NAFB -Like the soft Lumber issue and the supply management issue, mandatory Country-Of-Origin Labelling probably deserves a chapter in any Canada-U.S. trade disputes reference book.

It was almost inevitable that the ‘Buy American’ agenda, promoted by President Joe Biden, would re-ignite some support for mandatory COOL reinstatement.

Reemergence of that issue is making Canadian livestock export industries nervous. When the U.S. implemented its meat labelling rules, which were in place from 2008 through 2015, the Canadian beef and pork industries estimated their U.S.-exports losses at $1 Billion for each of those six years.

Ultimately, it took a World Trade Organization ruling that the U.S. had violated international trade law, and a threat of heavy financial sanctions, for U.S. lawmakers to repeal the mandatory labelling regulations.

Along with the Buy American agenda, in February returning Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that he would be happy to work on anything to advance the country-of-origin labelling – if there’s a way to get it WTO compliant. For supporters, Vilsack’s words were encouraging.

But support is not shared across the entire U.S. industry. The North American Meat Institute representing U.S. meat packers and processors has stated that it remains opposed to mandatory COOL. And the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is strongly opposed.

Kent Bacus, NCBA’S senior director of international trade, says, “There are some people in our industry that want to restore country-of-origin labelling. Certain producers out there still have an antiquated view, and they believe that taking a protectionist approach will ultimately yield higher benefits. We know that doesn’t work. Mandatory country-of-origin labelling was US law for six years and during that time we did not see growth and profits for our producers. It was a government label competing with private interests. Wrong approach to take. That doesn’t work and it’s been proven.”
Critics in both Canada and the U.S. said that when measures were in place, they led to costly overhead and logistical problems.