COOL – Country of Origin Labelling – is not cool at all.
The American legislation came into effect Sept. 30 but few people on either side of the 49th parallel believe it will achieve its original intent to enhance food safety and make meat choices more transparent to American consumers.
The more likely scenario is that it will add to processors’ costs, increase food prices, harm the North American livestock industries and confuse consumers.
In Canada, it could reduce U.S.-bound exports of cattle, hogs, other livestock and meats derived from same, as American processors seek to limit costs associated with additional labelling and regulation.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
COOL has been a long time coming, and yet as late as last week a bevy of U.S. senators and farm groups requested changes to the legislation. It seems likely that the rules put into effect earlier this week will not be the final version of COOL, which further muddies an already confusing situation.
Price, not origin, is the key arbiter of consumer decision making, with food safety assurances claiming a strong second place. Amid rising food costs and a declining U.S. economy, price will be an even stronger motivator for consumers when it comes to food purchases.
As for food safety, let’s not guild the lily. The truly important label that consumers want to see these days isn’t included in COOL regulations. That’s the label that reads NOT A PRODUCT OF CHINA.
In fact, COOL in its present form provides no additional safeguards regarding food safety. Labels only serve to note country or countries of origin.
COOL is also rife with loopholes. Food that is processed, cooked, cured, smoked or restructured is exempt, regardless of origin. Food served in restaurants is exempt, as is that sold in small retail outlets and butcher shops.
Remind us again, what is the point of this legislation? Will it improve American demand for domestic meat? Maybe, if it’s cheaper, but selling meat more cheaply is not in the interests of U.S. cattle producers or good for the industry’s long-term health. By extension, it’s not good for Canada’s livestock industry either.
Canada has been watching the development of COOL closely because of its potential implications for livestock and meat exports. If this country’s largest export market reduces its draw, or buys at a discount, the meat industry will be damaged.
Lack of clarity in the rule making, and now potential changes, have hindered Canadian industries’ abilities to plan for COOL’s implementation.
Several industry groups, among them the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and the Manitoba Pork Council, are pressing the federal government to challenge COOL as contrary to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In May, federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz appeared to heed those urgings when he promised to launch a NAFTA appeal if and when COOL’s provision took effect and hurt Canadian exports.
The letter of the COOL law has changed since Ritz made that vow, but the government must now carefully watch the implementation.
If COOL damages the Canadian livestock industry, government will be expected to Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
