My perspective - Meat of the matter

Details

Published on Thursday, December 24, 2015

By Kate Jackman-Atkinson

Neepawa Banner/Neepawa Press

After a seven year battle, finally, it’s a time of celebration for Canadian cattle and hog producers. On Dec. 18, left with no other options, the United States Congress repealed the contentious Country of Origin Legislation, known as COOL. 

The legislation was introduced in 2008 and required that American processors label all meat indicating the animal’s country of birth and death. This meant that Canadian cattle and pigs had to be handled and labelled separately, creating higher costs for the packers and lower prices for Canadians selling the animals. The legislation was driven by a protectionist sentiment, stemming neither from consumer demand nor food safety concerns.

COOL wasn’t introduced in response to health concerns– it was introduced five years after the first case of BSE was found in Canada and three years after the American border opened back up to Canadian animals under 30 months of age.

An effective trade barrier, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association president Dave Solverson says that COOL was a major factor in the 25 per cent reduction in the Canadian cattle herd.

Canadian producer groups and the federal government took their objections to the World Trade Organization and the WTO found in Canada’s favour four times. The ruling on the final appeal came down on May 18, when the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) confirmed that U.S. mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) did discriminate against U.S. imports of Canadian cattle and hogs, something not allowed under existing free trade agreements. The WTO ruled that that legislation cost the Canadian red meat industry about $1 billion annually.

This final ruling meant that unless COOL was repealed, Canada and Mexico could impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States. These would have applied to a range of products and carried a value between $2.5 and $3 billion. Two days after the WTO ruling, the House Agriculture Committee approved legislation that would repeal COOL, the first step to reversing the legislation. 

While it’s clear that Canadian meat producers were opposed to COOL, the interesting thing is that most Americans in the industry also opposed the legislation. For most in the industry, COOL resulted in higher costs and complexities for Americans, throughout the value chain, who had to develop systems to keep track of and separate animals originating from outside the country, regardless of the age of import.  

Those behind the legislation hoped that American consumers would be willing to pay higher prices for “Made in the USA” meat, but that just wasn’t the case. While proponents argued that COOL protected the meat-eating public by preventing packers from hiding the source of their meat, COOL did nothing to indicate meat quality, consumers’ major area of concern. Just as is the case with any other product, knowing where something came from says little about a product’s quality.  

Despite the higher costs associated with COOL, imports of animals continued, as American producers didn’t produce enough animals. Additionally, many geared their production towards choice grade carcasses, which didn’t offer much in the way of supply for other segments of the market, such as 90 per cent lean ground beef, reduced-fat sausage and low-fat processed products.

With the repeal of COOL, the market will be opening up again for the free trade of Canadian cattle and hogs.  While we might not have heard the last of country of original labelling, if it returns, it will be as it should be, driven by consumers, not legislators.  In the past, consumers have been a very powerful voice advocating for changes such as the elimination of gestation stalls or antibiotics for growth promotion.  If American consumers truly value eating American meat, they will demand it from food service companies and grocery stores, but it will command a premium price. Having said that, I think consumers care more about the quality of what they’re eating, rather than where it came from.