Labels: COOL or unCOOL?

In my blog post "Why Should You Care About Ag Policy?" I discussed the different industries and key players involved in developing policy. Last week, I used the ongoing GMO-labeling debate to showcase the role of communication. This week, we will will look at another labeling controversy, country of origin labeling, to examine the role outside organizations can play in shaping ag policy.

What is Country of Origin Labeling?

The 2005, 2008, and 2013 Farm Bills amended and upheld the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require mandatory country of origin labels on specific food products. Country of origin labeling (COOL) allowed consumers to remain informed about where their products were born, raised, and slaughtered. This became especially important for the beef industry after a reported case of Mad Cow disease in Canada. However, it quickly turned into a policy nightmare. The full details of the process can be found at Packaging Digest. 

Here is a summary of the events:

• Canada and Mexico filed lawsuits with the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming these regulations violated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
• USA lost two counter-suits and its final appeal in June 2015
• WTO approved retaliatory tariffs in December 2015

 Retaliatory tariffs are taxes placed on imported or exported goods as a means for coercing a foreign country to comply with international trade rules. According to the Bismarck Tribune in December, the WTO approved tariffs by Canada and Mexico for $781 million and $228 million, respectively. The Ministers Fast and Ritz of Canada released a list of 38 possible tariffs, including many products unrelated to COOL, such as wine, jewelry, and furniture. 

These events forced the United States government to make a very difficult decision: 
maintain COOL and risk retaliation OR repeal a widely popular piece of legislation. 

Hot and Cold on COOL

Statistic from Forbes Food & Agriculture

The meatpacking industry opposed COOL since its inception, believing labels present an unnecessary burden and cost. On the other hand, consumer groups, small ranchers and farmers, and politicians supported COOL. They argued consumers have the right to know their food's origin and choose American products. The WTO's ruling and the threat of retaliatory tariffs forced each  organization to reconsider the costs and benefits of COOL. Below is a table of 12 national organizations and their final positions on COOL.

(Information gathered from organization websites.)

Each of these organizations, as well as others and individual citizens, lobbied Congress for one of its three options: keep COOL, repeal COOL, or repeal COOL and replace it with a voluntary labeling program. The House Agriculture Committee repealed COOL, while Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) proposed a voluntary program. Ultimately, time ran out and both chambers repealed COOL by removing its funding in the latest omnibus bill, according to the Wall Street Journal. After the repeal, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack said:

"Effective immediately, USDA is not enforcing the COOL requirements for muscle cut and ground beef and pork."

This policy decision demonstrates the difficulty policy makers face in balancing the competing demands of outside entities. In this case, the WTO ruling contradicted the desires of many Americans (Forbes reports 90% of Americans support country-of-origin labeling), and the risk of retaliatory tariffs caused many former COOL advocates to call for its repeal.

Unfortunately, policy is never black and white, but a "COOL" gray. Ultimately, Congress listened to testimonies and gathered evidence before deciding on the best-case scenario. Do you agree with Congress's decision to repeal country of origin labeling? Let me know your opinion in the comments.