.STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH

Duane A. Lienemann
UNL Extension Educator

         I should really be writing about the rain and the impact it should have on our pastures and wheat crops, especially after my dire warnings on wheat conditions last week. However, I think we need to look at a new USDA ruling that will affect our livestock producers. For a little background, in June 2012, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) responded to complaints from other countries and ruled that the Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) rules were causing imported livestock from Canada and Mexico to be at a disadvantage.  Because of those outcries, the WTO directed the United States to modify MCOOL to bring it into compliance with their rules by May 23, 2013. In response, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposed an amended rule for the Country of Origin Labeling provisions for muscle-cut covered commodities and the USDA hurriedly met the deadline; released the final rule this past week; published in the Federal Register; and will now go into effect immediately!  
     The COOL labeling issue has been under the thumb of the WTO since the organization required the USDA to adjust labeling rules in response to complaints from other countries. The WTO alleged that the existing MCOOL regulations require more information from cattle suppliers than is actually transmitted to consumers via a label on beef as a basis for its finding that COOL disadvantages foreign livestock. So basically, the latest rule amends the regulations for muscle-cut covered commodities derived from animals slaughtered in the United States. Labels will be required to specify the production steps of birth, raising and slaughter of the animal from which the meat is derived. In addition, the rule eliminates the allowance for commingling of muscle cuts from different origins; which, according to the USDA, means slaughterhouses will not be able to affix one label to two or more origins of meat even if processed the same day, therefore allowing labels to be more specific. The argument is that the consumer demands this change.
     There are differing points of view on this new rule. To fully understand what this is all about, we must first look at the COOL program, the reasons for the change, and explore the arguments for and against the new rule.  So let’s look at how this all transpired.  I think most people involved in the livestock industry know that there was a liturgy of legislation, from 2002 on, that amended the Ag Marketing Act of 1946 to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of covered commodities which include muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb, chicken, goat, and pork; ground beef, ground lamb, ground chicken, ground goat, and ground pork; wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish; perishable ag commodities; macadamia nuts; pecans; ginseng; and peanuts.  AMS published a final rule on March 16, 2009. 
     Many people involved in the livestock industry were not thrilled with the very first COOL rule since they felt it was conceived as a protectionist measure by certain producer groups with the notion that consumers would flock to purchase products carrying a “Made in the USA” label, which has not happened. It also has costs for packers and producers. It has been argued ever since its inception and today is not any different with discussion on the implementation of this new rule.
     Proponents of this new rule believe that by requiring the locations where each production step occurs to be listed on the label, and that the final MCOOL rule will address the WTO's criticism by requiring all the information collected from cattle suppliers to be transmitted to consumers. They also contend that the final COOL rule will supposedly ensure that labels are accurate by putting an end to the industry practice of using a multi-country label on meat derived exclusively from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States when a meatpacker commingles any amount of foreign product during a production day, which they contend will help restore the credibility of our labeling program and provide consumers with accurate origin information. ……. “Not so fast,” say a couple of major livestock groups. 
     The National Pork Producers Council (NPC) and National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) both oppose the new MCOOL rule, maintaining that it won't be acceptable under World Trade Organization Rules. The organizations opposing the rules also note that it could create increased costs for meat packers, producers and processors. The NCBA state that they are deeply disappointed with this, what they call “short-sighted”, action by the USDA. They contend that our largest trading partners including Canada and Mexico have already said that these provisions will not bring the United States into compliance with our WTO obligations and will result in increased discrimination against imported products and in turn retaliatory tariffs or other authorized trade sanctions. So these new rules, which were supposed to appease both countries, perhaps have made the situation even worse. It goes to show that sometimes the “solution” is not a solution at all.
     The NCBA states that: “Any retaliation against U.S. beef would be devastating for our producers. While trying to make an untenable mandate fit with our international trade obligations, USDA chose to set up U.S. cattle producers for financial losses. Moreover, this rule will place a greater record-keeping burden on producers, feeders and processors through the born, raised and harvested label.” They also go on to point out that as cattlemen they do not oppose voluntary labeling as a marketing tool to distinguish product and add value. However, “The USDA is not the entity that we want marketing beef, and on its face, a label that says ‘harvested’ is unappealing to both consumers and cattle producers.” Those certainly are very viable concerns and talking points on this ruling as you decide what side of the issue you stand!
 The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home