariffs as soon as 11 days after the decision is announced. A primary problem is that while some of the die-hard supporters of COOL are long-standing senators, some of opponents, including Sen. Roberts, are equally well-placed. Roberts has said it doesn’t matter if it’s a dollar in retaliation or if it’s $3.2 billion in retaliation, no amount is acceptable, Little said. Also, while COOL supporters have been unwilling to back away from their demands that the wording including “born, raised and slaughtered,” the Canadian and Mexican governments have been equally adamant that the language be dropped...more (registration)

USTR Tells WTO That COOL Damages Are Much Lower Than Estimated

Last week, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) filed a legal brief in the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute over mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL), arguing that the $3 billion sought by Canada and Mexico in retaliatory tariffs are a dramatic overestimation of damages. The U.S. requested that the WTO Arbitrator reject the amounts requested by Canada and Mexico and set them at no more than $43.22 million and $47.55 million, respectively. The document called the economic methodology used by the two countries “flawed” and one that “severely overestimates the level of nullification or impairment attributable” to COOL...more

Groups urge lawmakers to reject meat-labeling repeal and voluntary program

A coalition of agriculture, manufacturing, food safety and environmental groups are calling on Congress to reject both the House legislation to fully repeal the Department of Agriculture meat-labeling rule and the Senate bill to create a voluntary labeling program. The letter, from 142 groups to Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), urged lawmakers to instead “defend consumers’ right to know where their food comes from and the ability of farmers and ranchers to proudly identify their livestock as born and raised in America.” The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in May that the U.S. mandatory country-of-origin labeling rule for beef, pork and chicken violated U.S. trade obligations because it puts Canadian and Mexican meats at an unfair disadvantage. Despite that ruling, the letter from the coalition — which includes the American Agriculture Movement, Center for Food Safety, Food Democracy Now! and Friends of the Earth U.S. — said the U.S. has a sovereign right to allow the dispute process to proceed to its completion, which is months away, and then decide how and whether to implement the adverse ruling...more

Canada, United States enter abritration over COOL

On Tuesday, the United States Trade Representative formally triggered an arbitration process with Canada regarding country of origin labeling (COOL) at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The purpose of the arbitration process is to determine the level of damages, if any, that Canada incurred as a result of the United States' mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) law. Canada must now prove that it actually incurred monetary damages before the WTO would consider granting it the right to impose retaliatory tariffs against the United States as compensation for any such damages. In response to the United States Trade Representative request, the WTO on Wednesday referred the United States' request regarding Canada to arbitration. Although the USTR will likely also challenge Mexico's claims for damages, Mexico inserted the wrong dollar value for its damage claims and the United States will have more time to respond to Mexico's corrected request to implement retaliatory tariffs...more

House repeals country-of-origin labeling on meat

Under threat of trade retaliation from Canada and Mexico, the House has voted to to repeal a law requiring country-of-origin labels on packages of beef, pork and poultry. The World Trade Organization rejected a U.S. appeal last month, ruling the labels that say where animals were born, raised and slaughtered are discriminatory against the two U.S. border countries. Both have said they plan to ask the WTO for permission to impose billions of dollars in tariffs on American goods. The House voted 300-131 to repeal labels that tell consumers what countries the meat is from — for example, “born in Canada, raised and slaughtered in the United States” or “born, raised and slaughtered in the United States.” The WTO ruled against the labels last year. The Obama administration has already revised the labels once to try to comply with previous WTO rulings. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said it’s up to Congress to change the law to avoid retaliation from the two countries. The law was initially written at the behest of northern U.S. ranchers who compete with the Canadian cattle industry. It also was backed by consumer advocates who say it helps shoppers know where their food comes from...more

COOL supporters mount last-ditch effort to sidetrack repeal

As the House of Representatives readies a vote to repeal mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL), supporters of the controversial rule are making a last-ditch effort to save it from full repeal. Today, a coalition of 283 agricultural, environment, consumer, and faith-based organizations sent a letter to House Agriculture Committee chair Mike Conaway, R-Texas, and ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn. In the letter, the organizations, including the National Farmers Union and the AFL-CIO, say it is “premature for the Congress to unilaterally surrender to saber-rattling from our trading partners in the midst of a long-standing dispute.” Last month, the World Trade Organization (WTO) upheld an earlier ruling that a U.S. COOL rule - requiring meat labels to state where the meat-producing animal was born, raised, and slaughtered - accorded less favorable treatment to Canadian and Mexican livestock than that given to their American counterparts. The ruling was the fourth such against the U.S., setting the stage for possible retaliatory tariffs levied by Canada and Mexico, which the two governments said last week could top $3 billion...more

Editorial - Repeal 'Country of Origin Labeling' Law

The World Trade Organization on May 18 denounced a U.S. law requiring labels on meat products to specify where the animal was raised and slaughtered. The law, the WTO said, discriminates against Canadian and Mexican suppliers.

The ruling on America's country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, law, first enacted in 2002, set off alarm in some quarters. Foes of U.S. free-trade pacts smelled doom, arguing both the food supply and consumer choice were at risk. Yet the decision also prompted an immediate push for repeal from Congress, an effort led in part by Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla.

Rooney, in a statement that likely summed up the sentiment of the House Agriculture Committee, which passed a COOL repeal with overwhelming bipartisan support Wednesday, said the mandate violated U.S. trade agreements — and if not ditched, it could ignite a "trade war" as Canada and Mexico would slap higher tariffs on U.S. products. "This bill is critical to avoiding a trade war that could devastate U.S. farmers and ranchers, hamper economic growth and damage agriculture and manufacturing industries across the country," Rooney said.

Some critics of the House measure argued that we should be concerned that an international body, unaccountable to U.S. lawmakers or taxpayers, can readily force a change in our policies.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief economist reported that since COOL regulations were updated in 2009, compliance has cost U.S. producers, packers and retailers — of meats as well as fruits, vegetables and nuts — $2.6 billion, half of which was related to beef sales.

The industry, of course, does not want a mandate that drives up its costs and regulatory burden. But that's not why COOL should be repealed. As outlined in the USDA chief economist's report from last month, public health was not a factor for implementing COOL — advertising was and it didn't work.

"COOL is a retail labeling program and as such does not provide a basis for addressing food safety," the agency noted. "Existing research has not revealed that consumer demand for country of origin information is sufficient to lead to measurable increases in demand for labeled beef and pork in the marketplace. However, including COOL requirements causes the industry to incur costs." The report added, "Any increases in costs translate into losses for both consumers and producers relative to the situation without such requirements."  link

House Ag Committee approves COOL repeal bill

The House Agriculture Committee approved H.R. 2393, a bill to repeal Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for beef, pork and chicken. The panel amended the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1946, on a 38-6 vote. While repealing the labeling requirements on beef, pork and chicken, it leaves intact the requirements for all other covered commodities. The bill was approved on May 20, just two days after the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Appellate Body ruled against the United States’ COOL requirements for meat. Canada and Mexico had challenged the rule for muscle cuts of meat at the WTO, arguing that COOL has a trade-distorting impact by reducing the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market. H.R. 2393 was authored by House Ag Committee Chair K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), and co-sponsored by 68 Democrats and Republicans. Conaway pledged to work to get the bill to the House floor as quickly as possible. When WTO finalizes the ruling by the end of the month, Canada and Mexico can formally request permission to retaliate against the United States. Retaliation will be determined by how much the two countries can raise tariffs to address their losses under the U.S. meat labeling requirement. A panel will have 60 days to review the tariff amount, although the United States, Canada and Mexico could discuss a settlement before the 60-day clock runs out. Without a settlement, the United States could see retaliatory tariffs by late summer or fall. Canada has already issued a preliminary retaliation list targeting a broad spectrum of commodities and manufactured products. Mexico has not yet announced a preliminary retaliation list, but has implemented retaliatory tariffs in the past, which may be indicative of future tariff actions...more

U.S. bill to repeal meat labelling laws moves forward after WTO ruling

U.S. legislation to repeal meat labelling laws, which the World Trade Organization found discriminate against Mexico and Canada, passed a congressional committee on Wednesday and moved one step closer to becoming law. The House of Representatives Agriculture Committee approved the bill on a vote of 38-6, clearing the way for it to come for a vote expected early next month. Since 2009, U.S. retail outlets have been required to use labels such as “Born in Mexico, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States” to give consumers more information about the safety and origin of their food. Canada and Mexico are preparing sanctions against U.S. goods after the WTO ruling, and committee Chairman Michael Conaway said swift action was needed. “We must do all we can to avoid retaliation by Canada and Mexico, and this bill accomplishes that through full repeal of labelling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken,” the Republican legislator said. But the committee’s top Democrat, Collin Peterson, said repeal was premature. “I don’t think this is the best way to avoid retaliation and, quite frankly, I don’t think the Senate will be able to pass a repeal,” he said.  link

U.S. loses appeal on meat labeling

Labels on packaged steaks and other cuts of red meat in the United States that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered will have to be dropped or revised after a World Trade Organization ruling Monday. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative said the WTO has rejected a final U.S. appeal, deciding that the U.S. “country of origin” labels put Canadian and Mexican livestock at a disadvantage. The Obama administration had previously revised labels to try to comply with WTO obligations. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said that if the WTO ruled against the final U.S. appeal, Congress would have to weigh in to avoid retaliation — such as extra tariffs — from the two neighbor countries. Though the ruling went against the U.S., it’s a victory for the U.S. meat industry, which has said the labels are burdensome. Meat processors quickly called for repeal of the labeling laws after the WTO decision...more