Panel Discusses COOL Implementation, Unintended Consequences
Panel Discusses COOL Implementation, Unintended Consequences
Livestock source verification, controlling implementation costs and unintended impacts on international trade were among the issues debated Nov. 4 during a panel discussion on mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) at USMEF’s annual Strategic Planning Conference in Tucson, Ariz. The panel addressed questions and concerns raised by some of the 300-plus USMEF members in attendance at the conference. Moderated by USMEF Director of Export Services Kevin Smith, the panel included:
- Dr. Craig Morris, deputy administrator, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service
- Clay Hamilton, animal division director, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
- Barry Carpenter, chief executive officer, National Meat Association
- Gregg Doud, chief economist, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Dr. Morris reported on USDA’s implementation of the interim final rule for mandatory COOL, which took effect Sept. 30, and stated that the final rule should be completed over the next few weeks. He added that USDA is monitoring the economic impact of COOL, as well as reaching out to international trading partners to educate them about COOL requirements.
“We want to clarify that this is a retail labeling law,” Morris said. “It should not affect how products are labeled for export.”
But the panel discussion made it clear that mandatory COOL is having an impact on some aspects of international trade. Smith noted that products labeled for export now face difficult hurdles if they have to be redirected into the domestic market. Many trading partners also will not accept products from U.S. exporters if they carry the mixed origin label now required under COOL.
Doud stated that discounts have been imposed on some feeder cattle of Mexican origin, and this is halting trade of Mexican and Canadian feeder cattle in the U.S. live cattle market. Doud said he is “certain” Canada will bring a case before the World Trade Organization challenging the legality of mandatory COOL as soon as Canadian producers feel they are able to prove injury.
“And I won’t be surprised if Canada is joined by Australia, New Zealand and Mexico,” Doud said.
He added that the U.S. cattle industry also may be adversely affected by mandatory COOL because it could accelerate decline of the U.S. herd.
“The U.S. cattle industry has always been able to grow with the help of Canadian and Mexican feeder cattle,” Doud said. “Our industry will certainly shrink if we exclude those cattle.”
None of the panel members expect major changes in mandatory COOL at either the regulatory or legislative level. Dr. Morris said that even with the arrival of a new presidential administration, a very strong case would have to be made in order to reopen the final rule once it is finalized later this year. Carpenter added that he can see nothing positive emerging for the U.S. meat industry if the final rule is reopened.
For additional reports from the USMEF Strategic Planning Conference, please visit www.usmef.org.
Panel Discusses COOL Implementation, Unintended Consequences
Livestock source verification, controlling implementation costs and unintended impacts on international trade were among the issues debated Nov. 4 during a panel discussion on mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) at USMEF’s annual Strategic Planning Conference in Tucson, Ariz. The panel addressed questions and concerns raised by some of the 300-plus USMEF members in attendance at the conference. Moderated by USMEF Director of Export Services Kevin Smith, the panel included:
- Dr. Craig Morris, deputy administrator, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service
- Clay Hamilton, animal division director, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
- Barry Carpenter, chief executive officer, National Meat Association
- Gregg Doud, chief economist, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Dr. Morris reported on USDA’s implementation of the interim final rule for mandatory COOL, which took effect Sept. 30, and stated that the final rule should be completed over the next few weeks. He added that USDA is monitoring the economic impact of COOL, as well as reaching out to international trading partners to educate them about COOL requirements.
“We want to clarify that this is a retail labeling law,” Morris said. “It should not affect how products are labeled for export.”
But the panel discussion made it clear that mandatory COOL is having an impact on some aspects of international trade. Smith noted that products labeled for export now face difficult hurdles if they have to be redirected into the domestic market. Many trading partners also will not accept products from U.S. exporters if they carry the mixed origin label now required under COOL.
Doud stated that discounts have been imposed on some feeder cattle of Mexican origin, and this is halting trade of Mexican and Canadian feeder cattle in the U.S. live cattle market. Doud said he is “certain” Canada will bring a case before the World Trade Organization challenging the legality of mandatory COOL as soon as Canadian producers feel they are able to prove injury.
“And I won’t be surprised if Canada is joined by Australia, New Zealand and Mexico,” Doud said.
He added that the U.S. cattle industry also may be adversely affected by mandatory COOL because it could accelerate decline of the U.S. herd.
“The U.S. cattle industry has always been able to grow with the help of Canadian and Mexican feeder cattle,” Doud said. “Our industry will certainly shrink if we exclude those cattle.”
None of the panel members expect major changes in mandatory COOL at either the regulatory or legislative level. Dr. Morris said that even with the arrival of a new presidential administration, a very strong case would have to be made in order to reopen the final rule once it is finalized later this year. Carpenter added that he can see nothing positive emerging for the U.S. meat industry if the final rule is reopened.
For additional reports from the USMEF Strategic Planning Conference, please visit www.usmef.org.