What You Need to Know about Recent Changes to Country-of-Origin Labeling on Red Meat

The links in the post below may be affiliate links. Read the full disclosure.

meat labels

New Meat Label Changes

Be on the lookout for a slight change in packaging when it comes to beef and pork products on your next shopping trip.

Last month, as part of its so-called omnibus appropriations bill, the U.S. Congress repealed a decade-old rule that required beef and pork packages to include information on the country-of-origin of these products, including where each animal was raised, slaughtered, and packaged. Country-of-origin labeling, often abbreviated to COOL, first became a major concern back in 2002, amid threat of mad cow disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), but has since been cast as part of a larger movement towards greater transparency in food production, particularly as it relates to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and foreign imports.

To the average consumer, this change is likely somewhat of a shock, given the fact that polls have as many as 90% of us in favor of COOL practices. However, this latest change to food labeling practices is only one chapter in a larger story involving agriculture, food production, international economics, and your dinner.

Beaten at Its Own Game: How the WTO Brought Down COOL

To understand the complex nature of the COOL rules, including their repeal, it is important to understand the complex relationship that the United States has in the international trade arena, especially among its North American neighbors. When the U.S. passed its COOL ruling back in the early 2000s, it was with the full support of its population and in response to a real threat when it came to tainted meat, particularly from places like China. However, as rules tend to be, COOL was all-encompassing. This means that the labeling requirements extended to places like Canada, which has no black marks on its record in terms of food safety and whose animals are often raised alongside American livestock in border states such as Ohio and Michigan. As a result, the COOL laws placed an undue financial and logistical burden on Canadian producers who, after unsuccessfully lobbying the U.S. directly regarding its labeling laws, took their case to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The WTO, whose mission is to organize and arbitrate the rules of trade between nations, immediately took issue with the COOL legislation, citing, among other things, rules of trade that the U.S. helped to write. They ruled in favor of Canadian producers both initially and in the United States’ subsequent appeals. As a result, should the U.S. remain steadfast in its support of COOL, the WTO gave Canada and Mexico permission to begin imposing trading tariffs to the tune of $1 billion on the U.S. in retaliation for lost income over the years. The tariffs were set to take effect within hours when Congress passed the appropriations bill repealing the rule and nullifying the WTO’s ruling.

A Victory for More than Trade

The 11th hour change to COOL rules was not only a victory to our North American neighbors, but to the meat packing industry in general. They had been lobbying against the labels from day one, even successfully preventing the widespread implementation of COOL until 2009, despite law passage some five years earlier. Theirs is a concern over costs related to production and inconvenience as well as consumer perception of “foreign” meats. Clearly, less work and fewer labels positively impact the producers responsible for producing those labels.

However, the WTO ruling regarding the COOL practices for beef and pork was limited to so-called muscle cuts, or steaks. In other words, recognizable pieces of an animal, not ground meat. However, in the appropriations bill, the U.S. repealed all COOL laws in relation to all beef and pork products (they still apply to chicken and lamb) including the ground ones, despite the WTO ruling that labeling such mixed elements was legal and allowed without penalty.

What the Absence of COOL Means at Home

While the economic impetus for repealing COOL is obvious, that’s not what most consumers will take away from this change, and rightly so. In addition to what some call a “holiday gift” to the meat packing industry in the form of the ground beef labeling rules, many see this move as a kowtow to international trade practices at the expense of the will of U.S. citizens. As cited above,  in 2013 the Consumer Federation of America found that nearly 90% of Americans favor country-of-origin labeling on their meat products. Cited by many as a “common sense” practice in line with the call for more transparency in all aspects of the food and agriculture industries, this issue goes far beyond one of food safety. Instead, it is part of a complex web of economics, agribusiness lobbying efforts, and grass roots movements that is not likely to go away with the signing of the appropriations bill.

From small-time farmers worried about the competition of Canadian and Mexican meat to the family shopper who now must decide which package of product to buy with less information, many people are unhappy with this change. What, if anything, they can do remains to be seen, but regardless we are likely to hear and see more on this issue in coming months.