Defenders of the U.S. country-of-origin labelling law are seeking some compromises.
While many detractors of the mandatory labeling of a wide range of commodities want the law removed from the books or face huge tariffs from Canada and Mexico, others, including a ranking senator on the agriculture committee, have suggested maintaining some form of it.
On June 25, the U.S. Senate’s agriculture committee heard testimony from both sides, including a proposal from Democrat Debbie Stabenow for a voluntary label following the World Trade organization’s fourth ruling that the law was discriminatory against imported beef and pork products.
Read Also
Conservatives call for approval of emergency strychnine use
The federal Conservatives called for the government to authorize emergency use of the poison strychnine against infestations of gophers.
She described COOL as a landmark law that tells consumers where their food comes from. However, faced with the threat of $2.5 billion in tariffs from Canada and $713 million from Mexico, modifications are needed. The U.S. has objected to the amount requested, which triggered a 60-day arbitration process
She proposed the removal of beef and pork from the mandatory labelling provisions deemed non-compliant by the WTO, followed by the establishment of a completely voluntary Product of U.S. label for beef and pork.
Other supporters of COOL, including the American Farm Bureau and the United States Cattlemen’s Association, reiterated the importance of informing consumers about the source of their food. They conceded some changes are needed.
The farm bureau said it supports a partial repeal of COOL on beef, pork and chicken but wants the other commodities to remain covered by the law, said Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, on behalf of the national organization.
Leo McDonnell of Montana, who represents the United States Cattlemen’s Association, proposed the retention of the current “A” label to distinguish products born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. from imports.
“In no circumstance should a product not born, raised and harvested in the U.S. be granted a “U.S. label,” he said.
“Through a voluntary program, we ask that this label be maintained and not comingled with other product originating in Canada and Mexico,” he said.
Testimony from the North American Meat Institute presenting packers and processors, grape and wine sectors and corn processors asked for a repeal of the bill citing concerns over punishing tariffs.
James Treviso of New York, who represents the wine and grape industry, said wine exports to Canada are worth about $487 million.
“The potential tariff increase by the Canadian government would roughly double the price of American wines to Canadian consumers overnight, drying up our sales and opening the door to competing wine regions from throughout the world. “
The tariffs would probably force American wines off the shelves and rebuilding business could take years.
Christopher Cuddy, president of ADM’s corn processing unit, said the company exported $18 billion in crops and finished products to markets around the world.
Tariffs could cost ADM more than $700 million per year, he said.
Contact barbara.duckworth@producer.com
