House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway forecasts easy passage of a bill to repeal country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on cuts of beef, pork and chicken, beginning with his committee today and on the House floor in June. “If we can get a big vote in the House … that will help” build momentum for Senate approval, Conaway told reporters on Capitol Hill. He said he was working with GOP House leaders to arrange a floor vote in early June. “The train is leaving the station, if not left the station.”
Manufacturers and foodmakers have their best chance yet to roll back COOL, thanks to a WTO ruling in favor of Canada and Mexico in the dispute that started in 2008. In extinguishing the final U.S. appeal, WTO said COOL unfairly discourages livestock and meat imports by requiring meatpackers and retailers to keep expensive records of where the cattle, hogs and chickens were born, raised and slaughtered.
COOL applies to a large part of the U.S. food supply, from meat, seafood, fruits and vegetables to peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts. But beef and pork, objects of controversy since inclusion in 2002, were the only products to face a WTO challenge. Conaway said the repeal bill would end labeling of beef, pork and chicken as a “narrow” and “targeted” remedy. The chicken industry asked to be included in the repeal although it was not part of the WTO case. Goat and lamb groups wanted to stay in the labeling program.
“I think the Senate could stop it [the repeal bill],” said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, which staged a fly-in so its members could lobby lawmakers to keep the law. Consumer groups back meat labeling, claiming it is part of the public’s right to know where food comes from. Johnson pointed to Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow as a stalwart for labeling. In a statement, Stabenow said she supported COOL. “If adjustments are needed, we should find a bipartisan path forward that both protects the interests of consumers and encourages international trade.”
Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley says Congress should take its time and consider alternative labels, such as one for “North America” meat, said Brownfield Ag News.
During a new conference, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a wine industry group painted the repeal bill as the only safeguard against retaliatory tariffs as high as $2 billion that would disrupt exports of U.S. manufactured and food products. At present, Canada buys one-third of U.S. wine exports. One-fifth of U.S. pork is exported to nations around the world. “Given those numbers, we can’t have exports disrupted by retaliatory tariffs,” said the National Pork Producers Council.
Already, some customers for U.S. products are wavering because of the risk of higher tariffs, said Mary Dempsey of the National Association of Manufacturers. “Once we lose these sales … we may lose them for years,” she said.
“Canada is ready to impose retaliatory tariffs on American products such as beef, wine and even mattresses if the U.S. doesn’t move quickly to repeal its meat-labelling rules,” said CTVNews.
The United States conducted $1.26 trillion in trade with Canada and Mexico at latest count, according to the U.S. trade representative’s office – $707 billion with Canada and $536 billion with Mexico. U.S. exports to and imports from each of the countries were roughly equal. The North American neighbors are the top two U.S. trade partners.
In agriculture, Canada and Mexico are the No. 2 and No. 3 markets behind China for U.S. ag exports, says the USDA, which forecasts they will jointly buy $40.5 billion of U.S. goods while shipping $44.8 billion in farm products to U.S. buyers this fiscal year.
While foes say a speedy repeal is needed, NFU’s Johnson says a rush is not necessary. Canada and Mexico have to allow 60 days for consultations before asking for approval of retaliation, he said, and they would have to prove to WTO that COOL actually damaged their livestock industries. An analyst says the recession and slow economic growth are the true factors behind sales fluctuations, not COOL.
The dispute over COOL is a small part of the overall U.S. economy, said Leo McDonnell of the US Cattlemen’s Association, adding that the United States ought to defend its interests. “Don’t we have to stand up every once in a while?” he said. “I think most consumers want to know where their food comes from.”
–Reporting by Chuck Abbott
A summary and text of HR 2393, to repeal country of origin labeling of beef, pork and chicken, is available here.
The USDA homepage on COOL is available here.