Warning of retaliatory tariffs of more than $3 billion, Senate Agriculture chairman Pat Roberts said, “Repeal of mandatory COOL is the surest way to protect the U.S. economy.” Farm and industry groups generally joined the call for repeal during an Agriculture Committee hearing on the impact of a WTO ruling that U.S. country-of-origin labels (COOL) on packages of beef and pork violate world trade rules by discouraging imports from Canada and Mexico.
The top-ranking Democrat on the panel, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, promoted a switch to voluntary COOL for pork and beef – a “simple, WTO-consistent approach.” Her proposal differs sharply from a House-passed bill that would repeal COOL for beef, pork and chicken.
Roberts, who invited senators to propose alternatives, said the Senate must act before WTO approves retaliation against U.S. agricultural and manufactured products ranging from mattresses and office furniture to wine and ethanol. “Chairman Roberts’ hope is to find a solution quickly …. The Senate has five weeks of session when we return [from the Independence Day recess] and we hope to provide stability soon,” said a spokeswoman.
The United States asked for arbitration last week when Mexico and Canada presented their requests to WTO for retaliatory tariffs. Arbitration lasts a couple of months at a minimum and could require Canada and Mexico to prove losses from COOL.
“Voluntary COOL is indistinguishable from total repeal: Meatpackers won’t use it, consumers won’t see it and U.S. farmers and ranchers won’t benefit from it,” said the consumer group Food and Water Watch. There was little participation a decade ago when COOL was voluntary for meat. Food and Water Watch opposes elimination of mandatory COOL.
Consumer groups have supported COOL as part of a consumers’ right-to-know about food. The labeling program is more popular in the Senate than in the House, so there was doubt that a straight-forward repeal bill could roll to passage, particularly when parliamentary maneuvering could make a 60-vote majority necessary.
Meatpackers and retailers opposed COOL from the start as an expensive record-keeping headache.
“It is, and always has been, a non-tariff trade barrier,” said Barry Carpenter of the North American Meat Institute, a trade group, at the Senate Agriculture hearing. Iowa farmer Craig Hill, speaking for the American Farm Bureau Federation, backed repeal of COOL for beef, pork and chicken. Chicken was not a target of the WTO complaint by Canada and Mexico. The House Agriculture chairman, Michael Conaway, said the chicken industry asked to be included in the House repeal bill.
Canada and Mexico, while wielding the threat of trade retaliation, say their true goal is repeal of COOL. The House Agriculture Committee said in a statement, “There is overwhelming support in Congress to repeal this failed program.”