At today's confirmation hearing for Tom Vilsack as Agriculture Secretary, there were a couple questions on country of origin labelling for beef products, as farm state Senators pressed Vilsack on working on a new COOL measure that would be WTO-compliant:
Senator Fischer:
As you know the U.S. is a global leader in the production of high quality, sustainable beef because cattle producers worked hard for decades to improve the quality of our cattle and build the brand that consumers love and trust. I think there is a general agreement that the USDA's generically approved product of the U.S.A. label has failed to keep up with evolving consumer expectations. Many are of the mindset that USDA already has the necessary tools and regulatory power to improve this dated generic label. Do you believe that the current labeling policy adequately informs consumers?
Tom Vilsack:
If it's the same policy as it was four years ago when I left, the answer is no. We made every concerted effort to try to create better transparency, better information for consumers, because we understand and appreciate that consumers want to know where their food comes from. They want to know when they are buying U.S. or not buying, when they are buying from someplace else. We attempted on three occasions to strengthen the country of origin labeling, unsuccessfully because of the WTO challenges by our Canadian friends which would have resulted in retaliation. I am absolutely willing to listen to anybody and everybody who has an idea how we can circumvent, or how can get to a point where the WTO doesn't necessarily slap it down. That creates retaliatory impacts on American agriculture. I'm frank to say I need help in that respect. We can ignore the WTO, but then we got the retaliation.
...
Senator Thune:
If you could segue into country of origin labeling, an issue which has already again been covered, but one that continues to be an incredibly important issue to many producers in South Dakota. Your views on the COOL rulings, if confirmed, whether you would be willing to work with us on -- and my staff -- on finding a path forward, preferably a WTO-compliant path to help address the concerns of South Dakota producers. …
Tom Vilsack:
Happy to work with you and your staff on anything that would allow us to advance country of origin labeling. As you know, we tried, and the WTO basically suggested we hadn't succeeded. If there is a way to get it to be WTO-compliant, I would be more than happy to work with you and I look forward to that.
I always saw the fundamental problem with the U.S. COOL measures as being the costs they impose on meatpackers using foreign products by, in general terms, requiring them to segregate their products by country of origin, in order to be able to gather information on origin at different stages of production. If you are looking for a WTO-compliant approach, I think you could have a more flexible labelling requirement that still provides consumers with country of origin information, while allowing meatpackers to avoid these segregation costs. For example, taking the case of meatpackers who only use cattle that could be classified as either U.S. or Canadian at some stage of production, you could have a label that said "Product of U.S. and/or Canada," without identifying the particular country or stages of production any further. That would let meatpackers commingle from different countries of origin as much as they wanted. This approach to COOL for these kinds of products would narrow down the country of origin for consumers, and the products in question could be distinguished from products where the retailer knew the products were of exclusively U.S. origin (and therefore could be labelled as "Product of the USA"). Consumers could determine which beef is 100% a product of the U.S., and meatpackers could avoid the costs of segregation and still use a label that conveys a good amount of information on origin. And if it turns out "Product of U.S. and/or Canada" makes consumers reluctant to buy the meat (that seems unlikely for most consumers), the meatpackers can think about whether to change their approach to production and sourcing.
