The American Meat Institute (AMI) Friday told the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) violates the United States’ international trade obligations for many reasons and that the U.S. must honor these obligations. 

 The comments were provided in response to a December 4, 2009, Federal Register Notice.  Canada and Mexico in late 2009 filed a case against the United States with the World Trade Organization (WTO), a move that came as no surprise given those countries’ outspoken opposition to the labeling law when it was under consideration by Congress.

In comments, AMI Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel Mark Dopp said that equitable enforcement of international trade rules is a high priority for everyone and that all too often,  market access for U.S. meat products has been threatened or cut off with little or no legitimate justification.

 “American challenges to these actions have been based upon the rights provided under international trade agreements. These challenges will continue, as demonstrated by a recent limitation to an important market for beef.  Critical to the United States’ ability to enforce successfully World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) obligations is consistency in U.S. behavior and actions,” Dopp said.   “In that regard, the United States’ credibility is undermined when U.S. legislation violates America’s commitments pursuant to those international agreements. In the instant case, the U.S. COOL requirements, as provided for in the 2002 Farm Bill (and modified in the 2008 Farm Bill) and as implemented through regulations that became effective March 16, 2009, are not consistent with U.S. obligations under both WTO and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) and NAFTA.”

 COOL is inconsistent with trade agreements because of its discriminatory effect on imported meat and imported live animals.  The U.S. must ensure that the products of other countries “imported into the territory of [the United States]…be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of [U.S.] origin in respect of all laws…affecting their internal sale.”

 According to Dopp, COOL affects the internal sale of meat derived from foreign animals in the United States by creating notable disadvantages in selling imported foreign meat, as well as selling “foreign” animals to U.S. meat packing facilities.  Significantly, GATT provides that “formal” identical treatment, i.e., that both U.S. and imported products must be marked with the country of origin, does not justify a law such as COOL where that law discriminates against imports in practice. 

 “The result is that COOL is de facto discrimination against foreign products, a result even contemplated by sponsors of the legislation who declared that it would be ‘helpful to a lot of American agricultural producers’ and force companies to rely ‘on our independent producers here in this country,’” according to Dopp.

 COOL also is not consistent with the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).  The TBT Agreement specifically governs any technical regulation which, like COOL, “deal[s] exclusively with…marking or labeling requirements as they apply to a product.” The TBT Agreement requires that the United States use international standards as the basis for its technical regulations. COOL breaches those U.S. obligations by failing to use two such standards.

 First, the Codex General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foods provides that “when a food undergoes processing in a second country which changes its nature, the country in which the processing is performed shall be considered to be the country of origin for the purposes of labeling.” COOL does not meet this international standard, Dopp said.  In addition, the Codex General Standard provides that “the country of origin of the food shall be declared if its omission would mislead or deceive the consumer.”  The U.S. Government, however, has never claimed that customers were misled or deceived.

 Second, the WTO Rules of Origin Agreement stipulates that the final harmonization work program must determine a country of origin as “the country where the last substantial transformation has been carried out.”   COOL, however, denies U.S. country of origin to animals and meat products that are substantially transformed in the United States, and thus fails to conform to this international standard, Dopp noted.

COOL also violates the TBT agreement by creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade.  Its non-trade objectives are minimal, and COOL does not have as an objective protecting “human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment.”

 “Indeed, the U.S. Government has repeatedly stated that COOL ‘is not a food safety or animal health measure. Likewise, COOL is not a ‘national security requirement’ nor does COOL have as its purpose preventing ‘deceptive practices.’ Neither sponsors of the legislation nor U.S. Government agencies have made such a claim,” Dopp said. 

The stated objective of COOL is to provide ‘consumer information,’ but AMS found that the “expected benefits from implementation of this rule are difficult to quantify. In fact, the agency concluded that that the economic benefits will be small and will accrue mainly to those consumers who desire country of origin information and that all available evidence shows that “consumers do not have a strong preference for country of origin labeling.”

 “In a number of cases meat packers have chosen either to cease buying imported livestock – an extreme trade restriction – or have confined the processing of imported livestock to limited dates and times. These practices, in turn, have significantly restricted trade,” Dopp wrote.

 In addition, to be consistent with GATT, COOL must be administered uniformly and reasonably.  But according to Dopp, “COOL applies only to “covered commodities” and not to a host of products such as turkey, processed foods, etc. and, therefore, is not consistent,” he said.   Reasonableness requires that the administration of laws be “proportionate” and “appropriate” and, comparing the significant costs imposed on the U.S. importers and the foreign producers of animals and meat products to the scant legitimate benefit identified by the U.S. government, COOL cannot be deemed to be reasonable.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., was one of the 26 U.S. Senators urging strong support from U.S. representatives in defending Country of Origin labeling in WTO complaints.

Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., is not one of the 26 bipartisan coalition of senators urging a defense of COOL legislation.

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard recently met with Edward Avalos, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, other USDA officials and congressional staffers to discuss the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law and the joint Senate letter circulated by Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., which encourages U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and  U.S. Trade Representative,  Ambassador Ron Kirk, to continue to aggressively defend COOL against the World Trade Organization (WTO) complaints filed by Canada and Mexico, two of this country’s NAFTA partners. 

 “In addition to its support of the joint Senate letter, R-CALF USA reiterated its recommendation that USDA immediately begin a new rulemaking to close the loophole in the COOL law that allows the mislabeling of USA beef with a multi-country label,” said R-CALF USA COOL Committee Chair Mike Schultz.

 Bullard said R-CALF USA said that a new rulemaking may nullify the Canadian and Mexican complaints because these countries would be given an opportunity to express their concerns in the new rulemaking, making the WTO complaint premature.

“We also provided officials with documentation showing that numerous countries that accept U.S. beef exports continue to ban Canadian beef and beef derived from Canadian cattle imported into the United States,” he said. “These export bans help to explain that the reduced demand for Canadian beef and cattle in the U.S. is due in large part to ongoing safety concerns about Canadian beef and are not the result of the COOL law.”   

 The joint Senate letter states in part:

 “Over forty-five other nations have each already implemented a food labeling program which provides country of origin information to consumers.  As you know, both Canada and Mexico have implemented food labeling programs of their own to make such information available.  Some of the origin labeling programs implemented in other countries require that more information be made available to the consumer than what is required by the food labeling program in the United States.  The food labeling programs established to date in other countries clearly indicate that the United States is implementing a reasonable program which is compliant with our trade obligations.”

 An additional 24 Senators, listed below, signed on to the joint Senate letter in support of COOL:  Johnson (D-SD), Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.; Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.; Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ark.; Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.; Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; Sen. Carl, D-Mich.; Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.;  Sen. Herb, D-Wis.; Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine; Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine; Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.; Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore; Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; Sen. David Vitter, R-La.; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; and, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture will host its 15^th annual Informational Seminar on Wednesday, February 3, at the Quality Hotel and Convention Center, 2201 Osborne Drive, in Hastings, Nebraska.

The one-day seminar, from 9:00 to 4:00, is an opportunity for landowners, agriculture producers, natural resource professionals, and other interested individuals to share ideas and learn about conservation issues, research, and habitat programs in south-central Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin region.

 An afternoon panel discussion will address a variety of conservation programs for private land, including the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wetland Initiative Program, and the Working Landscapes initiative. Other sessions include discussions about the role of wetlands in protecting water quality; management of vegetation in Rainwater Basin wetlands; and the benefits of filling unused irrigation pits. In addition, throughout the day Rainwater Basin landowners who have participated in Joint Venture projects and other wetland programs will discuss their experiences.

The seminar is open to the general public. Agenda details are at www.rwbjv.org.

To register, please send an e-mail by January 26, to Shanda Weber at shanda.weber@ne.usda.gov; include name, organization, and mailing address. Or phone 402-463-6771 ext. 112. A $20 registration fee, payable at the door, covers all sessions, snacks, and a buffet lunch. Landowners and agriculture producers in the Rainwater Basin are invited to register free of charge.

 The Informational Seminar is funded in part by a grant from the Nebraska Environmental Trust.

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture is a public-private partnership created through the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. It is composed of conservation agencies, local government bodies, non-profit organizations, and individuals, each contributing their expertise and resources to the protection and restoration of wetland habitat in south-central Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin region.

 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Thursday that USDA has already made more than $175 million in disaster payments to America’s livestock producers after implementing two new programs in 2009, demonstrating USDA’s commitment to rapidly meeting the goals of Congress and providing farmers and ranchers with timely and effective disaster assistance.

“America’s farmers and ranchers deserve efficient and effective assistance programs to help get through natural disasters,” said Vilsack. “While the previous ad hoc disaster assistance too often was too little, too late, because we were able to get these new programs up and running quickly, we are already beginning to achieve Congress’ goal of helping producers recover losses rapidly and more thoroughly.”

　Under the standing provisions of the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) and the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), authorized in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill), producers are better able to recover from their losses stemming from 2008 and subsequent disasters. The 2008 Farm Bill provisions replace previous ad-hoc disaster assistance programs and are funded through the Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund.

LIP provides payments to eligible livestock owners and contract growers who suffered eligible livestock deaths in excess of normal mortality as a direct result of an eligible adverse weather event including hurricanes, floods, blizzards, disease, wildfires and extreme heat and cold. Eligible livestock under LIP include beef cattle, alpacas, buffalo, beefalo, dairy cattle, deer, elk, emus, equine, goats, lambs, poultry, reindeer, sheep and swine.

LFP provides payments to eligible livestock producers who have suffered livestock grazing losses due to qualifying drought or fire. Eligible livestock under LFP include beef cattle, alpacas, buffalo, beefalo, dairy cattle, deer, elk, emus, equine, goats, llamas, poultry, reindeer, sheep and swine. For losses because of drought, eligible areas are determined using the U.S. Drought Monitor, which can be found at the FSA website:

　To be eligible for LIP for livestock losses suffered during 2009, livestock owners and contract growers must file a notice of loss no later than 30 calendar days of when the loss of livestock is apparent to the producer and an application for payment no later than Jan. 30, 2010.

To be eligible for 2009 calendar year grazing losses under LFP, eligible livestock producers must submit a completed application for payment and required supporting documentation to their administrative county FSA office no later than Jan. 30, 2010.

For more information or to apply for LIP or LFP and other USDA Farm Service Agency disaster assistance programs, visit your FSA county office or