WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday weighed whether to repeal a law that requires meat to be labeled to indicate in what country the animal was born, raised and slaughtered.
The Canadian and Mexican governments have asked the World Trade Organization for permission to levy billions of dollars in sanctions on dozens of products from the United States, potentially including rice and chicken, if Congress doesn't act quickly to repeal the law. The sanctions could begin as soon as August.
U.S. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., who is on the Agriculture Committee, and USA Rice Federation Chairman Dow Brantley, a producer from Lonoke County, both said by phone after Thursday's hearing that Congress needs to repeal the law before Arkansas' industry is affected.
The committee took no action Thursday.
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would repeal the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling law, commonly known as COOL, but U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and some in the U.S. cattle industry are urging the Senate to instead make the labeling optional.
"The votes are not there for a full repeal without giving American ranchers and producers an opportunity to at least voluntarily move forward on a U.S. label," Stabenow said. "They'd like some clarity so we don't lose in the marketplace."
Supporters hope that making the labeling voluntary would smooth over concerns from the two trading partners, which have objected to the labeling, saying it drives up costs because their meat animals have to be tracked and segregated at slaughterhouses in order for the meat to be properly labeled. For decades, beef and pork producers in those countries have sent their animals to the United States to be fed out and processed. The U.S. law took effect in 2009.
U.S. Cattlemen's Association Director Emeritus Leo McDonnell of Montana said the country-of-origin law addresses consumers' rights to know where products are coming from and allows American ranchers to sell American meat at a premium.
"You tell me how we are going to compete if we are not allowed to differentiate our product?" he said.
Committee chairman U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, Boozman and representatives from other agricultural industries are urging Congress to eliminate the law now to avoid Canadian and Mexican tariffs, and return to the issue later.
"We need full repeal right now. That's the only thing that the Mexicans and the Canadians have said that they will take," Boozman said. "We can compromise among ourselves all that we want, but it has to be something that the Mexican government and the Canadian government have to be [accepting of] also. So far, they've said that they want full repeal."
At issue is a stamp in small font on meat packaging that specifies where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered.
A lot of consumers don't even notice it, several panelists said.
"There's a little stamp, and it's very fine print," Boozman said. "You really have to look hard."
Many companies also voluntarily place a large and more visible "Made in USA" label, which they could continue to use even if the labeling law is repealed. North American Meat Institute CEO Barry Carpenter told the committee that if consumers miss or want the labels, the industry can ask the USDA to create a voluntary label for meat from the United States similar to the voluntary labels it has for grass-fed or Angus beef.
But McDonnell said the law needs to specifically say that producers can choose to voluntarily specify where the meat animals were born, raised and slaughtered to "preserve the integrity of the U.S. beef label."
The World Trade Organization has repeatedly sided with Canada and Mexico, ruling that the label on beef and pork discriminates against Canadian and Mexican producers because their meat has to be segregated and labeled differently, even when the animals are processed at American facilities.
On May 18, the international trade body rejected the United States' fourth appeal in the case. On June 17, Canada asked the WTO for permission to institute annual retaliatory tariffs of up to $2.4 billion on a variety of U.S. imports, and Mexico wants $653 million in such tariffs.
The countries haven't specified what U.S. products would get the higher tariffs, but a preliminary Canadian list included fresh pork and beef, rice, wine, maple syrup and furniture.
With a deadline looming for the tariffs to begin, Brantley said Stabenow's legislation could be taking a risk that could have a "devastating" effect on rice producers.
"If that works, great. But, I don't know if Mexico and Canada are going to accept that," he said. "It's pretty straightforward for us. Fix the problem."
Metro on 06/26/2015