Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the
WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Remy Jurenas
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Joel L. Greene
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
April 22, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22955
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Summary
Most retail food stores are now required to inform consumers about the country of origin of fresh
fruits and vegetables, fish, shellfish, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, ginseng, and ground and
muscle cuts of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and goat. The rules are required by the 2002 farm bill
(P.L. 107-171) as amended by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Other U.S. laws have required
such labeling, but only for imported food products already pre-packaged for consumers. The final
rule to implement country-of-origin labeling (COOL) took effect on March 16, 2009.
Both the authorization and implementation of COOL by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) have been controversial, particularly for the labeling rules for meat and meat products. A
number of livestock and food industry groups continue to oppose COOL as costly and
unnecessary. They and the main livestock exporters to the United States—Canada and Mexico—
view the requirement as trade-distorting. Others, including some cattle and consumer groups,
maintain that Americans want and deserve to know the origin of their foods, and point out that
many U.S. trading partners have labeling laws.
Less than one year after the COOL rules took effect, Canada and Mexico challenged them in the
World Trade Organization (WTO), arguing that COOL has a trade-distorting impact by reducing
the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market, thus violating WTO trade
commitments agreed to by the United States. In November 2011, the WTO dispute settlement
(DS) panel found that (1) COOL treats imported livestock less favorably than like U.S. livestock
(particularly in the labeling of beef and pork muscle cuts), and (2) COOL does not meet its
objective to provide complete information to consumers on the origin of meat products.
In March 2012, the United States appealed the WTO ruling. In June 2012 the WTO’s Appellate
Body (AB) upheld the DS panel’s finding that the COOL measure treats imported Canadian cattle
and hogs, and imported Mexican cattle, less favorably than like domestic livestock. But the AB
reversed the finding that COOL does not fulfill its legitimate objective to provide consumers with
information on origin. The Obama Administration welcomed the AB’s affirmation of the U.S.
right to adopt labeling requirements to inform consumers on the origin of the meat they purchase.
Participants in the U.S. livestock sector had mixed reactions, reflecting the heated debate on
COOL that has occurred over the last decade.
This case entered the compliance phase when the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)
adopted the AB and DS panel reports on July 23, 2012. A WTO arbitrator set a deadline of May
23, 2013, for the United States to comply with the WTO findings. On March 12, 2013, USDA
issued a proposed rule to modify how muscle cuts of meat are to be labeled in order to comply
with the WTO’s findings that current COOL labeling requirements discriminate against livestock
imports. The proposed changes would require that labels show where each production step (i.e.,
born, raised, slaughtered) occurred and would remove the current “allowance for commingling of
muscle cuts.” COOL’s supporters favor a regulatory solution and applauded the proposal’s focus
on providing consumers with specific and more useful information on their origin. Domestic
opponents decried the proposed rule, arguing that it makes such labeling “worse even as it claims
to ‘fix it’, imposes additional record-keeping burdens on processors and retailers and in turn,
additional costs to consumers.” Canada and Mexico expressed disappointment with the proposed
changes, viewing them as not bringing the United States into compliance with its WTO
obligations. Canada and Mexico have stated that all options will be considered, including
retaliation, if the United States does not comply with the WTO findings.
Congressional Research Service
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Contents
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Legislation ................................................................................................................................. 1
USDA Regulations and Secretary’s Statement to Implement COOL ........................................ 1
Costs and Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 2
COOL’s Meat Labeling Challenged in the WTO ...................................................................... 3
Key Provisions of COOL ................................................................................................................. 3
Defining and Labeling Origin for Meats ................................................................................... 3
Changes Made from Interim Rule to Final Rule ................................................................. 4
Vilsack Letter ...................................................................................................................... 5
Defining Origin for Other Covered Commodities ..................................................................... 6
Scope of Coverage ..................................................................................................................... 6
Record-Keeping, Verification, and Penalties ............................................................................. 7
Administrative Enforcement and Audits .......................................................................................... 7
COOL Challenged by Canada and Mexico in WTO ........................................................................ 8
Dispute Settlement Panel Ruling ............................................................................................. 10
U.S. Appeal of the WTO Panel Ruling .................................................................................... 10
Appellate Body’s Report Determinations ................................................................................ 11
WTO Adoption of Dispute Settlement Reports ....................................................................... 11
WTO Procedures for the United States to Comply with Reports’ Findings ............................ 11
Timetable to Comply; Arbitrator’s Role ............................................................................ 11
Form of Compliance.......................................................................................................... 12
Ratification of Substance of Compliance; Consequences If Not Ratified......................... 12
Consequences of Non-Compliance by Deadline: Compensation or Retaliation ............... 12
WTO Findings ............................................................................................................................... 13
COOL Treats Imported Livestock Less Favorably than Domestic Livestock ......................... 13
Dispute Panel .................................................................................................................... 13
Appellate Body .................................................................................................................. 16
COOL Does Not Meet Objective of Providing Consumers with Information on Origin
of Meats ................................................................................................................................ 17
Dispute Panel .................................................................................................................... 17
Appellate Body .................................................................................................................. 18
Ground Meat Label Does Not Result in Less Favorable Treatment for Imported
Livestock .............................................................................................................................. 18
Dispute Panel .................................................................................................................... 18
Appeal Status ..................................................................................................................... 19
Vilsack Letter Is Not a Technical Regulation .......................................................................... 19
Dispute Panel .................................................................................................................... 19
Appeal Activity ................................................................................................................. 19
Reaction to WTO DS Panel and Appellate Body Reports ....................................................... 19
United States ..................................................................................................................... 19
Canada ............................................................................................................................... 21
Reactions to the USTR Decision to Appeal ...................................................................... 22
Options to Bring COOL into Compliance ..................................................................................... 23
Legislative Approach ............................................................................................................... 23
Regulatory Approach ............................................................................................................... 24
Congressional Research Service
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Congressional Support for a Regulatory Fix ..................................................................... 25
USDA’s Proposed Rule for COOL .......................................................................................... 26
Costs and Benefits ............................................................................................................. 26
Reaction to Proposed Rule ................................................................................................ 27
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 28
Damage Estimates ............................................................................................................. 29
Congressional Interest.................................................................................................................... 30
Figures
Figure C-1. U.S. Cattle Imports from Canada and Mexico ........................................................... 37
Figure C-2. U.S. Cattle Imports from Canada ............................................................................... 39
Figure C-3. U.S. Cattle Imports from Mexico ............................................................................... 40
Figure C-4. U.S. Hog Imports from Canada .................................................................................. 41
Tables
Table 1. COOL for Beef and Pork: From Statute to Label ............................................................ 14
Table B-1. Major COOL Developments & WTO Dispute Settlement Case .................................. 33
Table C-1. Value of U.S. Cattle and Hog Trade ............................................................................. 36
Appendixes
Appendix A. Other Laws with Food Labeling Provisions ............................................................. 31
Appendix B. Timeline of COOL .................................................................................................... 33
Appendix C. North American Livestock Trade ............................................................................. 35
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 42
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 42
Congressional Research Service
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Overview
Since the 1930s, U.S. tariff law has required almost all imports to carry labels so that the
“ultimate purchaser,” usually the retail consumer, can determine their country of origin. However,
certain products, including a number of agricultural commodities in their “natural” state, such as
meats, fruits and vegetables, were excluded (see Appendix A for a description of this and two
other food labeling laws dealing with the display of country of origin on imported products). For
almost as many decades, various farm and consumer groups have pressed Congress to end one or
more of these exceptions, arguing that U.S. consumers have a right to know where all of their
food comes from and that, given a choice they would purchase the domestic version. This would
strengthen demand and prices for U.S. farmers and ranchers, it was argued.
Opponents of ending these exceptions to country-of-origin labeling (COOL) contended that there
was little or no real evidence that consumers want such information and that industry compliance
costs would far outweigh any potential benefits to producers or consumers. Such opponents,
including some farm and food marketing groups, argued that mandatory COOL for meats,
produce, or other agricultural commodities was a form of protectionism that would undermine
U.S. efforts to reduce foreign barriers to trade in the global economy. COOL supporters countered
that it was unfair to exempt agricultural commodities from the labeling requirements that U.S.
importers of almost all other products already must meet, and that major U.S. trading partners
impose their own COOL requirements for imported meats, produce, and other foods.
Legislation
With passage of the 2002 farm bill, retail-level COOL was to become mandatory for fresh fruits
and vegetables, beef, pork, lamb, seafood, and peanuts, starting September 30, 2004 (P.L. 107-
171, §10816). Continuing controversy over the new requirements within the food and agricultural
industry led Congress to postpone full implementation. The FY2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act
(P.L. 108-199) postponed COOL—except for seafood—until September 30, 2006; the FY2006
Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-97) further postponed it until September 30, 2008.
During deliberations on the 2008 farm bill, the interest groups most affected by COOL reached
consensus on various changes intended to ease what they viewed to be some of the more onerous
provisions of the 2002 COOL law. Provisions dealing with record-keeping requirements, the
factors to be considered for labeling U.S. and non-U.S. origin products, and penalties for
noncompliance were modified. These amendments were incorporated into P.L. 110-246, Section
11002. The enacted 2008 farm bill required that COOL take effect on September 30, 2008, and
added goat meat, chicken, macadamia nuts, pecans, and ginseng as commodities covered by
mandatory COOL. (See Appendix B for a timeline of key COOL developments.)
USDA Regulations and Secretary’s Statement to Implement COOL
The final rule to implement the COOL requirements for all covered commodities was issued by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) during the
final days of the Bush Administration in January 2009.1 It included changes to the interim rule
1 USDA, January 12, 2009, “USDA Issues Final Rule On Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling,” available at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
published in August 2008 that some had criticized as watering down the COOL statute (see
“Changes Made from Interim Rule to Final Rule”). In February 2009, the Secretary of Agriculture
announced that the final rule would take effect as planned on March 16, 2009.2 At the same time,
he also urged affected industries to voluntarily adopt additional changes that, he asserted, would
provide more specific origin information to consumers and more closely adhere to the intent of
the COOL law (see sections “Vilsack Letter” and “Vilsack Letter Is Not a Technical Regulation”
for details).
Costs and Benefits
COOL supporters argued that numerous studies show that consumers want country-of-origin
labeling and would pay extra for it. Analysis accompanying USDA’s interim and final rules
concluded that, while benefits are difficult to quantify, it appears they will be small and will
accrue mainly to consumers who desire such information. A Colorado State University economist
suggested that consumers might be willing to pay a premium for “COOL meat” from the United
States, but only if they perceive U.S. meat to be safer and of higher quality than foreign meat.3
USDA earlier had estimated that purchases of (i.e., demand for) covered commodities would have
to increase by 1% to 5% for benefits to cover COOL costs, but added that such increases were not
anticipated. Data from several economic studies that aimed to model COOL impacts appear to fall
within this range.4
Critics of mandatory COOL argued that large compliance costs will more than offset any
consumer benefits. USDA’s analysis of its final rule estimated first-year implementation costs to
be approximately $2.6 billion for those affected. Of the total, each commodity producer would
bear an average estimated cost of $370, intermediary firms (such as wholesalers or processors)
$48,219 each, and retailers $254,685 each. The USDA analysis also included estimates of record-
keeping costs and of food sector economic losses due to the rule.5
(...continued)
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?printable=true&contentidonly=true&contentid=2009/01/0006.xml;
and 74 Federal Register 2658, January 15, 2009. This final rule replaced both the October 5, 2004, interim final rule
for seafood (69 Federal Register 59708), and the August 1, 2008, interim final rule (73 Federal Register 45106) for all
other covered commodities. An AMS fact sheet on the final rule, including a summary of changes from the interim
final rules and estimates on COOL implementation costs, is available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?
dDocName=STELPRDC5074847.
2 USDA, “Vilsack Announces Implementation of Country of Origin Labeling Law,” press release, February 20, 2009,
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2009/02/0045.xml&navid=NEWS_RELEASE&navtype=
RT&parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&edeployment_action=retrievecontent.
3 Wendy J. Umberger, “Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Country-of-Origin Labeled Meat?,” Choices, 4th quarter
2004, http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-4/cool/2004-4-04.htm.
4 Gary W. Brewster et al., “Who Will Bear the Costs of Country-of-Origin Labeling?,” available at
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-4/cool/2004-4-02.htm; Daniel D. Hanselka et al., “Demand Shifts in Beef
Associated with Country-of-Origin Labeling to Minimize Losses in Social Welfare,” Choices, 4th quarter 2004,
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-4/cool/2004-4-03.htm; and Alejandro Plastina and Konstantinos Giannakis,
“Market and Welfare Effects of Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling in the U.S. Specialty Crops Sector,” American
Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon, 2007.
5 USDA, “Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling ... ,” 74 Federal Register 2682-2700, January 15, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
2
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
COOL’s Meat Labeling Challenged in the WTO
Meat labeling proved to be the most contentious of COOL requirements, leading Canada and
Mexico to challenge COOL using the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) dispute settlement
process. They expressed concerns that normal livestock trade flows would be disrupted in
response to the COOL regulations and questioned COOL’s legality under international trade rules.
In November 2011, a WTO dispute settlement panel found that COOL discriminated against
foreign livestock and was not consistent with WTO rules. After weighing available options, the
Obama Administration decided to appeal the WTO panel’s adverse findings. In June 2012,
WTO’s appellate body upheld one of the panel’s findings that favored Canada’s and Mexico’s
positions, and overturned another. Under a ruling since made by a WTO arbitrator, the United
States must bring those features of COOL addressed by the appellate body’s findings into
compliance by May 23, 2013.
Key Provisions of COOL
Mandatory country-of-origin labeling:
• applies to ground and muscle cuts of beef, lamb, and pork, farm-raised and wild
fish and shellfish, peanuts, “perishable agricultural commodities” as defined by
the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (i.e., fresh and frozen fruits and
vegetables), goat meat, chicken, pecans, macadamia nuts, and ginseng (these are
referred to as “covered commodities”);6
• exempts these items if they are an ingredient in a processed food;
• covers only those retailers that annually purchase at least $230,000 of perishable
agricultural commodities,7 and requires them to inform consumers of origin “by
means of a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the
covered commodity or on the package, display, holding unit, or bin containing
the commodity at the final point of sale”; and
• exempts from these labeling requirements such “food service establishments” as
restaurants, cafeterias, bars, and similar facilities that prepare and sell foods to
the public.
Defining and Labeling Origin for Meats
In designating country of origin, difficulties arise when products—particularly meats—are
produced in multiple countries. For example, beef might be from an animal that was born and fed
in Canada, but slaughtered and processed in the United States. Likewise, products from several
6 A slightly different COOL requirement applies to packaged honey if it bears any official USDA certificate, mark, or
statement with respect to quality and grade. It was added by Section 10402 of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) to the
Agricultural Marketing Act, and took effect on October 6, 2009. For more information, see http://www.ams.usda.gov/
AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?startIndex=1&startIndex=2&startIndex=1&startIndex=2&template=
TemplateN&navID=ProcessedFVUpdates&rightNav1=&topNav=&leftNav=&page=ProcessedFVUpdates&
resultType=&acct=procsdgrdcert.
7 The COOL statute uses by reference this definition of “retailer” laid out in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act to identify those retailers required to comply with COOL requirements.
Congressional Research Service
3
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
different countries often are mixed, such as for ground beef. For covered red meats and chicken,
the COOL law:8
• permits the U.S. origin label to be used only on meats from animals that were
exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States, with an exception
for those animals present here before July 15, 2008;
• permits meats or chicken with multiple countries of origin to be labeled as being
from all of the countries in which the animals may have been born, raised, or
slaughtered;
• requires meat or chicken from animals imported for immediate U.S. slaughter to
be labeled as from both the country the animal came from and the United States;
• requires products from animals not born, raised, or slaughtered in the United
States to be labeled with their correct country(ies) of origin; and
• requires, for ground meat and chicken products, that the label list all countries of
origin, or all “reasonably possible” countries of origin.
Because these statutory requirements are at the heart of the ongoing WTO dispute case, Table 1
traces the progression of statutory language to implementing regulations to the retail labels to be
used for each of these five categories.
Changes Made from Interim Rule to Final Rule
The meat labeling requirements have proven to be among the most complex and controversial
areas of rulemaking, in large part because of the steps that U.S. feeding operations and packing
plants must adopt to segregate, hold, and slaughter foreign-origin livestock separately from U.S.
livestock. After AMS issued the interim rules in August 2008, many retailers and meat processors
reportedly planned to use the “catch-all” multiple countries of origin label on as much meat as
possible—even products that would qualify for the U.S.-only label, because it was both permitted
and the easiest requirement to meet. COOL supporters objected that the label would be overused,
undermining the intent of COOL (i.e., to distinguish between U.S. and non-U.S. meats).9 In an
effort to balance the concerns of both sides, USDA issued a statement attempting to clarify its
August 2008 interim rule, stating that meats derived from both U.S.- and non-U.S.-origin animals
may carry a mixed-origin claim (e.g., “Product of U.S., Canada, and Mexico”), but that the
mixed-origin label cannot be used if only U.S.-origin meat was produced on a production day.10
The final (January 2009) rule attempted to further clarify the “multiple countries of origin”
language. For example, muscle cut products of exclusively U.S. origin along with those from
foreign-born animals, if commingled for slaughter on a single production day, can continue to
qualify for a combined U.S. and non-U.S. label. “It was never the intent of the Agency [AMS] for
the majority of product eligible to bear a U.S. origin declaration to bear a multiple origin
8 7 U.S.C. 1638a.
9 Cattle Buyers Weekly, August 4, 2008; and Food Chemical News, September 15, 2008.
10 AMS, “Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Frequently Asked Questions,” September 26, 2008,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5071922.
Congressional Research Service
4
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
destination. The Agency made additional modifications for clarity,” AMS stated in material
accompanying the rule.11
The clarifying changes failed to mollify some. The National Farmers Union continued to view
this portion of the rule as a “loophole that would allow meat packers to use a multiple countries,
or NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] label, rather than labeling U.S. products as
products of the United States” and stated “[t]his is misleading to consumers”.12 Seven senators
highlighted similar concerns, stating that it would allow “meatpackers to put a multiple country of
origin label on products that are exclusively U.S. products as well as those that are foreign.” They
characterized the final rule as defeating COOL’s primary purpose to provide “clear, accurate and
truthful information” to U.S. consumers, and hoped the rules will be revised “to close these
loopholes.”13
Vilsack Letter
To address these views to comply with an Obama White House directive that all agencies review
recent regulations issued by the outgoing Administration, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack in a
February 20, 2009, letter urged industry representatives to voluntarily adopt three suggested
labeling changes in order to provide more useful information to consumers than the final rule
itself might imply, and to better meet congressional intent. These dealt with the labeling of meat
products with multiple countries of origin, a reduction in the time allowance for labeling ground
meat held in inventory, and exemptions to the rules for processed products.
On labeling for multiple countries of origin, he stated that
processors should voluntarily include information about what production step occurred in each
country when multiple countries appear on the label. For example, animals born and raised in
Country X and slaughtered in Country Y might be labeled as “Born and Raised in Country X and
Slaughtered in Country Y.” Animals born in Country X but raised and slaughtered in Country Y
might be labeled as “Born in Country X and Raised and Slaughtered in Country Y.”
Vilsack’s letter noted that the final rule allows a label for ground meat to bear the name of a
country even if the meat from that country was not present in a processor’s inventory in the
preceding 60-day period. Noting that this allows for labeling this product “in a way that does not
clearly indicate [its] country of origin,” the Secretary asked processors to reduce this time
allowance to 10 days, stating that this “would enhance the credibility of the label.” (See also
“Scope of Coverage.”)
Secretary Vilsack also stated that USDA would closely monitor industry compliance to determine
whether “additional rulemaking may be necessary to provide consumers with adequate
information.”14 His letter was widely viewed as an effort to address the concerns of COOL
11 USDA, AMS, January 12, 2009, fact sheet on the mandatory COOL final rule, p. 5, http://www.ams.usda.gov/
AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074847.
12 “NFU Statement: USDA Issues Final Rule for COOL,” January 12, 2009, http://nfu.org/news/news-archives/2009-
news/86-agriculture-programs/198-nfu-statement-usda-issues-final-rule-for-cool.
13 Letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, February 3, 2009, http://web.archive.org/web/20090226012829/
http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/extras/020309vilsack.pdf.
14 USDA, “Vilsack Announces Implementation of Country of Origin Labeling Law,” February 20, 2009,
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?printable=true&contentidonly=true&contentid=2009/02/0045.xml.
His letter is available at http://www.usda.gov/documents/0220_IndustryLetterCOOL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
adherents without reopening the rule and thereby attracting renewed criticism from the meat
industry and U.S. trading partners.
Defining Origin for Other Covered Commodities
For perishable agricultural commodities, ginseng, peanuts, pecans, and macadamia nuts, retailers
may only claim U.S. origin if the product was exclusively produced in the United States.
However, a U.S. state, region, or locality designation is a sufficient U.S. identifier (e.g., Idaho
potatoes). For farm-raised fish and shellfish, a U.S.-labeled product must be derived exclusively
from fish or shellfish hatched, raised, harvested, and processed in the United States; wild fish and
shellfish must be derived exclusively from those harvested either in U.S. waters or by a U.S.
flagged vessel, and processed in the United States or on a U.S. vessel. Also, labels must
differentiate between wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish.
Scope of Coverage
Consumers may not find country-of-origin labels on much more of the food they buy, due to
COOL’s statutory and regulatory exemptions. First, as noted, all restaurants and other food
service providers are exempt, as are all retail grocery stores that buy less than $230,000 a year in
fresh fruits and vegetables. Second, “processed food items” derived from the covered
commodities are exempt, and USDA, in its final rule, defined this term broadly (at 7 C.F.R.
§65.220). Essentially, any time a covered commodity is subjected to a change that alters its basic
character, it is considered to be processed. Although adding salt, water, or sugar do not, under
USDA’s definition, change the basic character, virtually any sort of cooking, curing, or mixing
apparently does. For example, roasting a peanut or pecan, mixing peas with carrots, or breading a
piece of meat or chicken all count as processing. As a result, only about 30% of the U.S. beef
supply, 11% of all pork, 39% of chicken, and 40% of all fruit and vegetable supplies may be
covered by COOL requirements at the retail level.15 Whole peanuts are almost always purchased
in roasted form, and will not have to be labeled. Some critics argued that AMS overstepped its
authority, and congressional intent, by excepting such minimally processed commodities.
AMS countered that in fact many imported items still must carry COOL under provisions of the
Tariff Act of 1930. “For example, while a bag of frozen peas and carrots is considered a processed
food item under the COOL final rule, if the peas and carrots are of foreign origin, the Tariff Act
requires that the country of origin be marked on the bag,” AMS argued, citing similar regulatory
situations for roasted nuts and for a variety of seafood items.16
Vilsack’s letter, however, acknowledged that the “processed foods” definition in the final rule
“may be too broadly drafted. Even if products are subject to curing, smoking, broiling, grilling, or
steaming, voluntary labeling would be appropriate,” he wrote.
15 Percentages calculated by CRS based on USDA estimates of retail-level COOL coverage in pounds, divided by total
annual supply (USDA data on domestic production plus imports).
16 AMS, “Frequently Asked Questions,” January 12, 2009, available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?
dDocName=STELPRDC5074846.
Congressional Research Service
6
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Record-Keeping, Verification, and Penalties
The COOL law prohibits USDA from using a mandatory animal identification (ID) system,17 but
the original 2002 version stated that the Secretary “may require that any person that prepares,
stores, handles, or distributes a covered commodity for retail sale maintain a verifiable record-
keeping audit trail that will permit the Secretary to verify compliance.” Verification immediately
became one of the most contentious issues, particularly for livestock producers, in part because of
the potential complications and costs to affected industries of tracking animals and their products
from birth through retail sale. Producers of plant-based commodities, as well as food retailers and
others, also expressed concern about the cost and difficulty of maintaining records for
commodities that are highly fungible and often widely sourced. The 2008 law eased these
requirements somewhat by stating that USDA “may conduct an audit of any person that prepares,
stores, handles, or distributes a covered commodity” in order to verify compliance. Such persons
must provide verification, but USDA may not ask for any additional records beyond those
maintained “in the course of the normal conduct of business.”
In its final rule, AMS stated that covered persons generally would have to keep records for one
year that can identify both the immediate previous source and the immediate subsequent recipient
of a covered commodity; certain exceptions are provided for pre-labeled products. Also, a
slaughter facility can accept a producer affidavit as sufficient evidence for animal origin claims.
Also, potential fines for willful noncompliance are set for retailers and other persons at no more
than $1,000 per violation. The 2002 law had set the fine at no more than $10,000 (and for
retailers only), but the 2008 farm bill lowered this amount.
Administrative Enforcement and Audits
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service implements COOL through cooperative agreements with
all 50 states.18 During FY2010, state agencies conducted 8,363 retail surveillance reviews to
ensure compliance with COOL requirements. These reviews involved the auditing of 200
products as they moved from initial suppliers to retail shelves. AMS resources (i.e., appropriated
funding of almost $10.7 million and 14 staff years in FY2011) are available to train federal and
state employees on enforcement responsibilities, conduct supply chain audits, analyze and
respond to formal complaints, and develop educational and outreach activities for retailers,
suppliers, and other interested parties. During FY2011, AMS planned to implement a real-time
database to track the findings of federal-state retail reviews, enforcement actions taken, and other
information viewed as critical to COOL operations.19
USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the operations of the COOL program during
2010. Its report noted that “AMS made significant strides implementing the final rule” but found
the need for improvements in its controls and processes to ensure that retailers and suppliers fully
17 For information on this related issue, see CRS Report R40832, Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and
Issues.
18 AMS maintains an extensive website on COOL, with links to implementing regulations, cost-benefit analysis, and
other materials at http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/.
19 USDA, FY2012 Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations for Agricultural Marketing Service, pp.
19-5, 19-14 to 19-15, 19g-10, and 19-47, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/19ams2012notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
comply with COOL regulations.” The OIG identified the need for AMS to strengthen its process
to select retailers to be reviewed and the review process itself, and to more quickly evaluate the
documentation kept by retailers and issue noncompliance letters. Auditors also pointed out that
AMS needs to be more vigorous in enforcing COOL requirements, provide better oversight of the
state agencies that conduct retailer reviews, and improve how it communicates with and provides
program guidance to retailers. AMS agreed with all of the OIG recommendations, and has taken,
or will take, steps to put them into effect.20
In reviews conducted in FY2009 and FY2010 in retail stores, AMS found that almost three-
quarters of the findings of noncompliance with COOL were due to the lack of labeling on covered
commodities. The second most frequent finding was that of inaccurate labeling (14%). Vegetables
and fruit accounted for a much higher rate of not complying with COOL requirements than any
other commodity group.21
COOL Challenged by Canada and Mexico in WTO
Canada and Mexico are major suppliers of live cattle and hogs that are fed in U.S. feeding
facilities and/or processed into beef and pork in U.S. meat packing plants. As the U.S. meat
processing sector geared up to implement COOL in mid-2008, Canada and Mexico expressed
concern that COOL would adversely impact their livestock sectors. Indeed, U.S. cattle imports
from Canada and Mexico and hog imports from Canada dropped in both 2008 and 2009 from
year-earlier levels. Some analyses supported claims that COOL hampered livestock imports.
Other analyses pointed out that factors such as exchange rates and inventory levels were also
affecting import levels and that declines could not be entirely attributed to COOL (see Appendix
C for background on livestock trade in North America).
Canada and Mexico requested consultations with the United States in December 2008 and June
2009 about their concerns. Not satisfied with the outcome of these consultations with U.S.
officials, both countries in early October 2009 requested the establishment of a WTO dispute
settlement (DS) panel to consider their case. In response, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
and the Secretary of Agriculture commented that they “regretted that the formal consultations”
did not resolve concerns, and stated their belief that U.S. implementation of COOL provides
consumers with information that is consistent with WTO commitments. They noted that countries
worldwide had agreed that the principle of country-of-origin labeling was legitimate policy long
before the WTO was created, and that other countries also require goods to be labeled with their
origin.22
Both the Canadian and Mexican governments, in requesting a panel, asserted that COOL is
inconsistent with U.S. obligations under certain WTO agreements—the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and the Agreement on
20 USDA, OIG, “Implementation of Country of Origin Labeling,” August 2011, pp. 1 and 4, http://www.usda.gov/oig/
webdocs/01601-04-HY.pdf.
21 USDA, AMS, “COOL—Retail Compliance FY2009-2010,” http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?
dDocName=STELPRDC5093595.
22 U.S. Trade Representative, “Vilsack, Kirk Comment on Canadian Panel Request Regarding Country-of-Origin
Labeling,” October 7, 2009, http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2009/october/vilsack-kirk-
comment-canadian-panel-request-regard.
Congressional Research Service
8
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Rules of Origin. These obligations include treating imports no less favorably than like products of
domestic origin; making sure that product-related requirements are not more trade-restrictive than
necessary to fulfill a legitimate public policy objective; ensuring that compliance with laws on
marks of origin does not result in damaging imports, reducing their value, or unreasonably
increasing their cost; and ensuring that laws, rules, and procedures on country of origin do not
“themselves create restrictive, distorting, or disruptive” international trade, among others.
On November 19, 2009, the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)23 established a panel to
consider both countries’ complaints. In proceeding with this WTO case, Canadian officials stated
that the COOL requirements are “so onerous” that when they were implemented, Canadian
exporters of cattle and hogs were discriminated against in the U.S. market. The Canadian beef
and pork industries, led by the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) and the Canadian Pork
Council, actively pushed their government to initiate a WTO challenge. The CCA argued that
COOL cost its producers C$92 million over the two months following the publication of the
interim rule in August 2008, and could cost C$500 million per year. CCA estimated that slaughter
steers and heifers were losing C$90 per head, because U.S. meat establishments did not want to
assume the increased costs of complying with new labeling requirements by segregating, holding,
and then slaughtering Canadian cattle separately from U.S. cattle. The losses included lower
prices for all Canadian cattle due to decreased U.S. demand, as well as the cost of shipping those
that are sold further distances to the fewer number of U.S. plants willing to take them. Canadian
pork producers expressed similar concerns.24
USTR’s request for public comment on this pending WTO case generated responses that reflected
the heated debate on mandatory COOL seen earlier among key players in the livestock sector. The
American Meat Institute (AMI), representing U.S. meat processors and packers, stated that the
U.S. law, in addition to violating WTO commitments, also violates NAFTA commitments. AMI
argued that COOL discriminates against imports in favor of domestic meat.25
In opposition, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) and the National Farmers Union argued
that COOL is “fully consistent” with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (key WTO commitments). Both stated that COOL
“does not discriminate between domestic and imported beef ... [and] operates neutrally in the
market place,” and noted that COOL does not impose any domestic content requirements (i.e.,
does not stipulate what share of value or quantity determines country of origin).26 The Ranchers-
Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF), presented similar
comments.27
23 The Dispute Settlement Body has the sole authority to establish “panels” of experts to consider a trade dispute case
filed by any WTO member country, and to accept or reject the panels’ findings or the results of an appeal. It monitors
the implementation of the rulings and recommendations, and has the power to authorize retaliation when a country does
not comply with a ruling.
24 Various trade publication reports, including Cattle Buyers Weekly, “MCOOL Has Cost Canadian Producers C$92M,”
December 8, 2008; Agri-Pulse, “COOL Regulations Create Heartburn for Canadians,” December 3, 2008; and
Washington Trade Daily, December 2, 2008, pp. 3-4.
25 AMI, “American Meat Institute Tells U.S. Trade Representative That Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling
Violates International Trade Obligations,” January 8, 2010, http://www.meatami.com/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/
56358.
26 USCA, “USCA and Farmers Union Urge Vigorous COOL Defense,” January 12, 2010, http://www.uscattlemen.org/
TheNewsRoom/2010_News/1-12COOLdefense.htm.
27 R-CALF USA, “Canada, Mexico Have No Standing to Bring Complaint Against U.S. COOL Law,” July 2, 2009,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) expressed concern that Canada’s decision to
pursue its case against U.S. COOL rules has the potential for retaliatory action to be taken against
U.S. beef. It noted that “COOL has damaged critically important trading relationships [i.e., the
import of Canadian and Mexican livestock, the value added as they pass through U.S. feedlots
and are processed into meat, and the export of finished meat products back to Mexican and
Canadian consumers], and is not putting additional money into the pockets of cattlemen.”28
Dispute Settlement Panel Ruling
On November 18, 2011, the WTO dispute settlement (DS) panel ruled that certain COOL
requirements violate two articles of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
and the requirement for impartial administration of regulations laid out in the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). The panel first concluded that the COOL “measure”—
the statute and the final rule—constituted a “technical regulation” under the TBT Agreement and
was thus subject to TBT obligations. It then found that the COOL measure (1) treated imported
livestock less favorably than “like domestic livestock,” particularly in the labeling of muscle cut
meats (beef and pork), in violation of the national treatment obligation in the TBT’s Article 2.1;
and (2) failed to meet the legitimate objective of providing information to consumers on the
origin of meat products, and thus violated the TBT’s Article 2.2. The panel also found that the
Vilsack letter’s “suggestions for voluntary action” went beyond COOL’s obligations and, while
not a “technical regulation,” constitute unreasonable administration of COOL itself, thus violating
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.29 The panel concluded that the United States has “nullified or
impaired benefits” to which Canada and Mexico are entitled, and recommended that the WTO’s
DSB request the United States to conform these “inconsistent measures” with its obligations
under the TBT Agreement and GATT 1994.30
U.S. Appeal of the WTO Panel Ruling
Under WTO rules, the United States had various options available to respond to the dispute
panel’s adverse ruling on certain aspects of U.S. COOL. One was to accept the decision and make
changes to the COOL statute and/or regulations to comply with the WTO findings. Another was
to appeal the panel report on legal issues.
On March 23, 2012, the United States appealed two findings of the DS panel’s report to the WTO
Appellate Body (AB).31 A USTR spokeswoman restated its position that the report had confirmed
(...continued)
http://www.r-calfusa.com/news_releases/2009/090702-canada.htm.
28 NCBA, “NCBA Statement on Canadian WTO Complaint against U.S. COOL Law,” October 7, 2009.
29 The TBT Agreement is summarized in CRS Report R41306, Trade Law: An Introduction to Selected International
Agreements and U.S. Laws. The GATT 1994 commitment refers to the provision that requires laws and regulations to
be administered “in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner.”
30 WTO, United States—Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, Reports of the Panel,
WT/DS384/R, WT/DS386/R, November 18, 2011, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/384_386r_e.pdf.
Background on the COOL dispute case is available on the WTO’s website at http://wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/
cases_e/ds384_e.htm (Canada) and http://wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds386_e.htm (Mexico).
31 This “is a standing body of seven persons that hears appeals from reports issued by panels in disputes brought by
WTO Members. ... Appellate Body Reports, once adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), must be accepted by
the parties to the dispute.” See http://wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/appellate_body_e.htm.
Congressional Research Service
10
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
the U.S. right to adopt rules to inform consumers of the country of origin in their purchasing
decisions, but expressed disappointment that the panel “disagreed with the way that the United
States designed its COOL requirements” for beef and pork. USTR’s chief counsel stated that the
U.S. appeal is “a signal of our commitment” to ensure that consumers “are provided with accurate
and relevant information” on the origin of beef and pork, and “to fight for the interests of U.S.
consumers at the WTO.”32
Appellate Body’s Report Determinations
On June 29, 2012, the WTO’s AB upheld the DS panel’s finding that the COOL measure treats
imported Canadian cattle and hogs, and imported Mexican cattle, less favorably than like
domestic livestock, due to its record-keeping and verification requirements. The AB, however,
reversed the DS panel’s finding that COOL does not completely fulfill its legitimate objective to
provide consumers with information on origin.
WTO Adoption of Dispute Settlement Reports
On July 23, 2012, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the AB’s report and the DS
panel’s report, as modified by the AB, under the reverse consensus rule. Under this rule, both
reports are adopted unless all WTO member countries present at the meeting vote not to do so.
This rule makes adoption virtually automatic.33 In turn, the United States, Canada, and Mexico
were required to unconditionally accept the AB’s decision. The DSB, as is the practice, did not
specify what the United States must do to comply with these reports’ findings.
WTO Procedures for the United States to Comply with Reports’
Findings
The WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) lays out a multi-step process for a country
to comply with the adopted WTO findings.34 Once WTO findings are adopted by the DSB, a
compliance deadline is established. If a party or parties to a dispute believe compliance measures
fail to meet WTO obligations, the process may move into a compliance panel phase. If that does
not resolve disagreements among parties, the dispute could move into a retaliation phase. A
resolution to a WTO case may be delayed for months as the parties work through the compliance
and/or retaliation processes.
Timetable to Comply; Arbitrator’s Role
After the adoption of the dispute settlement reports, the United States had up to 30 days to inform
the DSB of its plans to implement the WTO findings. If a country is unable to comply
32 Reuters, “U.S. to appeal WTO ruling against meat labels,” March 23, 2012 (hereinafter cited as Reuters); Agri-
Pulse.com, “USTR will appeal WTO ruling on COOL,” March 23, 2012. USTR’s appeal submission to the WTO is
available at http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/US.AppellantSub.fin_.pdf.
33 For details, see “Adoption of Panel Reports/Appellate Review (Articles 16, 17, 20)” in CRS Report RS20088,
Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview.
34 The DSU is one of the multilateral agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round that provides the primary means
for WTO members to settle disputes arising under WTO agreements.
Congressional Research Service
11
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
immediately, the DSU allows for a “reasonable period of time” for this to occur. Often, WTO
members are given approximately one year from the date of adoption of the panel report to
comply. If the disputing countries fail to agree on a compliance deadline, as occurred in this case,
an arbitrator may determine the deadline. Because the three countries could not agree on a
timetable or an arbitrator, the WTO Director-General appointed one. In the arbitration hearing,
the United States argued that 18 months were needed to pursue the steps required to adopt a
regulatory response. Canada argued that six months would be sufficient. Mexico argued for an
eight-month compliance period, but would welcome six. On December 4, 2012, the arbitrator
determined that 10 months from the reports’ adoption (i.e., July 23, 2012) was a reasonable
period of time for the United States to comply. The United States was given until May 23, 2013,
to bring COOL into WTO compliance.
Form of Compliance
Facing the deadline of May 23, 2013, the United States began the process of deciding how to
modify those features of COOL targeted by the WTO panels’ findings to bring them into
compliance. This continued USTR’s reported engagement in late 2012 and early 2013 with
Congress and interest groups on how to proceed (see “Options to Bring COOL into Compliance”
for discussion). On March 12, 2013, USDA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that
modifies COOL labeling regulations (see “USDA’s Proposed Rule”). The proposed rule had a 30-
day comment period. Once submitted comments are considered, USDA is expected to try to
finalize the proposed rule by May 23.
Ratification of Substance of Compliance; Consequences If Not Ratified
If USDA’s modifications to COOL take effect by May 23, Canada and Mexico have the right
under WTO rules to confirm whether or not they accept the substance of compliance taken by the
United States. If either or both countries assert that the United States has not complied or has only
partially complied with the WTO’s findings, Canada and Mexico may request that a compliance
panel investigate whether the United States has in fact adopted a compliance measure or whether
any measure that it has adopted is consistent with the WTO decision. Because WTO dispute
settlement rules provide conflicting timetables in the event that a party requests both
authorization to retaliate and a compliance panel, disputing parties often enter into so-called
“sequencing” agreements that accommodate both procedures.35
Consequences of Non-Compliance by Deadline: Compensation or Retaliation
If the United States were not to comply with the WTO decision by May 23, Canada and Mexico
could request the United States to negotiate a compensation agreement. If such an agreement is
not requested, or if an agreement is not reached on a request, Canada and Mexico may request
authorization from WTO’s DSB to retaliate. The retaliation request would need to be made within
30 days after the compliance period ends. Retaliation can involve the suspension of concessions
or obligations owed by Canada and Mexico to the United States under a WTO agreement. One
permitted action could involve Canada and Mexico increasing tariffs on products imported from
35 For details, see “Compliance Issues, Sequencing” in CRS Report RS20088, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade
Organization (WTO): An Overview.
Congressional Research Service
12
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
the United States.36 The United States may object to the retaliation request, in which case it would
be automatically sent to arbitration. At the same time, the WTO DSU provides that a country
cannot suspend WTO concessions or other obligations as retaliatory measures in a particular
dispute unless authorized by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. If unauthorized retaliation were
to occur, the United States could challenge such retaliation in a separate WTO dispute settlement
proceeding. But if Canada and Mexico felt that the United States was making progress toward
compliance, they could agree to extend the original compliance deadline.
WTO Findings
COOL Treats Imported Livestock Less Favorably than Domestic
Livestock
Dispute Panel
The DS panel found that Canada and Mexico demonstrated that COOL is a technical regulation
governed by, and in violation of, Article 2.1 of the TBT. The AB upheld this finding, but for
different reasons (see below). This TBT article states: “Members shall ensure that in respect of
technical regulations, products imported from the territory of any Member shall be accorded
treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like
products originating in any other country.” The panel first found that the COOL statute and the
final rule (but not the Vilsack letter) are a “technical regulation” because they are legally
enforceable requirements governing the labeling of meat products offered for sale.37 The panel
further found that Canadian and U.S. cattle, Canadian and U.S. hogs, and Mexican and U.S. cattle
are “like products,” and the muscle cut labels used to implement COOL affect competitive
conditions for these products in the U.S. market to the detriment of imported livestock. According
to the panel, COOL creates this “competitive advantage” by creating an incentive for “processing
exclusively domestic livestock and a disincentive against handling imported livestock.” More
specifically, the panel found that to comply with COOL, processors need to segregate imported
from domestic livestock to an extent that discourages them from using imported livestock at all.
In turn, this reduces the competitive opportunities for imported livestock relative to those for
domestic livestock.
The panel based this conclusion on its assessment of the compliance requirements of COOL. It
first reviewed the four statutory definitions used to label the origin of beef and pork muscle cuts
(Table 1), noting that “origin is determined by the country in which specific livestock production
and processing steps took place (i.e., birth, raising and slaughtering),” and highlighted the
distinctions between the exclusive U.S. origin label and the other three labels that identified
livestock with an imported element (i.e., at least one step took place outside the United States). It
36 For details, see “Compliance Panels (Article 21.5)” and “Compensation and Suspension of Concessions (Article 22)”
in CRS Report RS20088, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview.
37 The panel made its determination on what is, and is not, a technical regulation with reference to TBT’s Annex 1.1. It
defines such to be a document that spells out “labeling requirements” among other features, including administrative
provisions, “with which compliance is mandatory.” The panel concluded that the COOL statute and final rule are “legal
instruments that are legally binding in US law,” with wording clearly mandating compliance, while the Vilsack letter,
rather than mandating additional labeling requirements, presents them as “suggestions for voluntary action.”
Congressional Research Service
13
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
observed that “there was ... major flexibility” under COOL’s interim final rule (August 2008) to
use “multiple countries of origin” (Category B) for muscle cuts eligible for the U.S.-origin only
label (Category A) “without limitations.” However, in response to public comment, COOL’s final
rule (January 2009) ended this flexibility, allowing the multiple countries declaration (Category
B) to be used to label U.S.-origin meat only if U.S. and foreign livestock were commingled for
slaughter “on a single production day.”
Table 1. COOL for Beef and Pork: From Statute to Label
Muscle Cuts
COOL
& Ground
COOL
Label at
Meat
Statutory
Retail
Categories
Definition
AMS Final Rule (January 2009)
Level
“beef [or] ... pork
UNITED STATES
... derived from
For beef and pork, means:
COUNTRY OF
an animal that
O
“(1) From animals exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United
RIGIN
was ... exclusively
Product of
States; (2) From animals born and raised in Alaska or Hawaii and
the US(A)
[Category A
born, raised, and
transported for a period of not more than 60 days through Canada
or Label A]
slaughtered in the to the United States and slaughtered in the United States; ...”
United States”
“beef [or] ... pork
For muscle cuts of beef and pork “derived from animals that were
... derived from
born in Country X or (as applicable) Country Y, raised and slaughtered
an animal that
in the United States, and were not derived from animals imported for
is—
immediate slaughter [defined as “consignment directly from the port
of entry to a recognized slaughtering establishment and slaughtered
(i) not exclusively
within 2 weeks from the date of entry”], the origin may be designated
born, raised and
as Product of the United States, Country X, and (as applicable)
slaughtered in the Country Y.”
United States;
For muscle cuts of beef and pork “derived from animals born, raised,
(ii) born, raised
and slaughtered in the U.S. that are commingled during a production day
M
or slaughtered in
ULTIPLE
with muscle cuts [of beef and pork from animals born outside the U.S.,
Product of
C
the United States;
OUNTRIES OF
raised and slaughtered in the U.S., and not imported for immediate
the US,
O
and
RIGIN
slaughter], the origin may be designated as Product of the United
Country X,
States, Country X, and (as applicable) Country Y.”
and Country
[Category B
(iii) not imported
Y (if
or Label B]
into the United
For muscle cuts of beef and pork “derived from animals that are born
States for
applicable)
in Country X or Country Y, raised and slaughtered in the United States,
immediate
that are commingled during a production day with muscle cut[s of beef
slaughter”
and pork] derived from animals that are imported into the United States
for immediate slaughter ..., the origin may be designated as Product of
the United States, Country X, and (as applicable) Country Y.”
“In each case, the countries may be listed in any order. In addition,
the origin declaration may include more specific information related
to production steps provided records to substantiate the claims are
maintained and the claim is consistent with other applicable Federal
legal requirements.”
“beef [or] ... pork
IMPORTED FOR
“If an animal was imported into the United States for immediate
... derived from
Product of
IMMEDIATE
slaughter [defined as “consignment directly from the port of entry to
an animal that is
Country X,
SLAUGHTER
a recognized slaughtering establishment and slaughtered within 2
imported into the weeks from the date of entry”], the origin of the resulting [beef and
US
[Category C
United States for
pork] derived from that animal shall be designated as Product of
or Label C]
immediate
Country X and the United States.”
slaughter”
Congressional Research Service
14
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Muscle Cuts
COOL
& Ground
COOL
Label at
Meat
Statutory
Retail
Categories
Definition
AMS Final Rule (January 2009)
Level
FOREIGN
“beef [or] ... pork
C
“Imported [beef and pork] for which origin has already been
OUNTRY OF
... derived from
O
established as defined by this law (e.g., born, raised, and slaughtered
RIGIN
an animal ... not
born, raised, or
or produced) and for which no production steps have occurred in the
Product of
[Category D
slaughtered in the United States, shall retain their origin, as declared to U.S. Customs
Country X
or Label D]
United States”
and Border Protection at the time the product entered the United
States, through retail sale.”
“notice ... for
ground beef,
Product of
ground pork ...
“The declaration for ground beef, ground pork, ... shall list all countries
US, Country
GROUND BEEF
shall include a list
of origin contained therein or that may be reasonably contained therein. In X, [and as
OR PORK
of all [or] ... all
determining what is considered reasonable, when a raw material
reasonably
from a specific origin is not in a processor’s inventory for more than
applicable]
possible countries 60 days, that country shal no longer be included as a possible
Country Y,
of origin of such
country of origin.”
Country Z,
ground beef,
...
ground pork, ...”
Source: 7 U.S.C. §§1638a(a)(2)(A)-(D), Section 282 of Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by 2008
farm bill (§10816 of P.L. 107-171); 7 CFR 65.260(a)(1), 65.300(e)(1)-(4) and 65.300(h), as published in the Federal
Register, January 15, 2009, p. 2706; Agricultural Marketing Service, “Labeling Options,” p. 2,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5074845.
Notes: Key terms are in italics. These same designations also apply to other covered meats (lamb, chicken, and
goat meat), but they were not the subject of complaints filed by Canada and Mexico in the WTO case.
The panel then examined what is involved in segregating livestock and meat between domestic
and foreign origin under five business scenarios. It determined that “the least costly way” to
comply with COOL “is to rely on exclusively domestic livestock” rather than imported livestock.
Accepting evidence provided by Canada and Mexico that major U.S. slaughterhouses are
“applying a considerable COOL discount of [US$] 40-60 per head for imported livestock” but not
to domestic livestock, the panel observed that COOL creates an incentive to process domestic
rather than imported livestock because it is less costly to do so. It pointed out that several U.S.
meat processors indicated they plan to move to use Category A (U.S. origin) “for the vast
majority of their beef and pork products” and to ensure segregation by origin (i.e., minimize
commingling). Other evidence presented confirmed that the U.S.-origin label accounts for a large
share of the meat marketed. The United States indicated that 71% of the beef, and 70% of the
pork, sold at the retail level carries the exclusive U.S. label. Canada showed that close to 90% of
meat sold at retail carries this U.S. label.
Based on the above, the panel “preliminarily” concluded that COOL “creates an incentive to use
domestic livestock—and a disincentive to handle imported livestock—by imposing higher
segregation costs on imported livestock than on domestic livestock.” The panel’s report also
showed that some U.S. plants and companies “are simply refusing to process any imported
livestock anymore,” and that fewer U.S. processing plants are accepting cattle and hog imports
than before. It also noted that certain suppliers had to transport imported livestock longer
distances than before COOL, and that they also faced logistical problems and additional costs for
timing delivery to specific times or days when processing is scheduled. Although the panel took
these into account, it decided it also was important to make findings on COOL’s actual trade
Congressional Research Service
15
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
effects. To do this, it considered data, economic analyses, and econometric studies submitted by
Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
In reviewing two economic studies on COOL’s livestock segregation costs submitted by Canada,
the panel stated “both studies shed some light on the different types of segregation and
compliance costs encountered at different stages of the supply chain.” Noting that such costs need
to be absorbed somewhere in the marketing system, it concluded that “economic competition
pressure” will dictate how these costs are allocated. Whether this involves processing only U.S.-
origin livestock because it is the cheapest way to comply with COOL and because many U.S.
consumers are not willing to pay a price premium for country-of-origin labeling, or incurring the
additional costs associated with segregating imported livestock before processing, either option
“is likely to cause a decrease in the volume and price of imported livestock.”
The panel also reviewed econometric analyses38 submitted by Canada and the United States that
purported to assess COOL’s impacts on prices and shares of imported livestock. Whereas the
Canadian study concluded that COOL caused reduced competitive opportunities for Canadian
livestock in the U.S. market, the U.S. study concluded that the economic recession was the
primary cause. Rather than seeking to reconcile these disparate conclusions, the panel instead
assessed “the robustness of each study.” It considered Canada’s study to be “sufficiently robust”
because it included other economic variables that confirmed that COOL—not the economic
recession that began in 2008, the 2004-2005 U.S. import ban due to the discovery of BSE in
Canada’s cattle herds, or transport costs—“had a negative and significant impact on Canadian
import shares and price basis.” Conversely, the panel found the U.S. study did not sufficiently
show that the economic recession rather than COOL accounted for the negative impacts
experienced in the cattle sector, did not fully analyze what occurred in both countries’ hog
sectors, and thus did not refute what Canada’s study laid out.
Appellate Body
The United States appealed the DS panel’s finding that COOL treats imported livestock less
favorably than domestic livestock (i.e., that COOL is inconsistent with TBT’s Article 2.1). Its
main argument was that COOL did not change the “conditions of competition” to the detriment of
Canadian and Mexican cattle and hog producers. The U.S. legal brief acknowledged that though
private market participants incur costs in complying with COOL, “any country of origin labeling
will necessarily introduce compliance costs” and governments cannot control how participants
respond to these costs. The brief argued that market forces, rather than the COOL measure in and
of itself, increased the cost of selling Canadian and Mexican livestock into the U.S. market, and
that COOL cannot be faulted for being discriminatory.39
In reviewing the U.S. appeal, the Appellate Body found that the panel’s analysis of the finding of
unfavorable treatment was incomplete in not considering whether or not the detrimental impact
on imports was due exclusively to a “legitimate regulatory distinction” (i.e., a legally valid reason
for similar products to be treated differently), which the TBT allows. The AB found that the
COOL measure:
38 These involve applying mathematics and statistical methods to study relationships between economic variables.
39 “Obama Administration Appeals Ruling On Country Labeling For Beef, Pork,” Inside US Trade, March 30, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
16
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
lacks even-handedness because its recordkeeping and verification requirements impose a
disproportionate burden on upstream producers and processors of livestock as compared to the
information conveyed to consumers through the mandatory labelling requirements for meat sold
at the retail level. That is, although a large amount of information must be tracked and transmitted
by upstream producers for purposes of providing consumers with information on origin, only a
small amount of this information is actually communicated to consumers in an understandable or
accurate manner, including because a considerable proportion of meat sold in the United States is
not subject to the COOL measure’s labelling requirements at all.40
Based on these findings, the AB concluded that COOL’s “regulatory distinctions” (i.e., the
prescribed labels and labeling exemptions) “amount to arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination
against imported livestock, such that they cannot be said to be applied in an even-handed
manner,” rather than being based upon a “legitimate regulatory distinction.” It thus upheld the DS
panel’s finding, but for different reasons, that COOL’s requirements on labeling beef and pork
accord “less favorable treatment to imported livestock than to domestic livestock.”
COOL Does Not Meet Objective of Providing Consumers with
Information on Origin of Meats
Dispute Panel
Canada and Mexico also alleged that COOL violates Article 2.2 of the TBT by being more trade-
restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate policy objective. Article 2.2 reads:
Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view
to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. For this purpose,
technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate
objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfillment would create. Such legitimate objectives are,
inter alia: national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of
human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment. In assessing such risks,
relevant elements of consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical information,
related processing technology or intended end-uses of products. (italics added for emphasis)
The panel accepted the U.S. position that COOL’s objective is to inform consumers of the country
of origin of meat products,41 and it agreed with the United States that this is a “legitimate” policy
objective under TBT’s Article 2.2 to pursue. However, it concluded that COOL’s implementation
is more trade restrictive than is necessary to fulfill its objective because it does not meaningfully
inform consumers about the countries of origin of meat products.
In reaching its conclusion that COOL does not achieve its objective, the DS panel agreed with
Canada and Mexico that the labels identifying multiple countries of origin could confuse or
mislead, rather than inform, consumers. It noted that a consumer could not readily distinguish the
origins of meat products listed on a Category B label as coming from multiple countries, from the
origins of meat products shown on a Category C label as coming from those same multiple
40 WTO, United States—Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, ‘Summary of key findings,”
available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds384_e.htm.
41 The panel rejected Canada’s and Mexico’s argument that COOL’s objective is to protect the domestic U.S. livestock
industry (p. 143 of WTO panel’s report, footnote 30).
Congressional Research Service
17
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
countries (e.g., Product of the United States, Canada [Category B], compared to Product of
Canada, United States [Category C]—see Table 1). The panel added that because processors have
the flexibility to use both types of labels interchangeably for commingled meat (i.e., meat
processed from animals of different origins on the same day, the labels not only fail to inform the
average consumer of the distinction between them but could also mislead a fully informed
consumer about the precise origins of some meat products.
Appellate Body
The United States appealed the DS panel’s finding that COOL does not meet the objective of
providing consumers with meaningful information on the origin of meats. It challenged the two-
step approach the panel followed to determine whether COOL is consistent with TBT’s Article
2.2. Its brief pointed out that the panel first looked at whether COOL fulfills a legitimate policy
objective, and if it had been found to do so, would have examined whether COOL is more trade-
restrictive than necessary compared to other possible less trade-restrictive measures that could
have just as well met the policy objective. The U.S. argued that the panel took the wrong
approach and instead should have focused only on whether COOL is more trade-restrictive than
necessary. It argued that the panel went beyond the scope of Article 2.2 to make an “intrusive and
far-ranging judgment” on whether COOL “is effective public policy.”
In its analysis, the Appellate Body found that the DS panel erred in interpreting and applying
Article 2.2. Although it agreed with the panel that COOL’s objective is to provide consumers with
information on origin and that this is a legitimate objective, the AB viewed the panel’s finding as
too narrow. The AB found that the panel
appeared to have considered, incorrectly, that a measure could be consistent with Article 2.2 only
if it fulfilled its objective completely or exceeded some minimum level of fulfilment, and to have
ignored its own findings, which demonstrated that the COOL measure does contribute, at least to
some extent, to achieving its objective.
The AB reversed the panel’s finding that COOL is inconsistent with Article 2.2, but was not able
to determine whether COOL is more trade-restrictive than necessary to meet the TBT requirement
that it be a legitimate objective.42
Since the United States won its appeal on this finding, no U.S. response is required.
Ground Meat Label Does Not Result in Less Favorable Treatment
for Imported Livestock
Dispute Panel
The DS panel determined that, unlike the muscle cut labels, the ground meat labels were
consistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT. It found that the 60-day “inventory allowance” gives
significant flexibility to processors (e.g., beef grinders) in labeling country of origin. This rule is
based on the statutory requirement that ground meat labels list all actual or “reasonably possible”
42 WTO, United States—Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, ‘Summary of key findings,”
available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds384_e.htm.
Congressional Research Service
18
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
countries of origin. In practice, the rule allows a processor to use the same label for all of its
ground meat so long as the label lists all countries of origin of the meat in the processor’s
inventory for the last 60 days. Moreover, the 60-day “inventory allowance” flexibility is available
not only for meat processors, but for market participants at every stage of meat supply and
distribution. The panel determined that, contrary to Canada and Mexico’s assertions, the rule’s
flexibility “limits any additional costs of implementing” the ground meat labeling requirements. It
noted that Canada and Mexico did not present any evidence that, despite this flexibility,
compliance with COOL for ground meat affected imported livestock less favorably than domestic
livestock.
Appeal Status
Canada and Mexico did not appeal the DS panel’s finding to the AB.
Vilsack Letter Is Not a Technical Regulation
Dispute Panel
Although the panel recognized that the Vilsack letter is not a technical regulation within the scope
of the TBT Agreement, the panel agreed with Canada and Mexico that the Vilsack letter
constitutes “unreasonable administration” of COOL and thus violates Article X:3(a) of GATT
1994 (see “Vilsack Letter” for details). This article states that “[e]ach contracting party shall
administer in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner all its laws, regulations, decisions and
rulings ...” Specifically, the panel found that the letter is an unreasonable act of administering
COOL because (1) it could not find any “justifiable rationale” for simultaneously permitting the
final rule to enter into force and suggesting stricter practices than the ones the rule requires, (2)
the language of the letter may have caused uncertainty and confusion as to its force and effect,
and (3) its timing relative to the final rule’s entry into force may have caused confusion about
whether processors should comply with the final rule or the Vilsack letter. The letter, it wrote, did
not meet the minimum standards for transparency and procedural fairness in the administration of
trade regulations.
Appeal Activity
The United States did not appeal this finding. Canada, in its appeal, requested that the AB make
certain rulings on the Vilsack letter. Subsequently, Canada stated that it no longer sought a finding
on this matter because the United States asserted that this measure had been withdrawn on April
5, 2012.
Reaction to WTO DS Panel and Appellate Body Reports
United States
With the WTO’s release of the DS panel’s report, USTR welcomed its affirmation of “the right of
the United States to require country of origin labeling for meat products.” Acknowledging that the
panel disagreed with the details on how the U.S. COOL requirements were designed, it expressed
the U.S. commitment to provide “consumers with accurate and relevant information [on] the
Congressional Research Service
19
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
origin of meat products that they buy at the retail level.” USTR stated that it would consider all
options going forward, including an appeal.43
The U.S. meat sector expressed mixed reactions. Those in favor of making changes to COOL to
address the panel’s conclusions include the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the
National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), and the American Meat Institute (AMI). The NCBA
advised against appealing this ruling. Instead, it urged USTR to work “to apply pressure on
Congress to bring the United States into WTO compliance across the board” and to act quickly
before Canada and Mexico—two important trading partners—impose “unnecessary and
unfortunate tariffs” on U.S. agricultural exports. The NPPC “will be working with lawmakers to
craft a legislative fix so that [COOL] is WTO-compliant” to avoid risking “retaliation from and a
trade war with Canada and Mexico.” AMI commented that the ruling “was not surprising,” stating
that it had “contended for years ... that [COOL] was not just costly and cumbersome, but a
violation of our country’s WTO obligations.”44
Livestock groups that support COOL as now implemented include the Ranchers-Cattlemen
Action Legal Fund (R-CALF) and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA). R-CALF responded
that “the WTO is trying to usurp our nation’s sovereignty,” questioning “when do we allow an
international tribunal to dictate to our U.S. Congress what is or is not a legitimate objective of
providing information to United States’ citizens?” The USCA strongly disagreed with the panel’s
findings, but was pleased that the report “affirmed the right of the U.S. to label meat for
consumers.” Its president expressed support for USTR’s efforts to defend U.S. rights, pledging to
assist “with the appeal process” and to work “with our allies in the Administration and Congress
to ensure that COOL continues.”45
Other groups that had participated in the debate leading up to COOL’s enactment also weighed in.
The Food Marketing Institute (FMI) agreed with the panel’s conclusion that COOL “fails to
provide information in a meaningful way” and highlighted that “COOL enforcement has become
more burdensome than ever ... for retailers.” Its spokesman stated that COOL “will need to be
repealed or rewritten for the U.S. to meet its [trade obligations]” and that FMI will work with
Congress and USDA “to develop an alternative system” that informs consumers with useful
information.46 Among those supporting COOL, the National Farmers Union (NFU) responded
that it will work with USTR and USDA “to ensure that COOL is implemented to the fullest extent
of the law and in accordance with WTO.” Its statement concluded that “if these results are
unsatisfactory, then NFU will push to appeal the decision and continue to fight ... to ensure
COOL is allowed to continue for as long as it takes to get this done.” Public Citizen commented
43 USTR, “Statement in Response to WTO Panel Decision on Country of Origin Labeling,” November 18, 2011,
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/november/statement-office-us-trade-representative-
response.
44 NCBA, “Statement ... [on] WTO Ruling on US Country of Origin Labeling,” November 11, 2011,
http://www.beefusa.org/newsreleases1.aspx?NewsID=1248; Pork Magazine, “NPPC: What’s on Tap for 2012?,”
January 2012, http://www.porknetwork.com/pork-magazine/pork-exec/Whats-on-Tap-for-2012-136695033.html?
view=all; AMI, “WTO Rules in Favor of Canada in Complaint Over U.S. Country-of-Origin Labeling Law,”
November 18, 2011, http://www.meatami.com/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/73951.
45 R-CALF, “U.S. Sovereignty Usurped by WTO’s COOL Decision,” November 18, 2011, http://www.r-calfusa.com/
news_releases/2011/111118-sovereignty.htm; USCA, “WTO Dispute Panel Issues Final COOL Report,” November 21,
2011, http://www.uscattlemen.org/TheNewsRoom/2011_News/11-21WTO_DisputePanel.htm.
46 FMI, “Food Retail Industry Applauds WTO Ruling on COOL,” November 23, 2011, http://www.fmi.org/news-room/
news-archive/view/2011/11/23/food-retail-industry-applauds-wto-ruling-on-cool.
Congressional Research Service
20
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
that the WTO’s ruling against COOL for meats “make[s] it increasingly clear to the public that
the WTO is leading a race to the bottom in consumer protection” by its second-guessing “the U.S.
Congress, courts and public by elevating the goal of maximizing trade flows over consumer and
environmental protection.” Food and Water Watch urged the Administration to appeal the ruling,
noting that the WTO “should not get to decide what U.S. consumers get to know about their food
and should not be able to undermine rules put in place by U.S. elected officials.”47
Members of Congress also hold diverse views on COOL’s future. Some did not expect the WTO
panel’s decision on COOL to be favorable and view more “unwinnable” WTO cases as not in the
“best interest” of U.S. agricultural producers. Senator Pat Roberts, ranking Member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, at a regional livestock meeting stated that he does not know of any
market study that “shows American consumers will buy more American products with labels in
the store” and hoped “we can change people’s minds.”48 By contrast, 19 Senators requested that
the Obama Administration appeal the panel’s ruling and “work to ensure that our COOL program
both meets our international trade obligations while continuing to provide such information to
consumers.” Their letter expressed concern about the ruling’s impact “on our ability to continue
providing [COOL] information to consumers” and noted that congressional intent behind the
2008 statutory changes was for “such labeling [to] be nondiscriminatory in its treatment of
imported products by requiring the labeling of both domestic as well as imported products.” The
letter further stated that the final COOL rule “appropriately establishes a labeling system which
provides important and useful information to consumers while not placing an undue burden on
the industry” and which “continues to provide the same opportunity for imported livestock to
compete in the domestic marketplace as was the case prior to USDA’s implementation of
COOL.”49
Canada
The Canadian government welcomed the panel’s ruling as a “clear victory for Canada’s livestock
industry.” Its Minister of Agriculture stated that the WTO decision “recognizes the integrated
nature of the North American supply chain in this vitally important industry” and that
“[r]emoving onerous labelling measures and unfair, unnecessary costs will improve
competitiveness, boost growth and help strengthen the prosperity of Canadian and American
producers alike.” He expressed the hope this ruling “will open the door to a negotiated settlement
of the dispute” and stressed Canada’s commitment to work with the United States to “create a
stronger more profitable livestock industry on both sides of the 49th parallel.”50
47 NFU, “NFU Will Work With Administration to Ensure COOL Compliance With WTO Rules,” November 18, 2011,
http://nfu.org/news/65-international-policy/723-nfu-will-work-with-administration-to-ensure-cool-compliance-with-
wto-rules; Public Citizen, “WTO Rules Against Country-of-Origin Meat Labeling Law: Third Ruling Against U.S.
Consumer Safeguards in 2011,” November 18, 2011, http://www.citizen.org/documents/release-wto-rules-against-coo-
11-18-11.pdf; Food and Water Watch, “WTO Decision on COOL Attacks Consumers’ Right to Know,” November 18,
2011, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/wto-decision-on-cool-attacks-consumers%e2%80%99-right-to-
know/.
48 High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal, “TCFA Members Face Scary Issues from Washington,” November 14, 2011,
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2011/nov11/nov14/1109TexasCattleFeedersjmlsr.cfm.
49 Office of Senator Tim Johnson, “Johnson, Enzi to Administration: Keep COOL Strong,” December 15, 2011, press
release with text of letter, http://johnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases.
50 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “Canada Wins World Trade Organization Case on U.S. Country-of-
Origin Labelling,” November 18, 2011, http://www.international.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/news-communiques/
2011/349.aspx?lang=eng&view=d; Farmscape, “Canada Hopes for Negotiated Resolution of M-COOL Dispute,”
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
The Canadian Pork Council (CPC) stated that the panel’s report “vindicates [the] objections” the
pork industry had to COOL legislation, which it believes restricts market access (i.e., the
movement of live swine to the U.S. market) and constitutes a technical barrier. The CPC plans to
work “with like-minded groups in the U.S. to find a meaningful solution without further
litigation” (referring to a possible U.S. appeal and the process that would follow). The Canadian
Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) stated the ruling confirms Canada’s position that COOL
discriminates against live cattle shipped to the United States to the detriment of Canadian cattle
producers. In particular, it noted that since taking effect, COOL “has increased costs for U.S.
companies that import live Canadian cattle,” which has reduced “the competiveness of those
Canadian cattle in the U.S. market.” The CCA plans to continue working with the U.S. industry
“not ... for the outright repeal of COOL but [to] seek only those regulatory and statutory changes
necessary to eliminate the discrimination that COOL has imposed to the comparative
disadvantage of livestock imported into the U.S. vis-a-vis U.S. livestock.”51
Reactions to the USTR Decision to Appeal
Interest groups that had urged the Obama Administration to appeal the WTO report (R-CALF,
NCA, NFU, Food and Water Watch, Public Citizen) supported this decision.52 Those that
advocated resolving this dispute (NCBA, NPPC) expressed disappointment, and noted that the
appeal jeopardizes strong trading relationships with Canada and Mexico and invites the prospect
of retaliation by these two countries against U.S. meat exports.53 (For background on all of these
groups’ positions, see “Reaction to WTO Panel Ruling, United States,” above.)
Canada’s Agriculture Minister expressed disappointment that the United States appealed, stating
his confidence that the WTO findings “will be upheld so that trade can move more freely,
benefiting producers and processors on both sides of the border.” Mexico’s Economic Ministry
declared that it would defend Mexico’s interests in the appeal process, and that it plans to file its
(...continued)
November 22, 2011, http://www.farmscape.com/f2ShowScript.aspx?i=23812&q=
Canada+Hopes+for+Negotiated+Resolution+of+M-COOL+Dispute.
51 CPC, “Canadian Pork Producers Welcome the WTO Panel Decision on COOL,” November 18, 2011,
http://www.cpc-ccp.com/documents/news-releases/FINALWTOpaneldecisionpressrelease.pdf; CCA, “WTO Rules
Strongly in Favor of Canada in COOL Case,” November 18, 2011, http://www.cattle.ca/media/file/original/
1058_2011_11_18_CCA_News_Release_WTO_rules_strongly_in_favor_of_Canada_in_COOL_case.pdf.
52 “R-CALF USA Applauds U.S. Appeal of WTO’s Adverse COOL Ruling,” March 23, 2012,
http://www.tradereform.org/2012/03/r-calf-usa-applauds-u-s-appeal-of-wtos-adverse-cool-ruling/#comment-163002;
“USCA Appreciates USTR Support for U.S. Cattle Producers,” March 26, 2012, http://www.uscattlemen.org/
TheNewsRoom/2012_News/3-26USTRSupport.htm; “NFU Applauds USTR Decision to Appeal WTO Ruling on
COOL,” March 23, 2012, http://nfu.org/news/212-international-policy/947-nfu-applauds-ustr-decision-to-appeal-wto-
ruling-on-cool-; Food & Water Watch, “President Obama Finally Stands Up for U.S. Farmers and Consumers: U.S.
Appeals WTO Decision on COOL,” March 23, 2012; “Public Citizen Applauds Obama Administration’s Efforts to
Defend Consumer Country of Origin Meat Labeling; Appeal of WTO Ruling Necessary First Step,” March 23, 2012,
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2012/03/public-citizen-applauds-obama-administrations-efforts-to-defend-
consumer-country-of-origin-meat-labe.html.
53 “NCBA Statement on USTR Appeal of WTO Ruling on Country of Origin Labeling,” http://www.beefusa.org/
newsreleases1.aspx?newsid=2419; NPPC, “Capital Update, For the Week Ending March 23, 2012,”
http://www.nppc.org/2012/03/for-the-week-ending-march-23-2012/; Pork Network, “Pork, beef producers fear
retaliation from COOL appeal,” March 26, 2012, http://www.porknetwork.com/pork-news/latest/Pork-beef-producers-
fear-retaliation-from-COOL-appeal-144248155.html.
Congressional Research Service
22
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
own notice of appeal seeking a review of some issues in the panel’s report that it says reflect
inadequate legal analysis.54
Options to Bring COOL into Compliance
With the WTO arbitrator establishing May 23, 2013, as the deadline for the United States to
comply with the findings of the dispute settlement (DS) panel and appellate body (AB) reports,
the case moves to the compliance stage (see “WTO Procedures for the United States to Comply
with Reports’ Findings”). The WTO found that the COOL regulations treated imported livestock
in an unfavorable manner by altering the conditions of competition in a way that favored
domestic livestock over imported livestock (see “WTO Findings”). The United States has said it
will bring COOL into compliance with its WTO obligations.55 Stakeholders have two views about
how the United States should comply with the WTO findings. One is to amend the COOL
legislation; the other is to change the COOL regulations to bring the United States into
compliance.
Legislative Approach
Some U.S. stakeholders have argued that, for the United States to comply with the WTO findings,
the COOL law would have to be changed, because the law requires that meat derived from
foreign-born, or foreign-born and -raised, animals has to have a different label than meat from
animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States.56 The National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association (NCBA), the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), the American Meat Institute
(AMI), and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) have opposed mandatory COOL from its
inception. They have advocated that Congress change the law to enable the United States to meet
its WTO obligations, and warn that retaliation by Canada and Mexico will harm U.S. livestock
and meat markets.57
These industry groups point to research conducted by Kansas State University, which found that
consumers valued meat with a “Product of North America” label about the same as meat with a
“Product of the United States” label.58 A “Product of North America” label could apply to any
meat from imported livestock from Canada and Mexico that is substantially altered through
slaughtering and processing in a U.S. meatpacking plant. A single label for meat that is from any
animal slaughtered in the United States could eliminate the extra cost associated with segregating
and recordkeeping for imported livestock, thus ending discriminatory pricing of imported
livestock. Some in the meat industry argue that the “Product of the United States” label should
54 Reuters; Secretaría de Economía, “México continuará la defensa legal en OMC del caso COOL,” March 23, 2012,
http://www.economia.gob.mx/eventos-noticias/sala-de-prensa/informacion-relevante/7646-boletin087-12.
55 WTO, Communication from the United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, WT/DS384/19 and
WT/DS386/18, August 23, 2012; John Maday, “COOL adversaries comment on ruling,” Drovers CattleNetwork, July
2, 2012, http://www.cattlenetwork.com/e-newsletters/drovers-daily/COOL-adversaries-comment-on-ruling-
161140725.html?view=all.
56 7 U.S.C. 1638a. See above “Defining and Labeling Origin for Meats.”
57 Rick Jordahl, “AMI urges U.S. to bring COOL law into compliance,” PorkNetwork, July 2, 2012.
58 Glynn T. Tonsor, Jayson L. Lusk, and Ted C. Schroeder, et al., Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling: Consumer
Demand Impact, Kansas State University, Factsheet, November 2012, p. 2, http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/
policy/Tonsor_KSU_FactSheet_MCOOL_11-13-12.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
apply to any meat being processed in a U.S. meatpacking plant.59 This approach would require a
change in the COOL legislation.
Canadian stakeholders have consistently contended that a change in legislation will be required.
According to the Canadian Pork Council (CPC):
for the U.S. to come into compliance with the WTO ruling will require legislative action to
eliminate the conditions that give rise to the discrimination against live animals born outside of
the U.S.—the discrimination arising from the requirement of COOL that there be different labels
for animals processed in a U.S. plant (that are) born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. from those
not born raised and slaughtered in the U.S. Those labeling requirements are explicit in the
legislation; thus, a legislative or statutory change will be needed.
A representative from the Canadian Cattlemen Association (CCA) agreed with the CPC
assessment. In the view of the CPC and CCA, mandatory COOL labels are acceptable, but the
law would have to be amended to require that all meat processed from imported livestock in a
U.S. meatpacking plant be labeled the same as meat processed from domestic livestock. 60
During the WTO arbitration process over the compliance timeline, Canada expressed the view
that a regulatory change is unlikely to bring the United States into compliance and that a
legislative change could be necessary.61 In presenting their arguments for quicker compliance,
Canada and Mexico argued that the United States had adequate time to take a legislative approach
to compliance, especially because the ongoing 2012 farm bill debate would have provided a
legislative vehicle for addressing COOL. Some U.S. stakeholders also have suggested that the
farm bill would be an appropriate vehicle to legislatively comply with WTO obligations.62
Regulatory Approach
Other stakeholders have advocated that USDA rework the COOL regulations to bring the United
States into compliance with the WTO ruling. Reportedly, at the beginning of 2012, USTR
considered but did not follow through with making changes to COOL regulations. The change
would have allowed for more flexibility for commingling imported and domestic cattle and using
a multi-country label. This approach was dropped as supporters of COOL believed such a change
would undermine the COOL law. Others argued that the change would not go far enough.63
In August 2012, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America
(R-CALF) sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Kirk that proposed
regulatory changes to simplify the recordkeeping requirements of COOL.64 Because U.S. animal
health regulations65 require that imported cattle have a foreign mark and that cattle imported for
59 Steve Kay, “Clock Ticks On MCOOL Solution,” Cattle Buyers Weekly, December 10, 2012.
60 Ian Elliott, “Only small changes needed to comply with COOL ruling,” Feedstuffs, December 24, 2012.
61 WTO, United States—Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/24 and
WT/DS386/23, Arbitrator’s Report, December 4, 2012, p. 14.
62 Steve Meyer and Len Steiner, Livestock Daily Report, December 6, 2012.
63 “USTR Abandons Regulatory COOL 'Fix' In Face Of Stakeholder Division,” World Trade Online, February 2, 2012.
64 Letter from Bill Bullard, CEO, August 22, 2012, http://www.r-calfusa.com/COOL/
120822LetterToUSTRandUSDAreCOOLStrategy.pdf.
65 Steers and spayed heifers imported from Mexico must be marked M and Mx, respectively, and cattle from Canada
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
immediate slaughter be shipped in sealed conveyances to slaughter plants, R-CALF proposed that
any cattle arriving at a slaughter plant without a mark or seal be considered U.S. cattle. The WTO
found that more information was collected on imported cattle compared with what was passed on
to consumers on labels. According to R-CALF, its proposed presumption for U.S. cattle would
reduce additional documentation and recordkeeping for imported cattle. Currently, hogs are
exempt from a country-of-origin mark under the Tariff Act of 1930.66 R-CALF suggested that this
livestock exemption be removed, thus requiring a country-of-origin mark on hogs. Once the
exemption is lifted, the presumption of domestic hogs would become workable.
R-CALF also called on USDA to eliminate the use of a mixed label (Labels B or C; see Table 1)
on meat from an animal that is exclusively of U.S. origin. R-CALF also suggested that ground
beef labeling be revised to not allow for a country to be listed on a label if meat from that country
is not included in the ground product (see Ground Beef label, Table 1). Lastly, R-CALF’s
proposal calls for the expanded coverage of minimally processed products, such as cooked,
smoked, or cured meats, that are currently exempt from COOL regulations.
On February 4, 2013, the National Farmers Union (NFU) and the United States Cattlemen’s
Association (USCA) released an analysis of proposed options to bring COOL into WTO
compliance.67 This analysis laid out their case for how the United States could comply with its
WTO obligations if USDA required more information to be added to labels about where cattle
were born, raised, and slaughtered. The proposal also called for USDA to halt the commingling of
meat from animals of different origin. For minimally processed products, such as smoked, cured,
or cooked products, which are exempt from labeling, USDA could revise the regulations to
require that these products be labeled. The proposal also suggested that COOL should be
extended to food service, which the COOL statute currently exempts. The proposal noted this
would require a change in law and could not be accomplished through a change in regulations.
Congressional Support for a Regulatory Fix
Some Members of Congress have expressed the view that USDA and USTR should bring the
United States into WTO compliance through regulatory means. In a January 31, 2013, letter to the
Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative, 31 Senators asked that USDA and
USTR find a regulatory solution.68 The Senators asked that a regulatory fix make the COOL
regulations consistent with WTO rules, provide accurate origin information for all meat cuts to
consumers, engage industry stakeholders in the rulemaking process, and keep Congress informed.
(...continued)
must be marked with CAN [9 C.F.R. 93.427(c) and 93.436(b)(2)]. Cattle imported for immediate slaughter must be
shipped in sealed conveyances from the port of entry to the slaughter facility [9 C.F.R. 93.420, 93.429, and 93.436(a)].
66 This is the J-List exemption at 19 U.S.C. 1304(a)(3)(J). For background on the J-List, see Appendix A, Tariff Act. A
list of products exempt from markings is found at 19 C.F.R. 134.33.
67 NFU, “NFU Releases Analysis on COOL Compliance,” press release, February 12, 2013, http://www.nfu.org/news/
current-news?start=18. Analysis available at http://cdn.e2ma.net/userdata/5030/assets/docs/
SS_COOL_Compliance_Memo_New_Final_Four_Groups.pdf.
68 Letter from Senators Tester, Enzi, Johnson (SD) et al. to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and U.S. Trade
Representative Kirk, January 31, 2013, http://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2755.
Congressional Research Service
25
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
USDA’s Proposed Rule for COOL
On March 12, 2013, USDA released its proposed rule to amend COOL regulations. It would
redefine the labels that may be used on beef, pork, and other covered muscle meats. It would
require that all production stages of the covered meat commodities include the origin of each
production step. That is, the meat label would have to include where the animal was born, where
raised, and where slaughtered. It also would eliminate the practice of commingling muscle meat
products during a production day and the use of a multi-country label. According to USDA, the
proposed rule would improve the operation of the COOL program and bring it into compliance
with trade obligations.69
Under the proposed rule, meat from animals that are exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in
the United States would have to include “Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the United States” on
the label. Currently, meat exclusively from U.S. animals is labeled as “Product of the United
States.”
The proposed rule also would eliminate the current use of mixed origin labels, such as “Product
of the United States, and Country X, and/or Country Y” and “Product of Country X, and/or
Country Y and the United States.” Under the proposed rule each production stage would be
included on the label. For example, beef from cattle that were originally imported into the United
States as feeder cattle would require a label stating “Born in Country X, Raised and Slaughtered
in the United States.” For cattle that were imported for immediate slaughter, “Born and Raised in
Country X, Slaughtered in the United States” would be required on the label, instead of the
current label which reads “Product of Country X and the United States.”
In addition, the proposed rule would no longer allow meat that is processed during a production
day from animals of different origins to be commingled and labeled with a mixed label such as
“Product of the United States, and Country X, and/or Country Y.” The meat labels, as noted
above, would include each production step (born, raised, and slaughtered) for the processed
animals. The labeling requirement for imported muscle cuts of meat would not change, but the
labels may include the production steps if there is supporting documentation.
Lastly, the proposed rule also would amend the definition of retailer to extend it to any person
that meets the definition of retailer in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930
(PACA; 7 U.S.C. 499a et seq.), whether or not the retailer has a PACA license. This provision was
issued to clarify who is subject to COOL.
Costs and Benefits
USDA estimates that the cost of the proposed rule would be $32 million, and that 7,181 firms
would need to rework labels used under the current COOL requirements.70 Most of the costs are
expected to be borne by packing and processing facilities as they add new production steps to
labels. USDA notes that it does not believe additional recordkeeping will be necessary under the
69 USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, “Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken,
Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng,
and Macadamia Nuts,” 78 Federal Register 15645, March 12, 2013. The proposed rule would amend 7 C.F.R. 60.124,
65.240, and 65.300.
70 Ibid., pp. 15647-15652. USDA’s cost estimate analysis is summarized in Table 1 on page 15650.
Congressional Research Service
26
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
proposed rule. As for the economic benefits of this proposed change, USDA says it was unable to
quantify benefits from adding production steps to labels, but noted they were likely
“comparatively small” relative to benefits discussed in the final 2009 COOL rule.71 In previous
analysis of COOL, USDA found the economic benefits to be positive but difficult to quantify.
USDA requested that detailed comments be submitted to USDA on benefits.
Reaction to Proposed Rule
Farm groups that have been long-time supporters of COOL responded positively to USDA’s
proposed rule. The National Farmers Union (NFU) said, “The proposed rule changes released by
OMB are an excellent response to decisions by the World Trade Organization that called for
changes to our COOL implementation.... By requiring further clarity in labels and stronger
recordkeeping, the set of rules released today are a win-win for farmers, ranchers and
consumers.”72 The United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) also commended USDA for
“bringing the COOL rules into compliance with the WTO ruling and for recognizing and
supporting our right to label U.S. products.”73 USCA, as well as NFU, also noted that the
proposed rule was similar to the proposals presented in the legal analysis commissioned by USCA
and NFU (see “Regulatory Approach”).
R-CALF also supported USDA’s proposed rule because it would provide accurate information to
consumers about the origin of their meat. R-CALF noted that the proposed rule would make
mandatory the labeling requirements that Secretary Vilsack requested in a February 2009 letter to
industry representatives to voluntarily include production steps on labels.74 R-CALF also
indicated that the proposed rule, if finalized, would address some concerns in their lawsuit against
USTR, USDA, and the WTO. The lawsuit was filed in September 2012 by R-CALF and seven
other plaintiffs in federal court in Denver to challenge the WTO’s authority to overturn U.S.
COOL law, to mandate that USDA enforce COOL, and to prohibit meat wholly of U.S. origin to
be labeled with a mixed-origin label.75
U.S. livestock groups that have opposed mandatory COOL requirements also weighed in on the
proposed rule. The American Meat Institute (AMI) said, “The proposed rule is even more
onerous, disruptive and expensive than the current regulation implemented in 2009.”76 The
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) pointed out that they do not believe that COOL
could be brought into compliance through regulation and further noted:
71 See footnote 5.
72 NFU, “NFU Pleased By Rule to Keep COOL,” press release, March 8, 2013, http://www.nfu.org/news/253-
consumers-and-their-food/1603-nfu-pleased-by-rule-to-keep-cool.
73 USCA, “Proposed COOL Rule Released,” press release, March 8, 2013, http://www.uscattlemen.org/Templates/
Press_Room/2013_Press_Room/3-8ProposedCOOLRule.html.
74 R-CALF, “Proposed COOL Rule Mandates Ag Secretary's Four-Year-Old Request,” press release, March 11, 2013,
http://www.r-calfusa.com/news_releases/2013/130311COOL.htm.
75 Jason Huffman, “COOL proponents file suit to preserve law in Denver federal court,” Food Chemical News,
September 14, 2012, pp. 19-20. Stephen Clapp, “R-CALF files amended complaint in legal challenge against WTO
COOL ruling,” Food Chemical News, November 23, 2012, p. 17.
76 American Meat Institute, New Country-of-Origin Labeling Proposed Rule Makes Current Costly, Cumbersome
Requirements Even More Onerous and Disruptive, Statement by J. Patrick Boyle, President, March 8, 2013,
http://www.meatami.com/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/84972.
Congressional Research Service
27
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
The proposed amendments will only further hinder our trading relationships with our partners,
raise the cost of beef for consumers and result in retaliatory tariffs being placed on our export
products. The requirement that all products sold at retail be labeled with information noting the
birth, raising and slaughter will place additional recordkeeping burdens on processors and
retailers, contrary to the administration’s assertion. Moreover, this combined with the elimination
of the ability to comingle [sic] muscle cuts, will only further add to the costs of processing non-
U.S. born, raised and slaughtered products. The end result will be hesitancy to process imported
product and increased instances of less favorable treatment of foreign product, giving our trading
partners a stronger case at the WTO.77
Canada rejected the proposed USDA rule as a solution to the WTO case. Gerry Ritz, Agriculture
Minister, stated, “We do not believe that the proposed changes will bring the United States into
compliance with its WTO obligations.”78 The statement further noted that the proposed rule
would increase discrimination against Canadian exports of cattle and hogs, and that Canada
would consider all options, including retaliatory measures. Mexico also stated that USDA’s
proposed rule “will not bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations.”79
Canadian cattle and hog industry representatives also stated their belief that the proposed rule
would not bring the United States into compliance, with both groups noting that it increased
discrimination. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association said:
In the CCA’s view, the USDA’s proposed rule, if adopted, will in fact increase the discrimination
against imported cattle by adding labeling requirements and eliminating some of the existing
mitigating flexibility, thereby significantly increasing the costs of compliance.80
The Canadian Pork Council (CPC) also issued a similar statement: “The proposed rule is
supposed to remove discrimination found by the WTO after a lengthy expensive challenge by
Canada. It does not do this, indeed it exacerbates the problems posed by COOL to Canadian
exporters of pork and beef livestock.”81
Next Steps
USDA’s proposed rule is intended to address the WTO’s finding that the COOL regulations are
not enforced in an evenhanded manner. The AB found that the current requirements result in
much more information being collected upstream than is passed on to consumers on labels.
USDA addressed the WTO finding that the information on labels may be confusing and
incomplete by tightening the label requirements with production steps and eliminating
77 National Cattlemen's Beef Association, NCBA Statement on USDA's Proposed Amendment to Country of Origin
Labeling (COOL) Rule, March 8, 2013, http://www.beefusa.org/newsreleases1.aspx?newsid=2849.
78 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Statement by Minister Ritz on the U.S. Country of Origin Labelling (COOL),
March 8, 2013, http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/index_e.php?s1=n&s2=2013&page=n130308.
79 Letter from Kenneth Smith Ramos, Minister of Trade and NAFTA Office and Carlos Vazquez Ochoa, Minister of
Agricultural Affairs, Embassy of Mexico, to USDA, April 11, 2013, http://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=AMS-LS-13-0004-0798.
80 Canadian Cattlemen's Association, CCA Statement on USDA proposal for COOL, March 8, 2013,
http://www.cattle.ca/news-read/355_cca_statement_on_usda_proposal_for_cool.
81 Canadian Pork Council, The Canadian Pork industry is extremely disappointed by the USDA’s proposed regulatory
changes to U.S. Country of Origin (COOL) regulations, March 8, 2013, http://www.cpc-ccp.com/documents/news-
releases/March_8th_statement_on_COOL_Version_3.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
commingling. The United States believes the proposed measures address the evenhandedness
issue, thus satisfying its obligations under the WTO.
Canada and Mexico have argued that the provisions in USDA’s proposed rule do not satisfy U.S.
WTO obligations. Canada’s Minister of Agriculture stated that Canada is “extremely
disappointed” with the proposed rule.82 In comments to USDA on the proposed rule, the Embassy
of Mexico noted that “Mexico regrets that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has chosen to
propose amendments to the regulations that would exacerbate the adverse impact of the COOL
Measure on bilateral trade rather than pursuing a constructive solution.”83 Canada’s and Mexico’s
comments suggest that they may request that a WTO compliance panel consider whether or not
the proposed changes in U.S. COOL regulations bring the United States into compliance. The
compliance panel, usually made up of the original dispute settlement panel members, would
determine if USDA’s proposed rule provisions adequately address the lack of evenhandedness the
AB found, and if the COOL regulations are a “legitimate regulatory distinction” that allow for
different treatment of similar products. (See “Ratification of Substance of Compliance;
Consequences If Not Ratified,” above, for more information on this procedure.)
If the United States does not comply with the WTO findings by May 23, 2013, Canada and
Mexico could request that the United States negotiate a compensation agreement. If no agreement
is reached, Canada and Mexico could request authorization from WTO’s DSB to retaliate. Canada
and Mexico also could request authority to retaliate if a compliance panel finds that the measures
offered by the United States do not bring COOL into compliance. Retaliation could involve the
suspension of trade concessions or other obligations made by Canada and Mexico to the United
States under a WTO agreement. One permitted action could involve Canada and Mexico
increasing tariffs on products imported from the United States.84 Both Canada and Mexico have
indicated that they are prepared to retaliate if the United States does not comply, and that
retaliation could affect products other than beef and pork. 85 The United States may object to the
retaliation request, in which case it would be automatically sent to arbitration. (See
“Consequences of Non-Compliance by Deadline: Compensation or Retaliation,” above, for more
information on this step.)
Damage Estimates
Should the COOL case reach the retaliation stage, the damage claims could fall between $1billion
and $2 billion, by some estimates. According to a Canadian Pork Council study, COOL harms the
Canadian hog industry by $500 million per year.86 For the Canadian cattle industry, annual losses
82 Mirmala Menon, “Canada Threatens C$1 Billion in Tariffs If U.S. Doesn't Comply With WTO Ruling,” Dow Jones
Newswires, April 8, 2013.
83 See footnote 79.
84 For details, see “Compliance Panels (Article 21.5)” and “Compensation and Suspension of Concessions (Article 22)”
in CRS Report RS20088, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview.
85 Lisa Guenther, “COOL retaliation may go beyond U.S. meat imports. Ritz meets with Mexican counterparts on ‘the
way forward’,” Manitoba Co-operator, April 11, 2013, http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news/cool-retaliation-may-
go-beyond-u-s-meat-imports/1002222444/.
86 Canadian Pork Council, “CPC Releases Report on COOL Damages to Canada's Pork Industry,” press release,
January 14, 2013, http://www.cpc-ccp.com/news.php?rev=e&ID=317&article=1&year=2013&da=0&incl=0. Report
available at http://www.cpc-ccp.com/documents/news-releases/
2013%20ESTIMATES%20OF%20MCOOL%20IMPACT%20ON%20CANADA%20final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
29
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
from COOL have been estimated at $639 million.87 Mexico’s claim on damages to its cattle sector
could also be substantial. In the last three years, U.S. imports from Mexico have topped more
than 1 million head, and per-head discounts on imported Mexican cattle due to COOL reportedly
have been estimated by some analysts at as much as $60 per head.88 In addition, Mexico’s cattle
industry would likely argue that COOL has led to economic losses throughout the Mexican cattle
sector beyond the discounted import prices. The WTO would have to approve any level of
retaliation, and the United States would be able to contest the estimates.
Congressional Interest
Observers point out that the 2008 farm bill amendments to the initial COOL statute were intended
to balance the concerns of both proponents and opponents and to settle the longstanding
controversy over requiring COOL for meats and other covered commodities. However, the
outcome of the WTO challenge initiated by Canada and Mexico may influence the dynamics of
COOL debate in the 113th Congress and beyond, particularly if the WTO finds that USDA’s
proposed rule is deficient in addressing the WTO findings. Some lawmakers agree with some
industry groups’ criticisms of mandatory COOL and could offer legislation to limit its scope and
impacts. Others remain strongly supportive of COOL as enacted and oppose any rollback.
In the 112th Congress, during the House Agriculture Committee’s markup of the 2012 farm bill
(H.R. 6083), Members adopted on a roll call vote an amendment that would have required USDA
to submit a report to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees explaining steps to be taken to
bring the United States into compliance with the WTO decision on COOL.89 The report would
have been due within 90 days of the 2012 farm bill’s enactment. The Senate’s 2012 farm bill (S.
3240) contained no comparable provision. Final action on a farm bill was not completed in the
112th Congress. The House and Senate Agriculture Committees in the 113th Congress have
signaled their intention to mark up a farm bill sometime this year, and there may be some interest
in again addressing COOL during the farm bill debate.
87 Dan Sumner, Canadian Losses from U.S. COOL Implementation, prepared for the Canadian Cattlemen’s
Association, September 27, 2012.
88 Letter from Ross Wilson, President and CEO, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, to USDA, April 11, 2013,
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-LS-13-0004-0806.
89H.R. 6083, Section 12104.
Congressional Research Service
30
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Appendix A. Other Laws with Food
Labeling Provisions
The COOL provisions of the 2002 and 2008 farm bills90 do not change the requirements of the
Tariff Act or the food safety inspection statutes described below. Instead, they were incorporated
into the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Sections 281-285).
Tariff Act
Under Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), every imported item
must be conspicuously and indelibly marked in English to indicate to the “ultimate purchaser” its
country of origin. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection generally defines the “ultimate
purchaser” as the last U.S. person to receive the article in the form in which it was imported. So,
articles arriving at the U.S. border in retail-ready packages—including food products, such as a
can of Danish ham, or a bottle of Italian olive oil—must carry such a mark. However, if the
article is destined for a U.S. processor where it will undergo “substantial transformation,” the
processor is considered the ultimate purchaser. Over the years, numerous technical rulings by
Customs have determined what is, or is not, considered “substantial transformation,” depending
upon the item in question.
The law has authorized exceptions to labeling requirements, including articles on a so-called
“J List,” named for Section 1304(a)(3)(J) of the statute. This empowered the Secretary of the
Treasury to exempt classes of items that were “imported in substantial quantities during the five-
year period immediately preceding January 1, 1937, and were not required during such period to
be marked to indicate their origin.” Among the items placed on the J List were specified
agricultural products including “natural products, such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, berries, and live
or dead animals, fish and birds; all the foregoing which are in their natural state or not advanced
in any manner further than is necessary for their safe transportation.”91 Although J List items
themselves have been exempt from the labeling requirements, Section 304 of the 1930 act has
required that their “immediate container” (essentially, the box they came in) have country-of-
origin labels. But, for example, when Mexican tomatoes or Chilean grapes were sold unpackaged
at retail in a store bin, country labeling had not been required by the Tariff Act.
Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is required to ensure the safety and proper
labeling of most meat and poultry products, including imports, under the Federal Meat Inspection
Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended (21
U.S.C. 451 et seq.). Regulations issued under these laws have required that country of origin
appear in English on immediate containers of all meat and poultry products entering the United
States (9 C.F.R. 327.14 and 9 C.F.R. 381.205). Only plants in countries certified by USDA to
90 P.L. 107-171, Section 10816, approved May 13, 2002, 111 Stat. 533; and P.L. 110-246, Section 11002, approved
June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 2113. The COOL provisions in the AMA of 1946 are codified at 7 U.S.C. 1638 – 1638d.
91 The J list is published in 19 C.F.R. 134.33, available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/
19cfr134.33.htm.
Congressional Research Service
31
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
have inspection systems equivalent to those of the United States are eligible to export products to
the United States.
All individual, retail-ready packages of imported meat products (for example, canned hams or
packages of salami) have had to carry such labeling. Imported bulk products, such as carcasses,
carcass parts, or large containers of meat or poultry destined for U.S. plants for further processing
also have had to bear country-of-origin marks. However, once these non-retail items have entered
the country, the federal meat inspection law has deemed them to be domestic products. When they
are further processed in a domestic, FSIS-inspected meat or poultry establishment—which has
been considered the ultimate purchaser for purposes of country-of-origin labeling—FSIS no
longer requires such labeling on either the new product or its container. FSIS has considered even
minimal processing, such as cutting a larger piece of meat into smaller pieces or grinding it for
hamburger, enough of a transformation so that country markings are no longer necessary.
Meat and poultry product imports must comply not only with the meat and poultry inspection
laws and rules but also with Tariff Act labeling regulations. Because Customs generally requires
that imports undergo more extensive changes (i.e., “substantial transformation”) than required by
USDA to avoid the need for labeling, a potential for conflict has existed between the two
requirements.
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Foods other than meat and poultry are regulated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), primarily under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). This act does not expressly require COOL for
foods. Section 403(e) of the FFDCA does regard a packaged food to be misbranded if it lacks a
label containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor
(among other ways a food can be misbranded). However, this name and place of business is not
an indicator of the origin of the product itself.
Congressional Research Service
32
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Appendix B. Timeline of COOL
Table B-1. Major COOL Developments & WTO Dispute Settlement Case
May 13, 2002
COOL provisions are enacted in the 2002 farm bill to take effect on September 30, 2004
(P.L. 107-171, §10816).
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) publishes in the Federal Register the proposed
October 30, 2003
rule on COOL. The comment period, initial y to close December 29, 2003, is extended to
February 27, 2004.
Implementation of COOL for covered commodities except fish and shellfish is delayed until
January 23, 2004
September 30, 2006, per enactment of the FY2004 omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 108-199,
Division A, §749).
October 5, 2004
AMS publishes in the Federal Register the interim final rule on COOL for fish and shellfish.
April 4, 2005
COOL labeling for fish and shellfish takes effect.
November 10, 2005
Implementation of COOL for al other covered commodities is delayed until September 30,
2008, per enactment of the FY2006 agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 109-97, §792).
May 22, 2008
Amendments to the 2002-enacted COOL provisions become law in the 2008 farm bill (P.L.
110-246, §11002), to take effect on September 30, 2008.
August 1, 2008
AMS publishes in the Federal Register the interim final rule to implement COOL for all
covered commodities except fish and shel fish, to take effect on September 30, 2008.
December 16, 2008
Canada, joined by Mexico, holds consultations on COOL with the United States.
AMS publishes the final rule to implement COOL for all covered commodities, to take effect
January 15, 2009
on March 16, 2009.
Secretary of Agriculture sends letter to meat and food industry representatives urging the
February 20, 2009
voluntary adoption of three labeling changes.
March 16, 2009
COOL’s final rule for all covered commodities takes effect.
June 5, 2009
Canada holds consultations with the United States to resolve differences on COOL.
Canada requests the establishment of a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute
October 7, 2009
settlement (DS) panel to consider its complaint on the U.S. COOL program. Mexico follows
with a comparable request on October 9.
WTO establishes a DS panel to consider complaints made by Canada and Mexico on the
November 19, 2009
U.S. COOL program.
WTO DS panel releases final report that concludes that some features of U.S. COOL
November 18, 2011
discriminate against foreign livestock and are not consistent with U.S. WTO trade
obligations.
March 23, 2012
The United States appeals the WTO DS panel’s conclusions.
March 28, 2012
Canada and Mexico also appeal some of the DS panel’s conclusions.
The WTO’s Appellate Body (AB) issues its report, upholding the DS panel finding that U.S.
June 29, 2012
COOL does not favorably treat imported livestock but reversing the other finding that
COOL does not provide sufficient information to consumers on the origin of meat products.
Canada, Mexico, and the United States withdraw consideration of the AB report from the
July 10, 2012
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) agenda to provide more time to consult on the 90-day
reporting requirement that was missed by the AB.
July 23, 2012
WTO’s DSB adopts the AB report and the DS panel report, as modified by the AB report.
August 22, 2012
30-day deadline for the United States to inform the DSB about how it plans to implement
the WTO findings.
Congressional Research Service
33
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
United States informs the DSB that it intends to comply with the WTO recommendations
August 31, 2012
and rulings, and states its need for a “reasonable period of time” to do so.
With Canada, Mexico, and United States unable to agree on what a reasonable period of
October 4, 2012
time should be and on who the arbitrator should be, the WTO’s Director appoints an
arbitrator to determine this.
WTO’s arbitrator announces his determination that the “reasonable amount of time” for the
December 4, 2012
United States to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings is 10 months from when
the AB and DS panel reports were adopted (i.e., May 23, 2013).
AMS issues a proposed rule to modify certain COOL labeling requirements for muscle-cut
March 12, 2013
commodities to bring them into compliance with WTO’s findings and to improve the COOL
program’s overall operation.
April 11, 2013
Deadline for interested parties to submit comments to AMS on proposed COOL rule.
May 23, 2013
Deadline for the United States to comply with the WTO’s findings on U.S. COOL.
Congressional Research Service
34
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Appendix C. North American Livestock Trade
Overview
After COOL took full effect in March 2009, Canada and Mexico continued to question the trade
legality of mandatory COOL, and claimed that COOL disrupted normal live cattle and hog trade
patterns and caused large financial losses to their livestock industries. Canada and Mexico were
concerned that labeling requirements and the need to segregate imported and domestic animals to
assure proper labeling would raise the cost of handling and processing imported animals. The
increased cost would ultimately lead U.S. livestock buyers to reduce live animal imports or to
offer lower prices for imported animals.
The cattle and hog industries of Canada, Mexico, and the United States have become increasingly
integrated over the last two decades, particularly after NAFTA took effect in 1994 and, before
that, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988. These agreements, along with the global
Uruguay Round Agreements under the WTO that reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade,
have enabled animals and animal products to move across borders more freely, based on market
demand.
A number of animal health incidents have disrupted this market integration from time to time.
The most significant event was the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad
cow disease) in 2003, first in Canada and later in the United States, which halted most cross-
border movement of cattle from Canada to the United States from mid-2003 through mid-2005.
The predominance of BSE cases in Canada rather than in the United States may have contributed
to wider support for the mandatory COOL law, some analysts believe, although government
officials assert that both countries now have strong, scientifically defensible safeguards in place
to ensure that BSE is controlled and that its infectious agent does not enter the human food
supply.
Proximity, abundant feed supplies, and established feeding operations in the United States have
resulted in an increase in live cattle and hog imports from Canada and Mexico. Imports may
fluctuate year to year as factors such as relative animal and feed prices, inventory levels, currency
exchange rates, and weather conditions influence the movement of cattle and hogs into the United
States.
Canada and Mexico are important U.S. trading partners for live animals. The value of U.S. cattle
and hog exports to Canada and Mexico was about $48 million in 2012 (Table C-1). The United
States primarily exports breeding stock. In recent years, U.S. cattle and hogs have been shipped to
more than 70 foreign markets. Prior to 2010, Canada and Mexico accounted for a majority of the
value of breeding cattle exports, but since then, Russia and Turkey have been leading markets.
Similarly, Canada and Mexico accounted for most of the value of breeding hog exports before
2008, but now China has become a leading market for U.S. breeding hog exports.
On the import side, the value of trade with Canada and Mexico is much greater. In 2012, the
United States imported nearly $2.1 billion worth of cattle and hogs from Canada and Mexico
(Table C-1). Almost all U.S. live cattle imports come from Canada and Mexico and almost all
live hog imports come from Canada.
Congressional Research Service
35
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
In volume terms, on average, cattle imports have accounted for about 6% of total U.S.
commercial cattle slaughter since 2000. Over the same period, hog imports have accounted for
nearly 7% of total hog commercial slaughter, but the hog share has dropped to 5% since 2009 as
hog imports continue to decline.
Table C-1. Value of U.S. Cattle and Hog Trade
($ million)
EXPORTS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Canada
Cattle
9.7 13.5 19.7 42.3 31.6
Hogs
1.0 1.4 1.6 2.1 1.7
Mexico
Cattle
51.5
25.8
30.8
20.8
8.1
Hogs
9.0 1.0 2.0 2.9 6.4
Cattle and Hogs Total
71.2 41.6 54.1 68.1 47.9
World
Cattle
108.1
58.8
132.7
378.9
403.3
Hogs
27.9
9.6
8.6
24.1
33.3
Cattle and Hogs Total
136.0 68.4 141.4 403.0 436.7
IMPORTS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Canada
Cattle
1,462.6
917.7
1,051.9
832.3
1,044.0
Hogs
482.3 295.2 363.3 362.9 330.4
Mexico
Cattle
298.3 381.0 522.8 616.9 716.9
Hogs
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cattle and Hogs Total
2,243.1 1,593.9 1,938.0 1,812.1 2,091.4
World
Cattle
1,760.8 1,298.7 1,574.6 1,449.2 1,761.0
Hogs
482.3 295.2 363.5 362.9 330.4
Cattle and Hogs Total
2,243.1 1,593.9 1,938.1 1,812.1 2,091.4
Source: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS).
U.S. Cattle Imports
U.S. cattle imports plunged in 2004 after the discovery of BSE in Canada in May 2003 and the
subsequent U.S. ban on Canadian cattle imports. In 2004, all U.S. cattle imports came from
Mexico. But once the border was reopened to Canadian cattle in 2005, imports steadily increased
Congressional Research Service
36
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
and reached near pre-BSE levels by 2007 due to the steady rebound in imports from Canada. In
2008, cattle imports dropped 8% to 2.3 million head, and fell 12% to 2 million head in 2009
(Figure C-1).
Figure C-1. U.S. Cattle Imports from Canada and Mexico
3,000
Mexico
Canada
2,500
2,000
ad
e
1,500
000 h
1,
1,000
500
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: USDA, FAS, GATS.
U.S. cattle imports during the first half of 2008 were almost 9% higher than the previous year, but
import growth slowed during the second half of 2008, and by December cattle imports had fallen
8% below 2007. Imports from Canada continued to grow during 2008 and imports of Canadian
feeder cattle were particularly strong in the first half of the year. Under COOL regulations, cattle
that were in the United States before July 15, 2008 were considered U.S. origin cattle, which
likely encouraged feeder imports from Canada during the first part of the year. Canadian feeder
imports through June 2008 were 72% higher than the previous year, but ended the year only 16%
higher. However, during 2008 cattle imports from Mexico were 35% lower than 2007, and the
lowest imports since 1998. Good range and forage conditions in Mexico allowed producers to
keep cattle on grass and resulted in reduced U.S. imports.
In 2009, U.S. cattle imports continued to decline, dropping 12%. But contrary to 2008, imports
from Canada fell, while imports from Mexico increased. USDA’s Economic Research Service
(ERS) indicated that weaker U.S. cattle prices and weaker demand for beef in the United States,
combined with a stronger Canadian dollar reduced Canadian returns and incentives to send cattle
to the United States.92 On the other hand, imports from Mexico started rising due to worsening
drought conditions in Mexico during the latter part of 2009 that encouraged Mexican producers to
ship cattle to the United States.
92 USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, December 17, 2009. p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
37
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Some analyses attribute the import decline during the last part of 2008 and all of 2009 to COOL,
but differ on the extent currency exchange rates may have contributed to this development.
CattleFax, an industry-funded data and analysis service based in Colorado, observed that the 2008
decline in cattle imports was due to mandatory COOL regulations, and that imports would “face a
big wild card in 2009” for the same reason.93 Livestock sector analysts with the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (CME), examining cattle import trends through year-end 2008, commented
that the COOL law “has been quite effective, if you measure effectiveness by the degree to which
it has been able to stifle cattle trade in North America.” They wrote that reductions in imports
from both Mexico and Canada “came at a time when a significant devaluation in the value of the
Peso and Canadian dollar normally would have been conducive of increased imports from these
two countries. Under normal circumstances, one would expect cattle imports to actually increase
rather than be cut by almost 40%.”94 However, USDA’s ERS suggested that the currency
exchange factor may be somewhat more involved and that Canada’s available supplies of
slaughter cattle were reduced by earlier strong shipments of feeder cattle.95
In 2010, U.S. cattle imports increased 14% from 2009 to 2.3 million head as shipments of feeder
cattle from Mexico continued to expand, due to continued drought conditions and strong U.S.
feeder cattle prices that further encouraged Mexican producers to send cattle north. Canadian
cattle imports in 2010 remained flat. In 2011, total cattle imports into the United States turned
down again, dropping 8% as increased imports from Mexico (+16%) were more than offset by a
sharp drop in imports from Canada (-35%). Ample feed supplies in 2011 resulted in more cattle
being fed in Canadian feedlots and, in addition, the relatively strong Canadian dollar dampened
shipments to the United States.
In 2012, U.S. cattle imports increased 7% as shipments from both Canada and Mexico expanded.
Strong U.S. feeder cattle prices coupled with continued drought in Mexico supported the
movement of feeder cattle into the United States. Increased shipments of slaughter cows from
Canada boosted U.S. imports for immediate slaughter in 2012.
Imports from Canada
A majority of Canadian cattle shipped to the United States are for immediate slaughter—79% in
2012 (Figure C-2). Most of the remaining imports are feeder cattle that are usually destined for
U.S. feedlots to be fed out to slaughter-ready weights. Dairy cows and breeding stock account for
a small share of imports from Canada. In 2011, the 15% feeder share of cattle imports was the
smallest feeder share since 2000, as declining cattle inventories combined with the availability of
relatively inexpensive barley supplies in Canada slowed shipments to the United States. In 2012,
cattle imports from Canada increased 15% to more than 786,000 head as both feeder and
slaughter cattle imports increased. Slaughter cattle imports in 2011 and 2012 remain well below
the five-year average of imports from 2006 to 2010. A strong increase in slaughter cow imports in
2012 accounted for most of the 8% gain in total slaughter cattle imports. Feeder cattle imports
increased 55% in 2012, but also remained well below earlier year levels.
93 CattleFax, “CattleFax Long Term Outlook Special Edition,” December 12, 2008, p. 3.
94 CME Daily Livestock Report, January 7, 2009.
95 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, December 18, 2008, p. 8. ERS analysts point out that prior to
2008, the United States was easing the BSE-related restrictions on Canadian cattle imports; in November 2007, cattle
over 30 months of age were again permitted to enter from Canada.
Congressional Research Service
38
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
USDA estimates that Canadian cattle shipments to the United States will again increase in 2013.
A feed cost advantage that Canada had for a couple of years has narrowed, and with a large
expected U.S. grain crop, more feeder cattle could be sent to the United States for feeding. In
addition, the closure of a beef cow slaughter plant in Quebec could boost the number of slaughter
cows being shipped south in 2013.96
Figure C-2. U.S. Cattle Imports from Canada
1,800
Dairy/Breeding
1,600
Feeder
1,400
Slaughter
1,200
1,000
ead
800
000 h
1,
``````
600
400
200
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: USDA, FAS, GATS.
Imports from Mexico
Almost 100% of Mexican cattle shipped to the United States are stocker or feeder cattle97 that are
usually raised in the northern states of Mexico, then shipped to the United States and placed on
pasture or into feedlots (Figure C-3).98 Cattle imports from Mexico are often influenced by
prevailing precipitation conditions in northern Mexico. Persistent drought since 2009 has led to
an increasing number of cattle imports from Mexico. Cattle imports have steadily risen from the
unusually low level of 2008, hitting double-digit growth from 2009 to 2011. In 2012, U.S. cattle
imports from Mexico increased 3% to more than 1.47 million head. Continued drought conditions
in the northern states of Mexico and strong U.S. feeder cattle prices encouraged Mexican
producers to send cattle north.
This strong pace of imports from Mexico may not be sustainable in 2013 because of tight cattle
supplies in Mexico. Mexico’s large increase (+84%) in the shipment of heifers to the United
96 USDA, FAS, Canada: Livestock and Products Semi-annual, GAIN Report, March 1, 2013, p. 4.
97 Stocker cattle are lightweight, usually 200 to 400 pounds, and are placed in grazing programs to grow the animals.
Feeder cattle are heavier, mostly 400 to 700 pounds, and may be placed on grass or placed directly in feedlots.
98 USDA, ERS, Trade, the Expanding Mexican Beef Industry, and Feedlot and Stocker Cattle Production in Mexico, by
Darrell S. Peel, Kenneth H. Mathews, Jr., and Rachel J. Johnson, August 2011.
Congressional Research Service
39
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
States was a strong indication of herd liquidation in 2012. USDA estimates that Mexico’s cattle
inventory was about 18.5 million head on January 1, 2013, the lowest since the early 1960s.
Cattle imports from Mexico are expected to decline in 2013 compared with 2012.99
Figure C-3. U.S. Cattle Imports from Mexico
1,600
Slaughter/Breeding
1,400
Feeder
1,200
1,000
ad
he
800
,000
1
600
400
200
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: USDA, FAS, GATS.
U.S. Hog Imports
U.S. hog imports from Canada have grown sharply since the mid-1990s. U.S. hog imports were a
record 10 million head in 2007, growing more than 13% per year on average during the previous
10 years. Furthermore, the composition of U.S. hog imports significantly shifted from hogs for
immediate slaughter to feeder pigs.100 At one time the U.S. hog industry was comprised of many
small operations that raised hogs from birth to slaughter-ready weight (farrow-to-finish
operations), but from the mid-1980s the hog industry moved toward vertical integration. With
vertical integration there came increased demand for feeder pigs to meet the needs of finishing
operations. Some Canadian producers focused their production on providing feeder pigs for
shipment to the United States where access to abundant and cheaper supplies of grain made it
more economical to feed pigs to slaughter weight.101 The feeder pig share of hog imports
increased steadily from the mid-1990s, peaking at 82% in 2009, and remained stable in 2010 and
2011.
U.S. imports of Canadian hogs dropped sharply from the 2007 peak. U.S. hog imports from
Canada fell 7% in 2008 on a 30% drop in hogs for immediate slaughter. In 2009, hog imports
99 USDA, FAS, Mexico: Livestock and Products Semi-annual, GAIN Report, March 4, 2013, p. 7.
100 Feeder pigs are light-weight pigs—the majority weighing less than 15 pounds, others weighing between 15 and 100
pounds—that are shipped to the United States for feeding to slaughter-ready weight.
101 USDA, ERS, Market Integration of the North American Hog Industries, November 2004, pp. 9-12.
Congressional Research Service
40
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
dropped another 32% as both feeder pigs and hogs for immediate slaughter declined (Figure C-
4).
Figure C-4. U.S. Hog Imports from Canada
12
Slaughter
10
Feeder
8
ad
6
illion he
M
4
2
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: USDA, FAS, GATS.
An early 2009 USDA analysis suggested that COOL’s implementation likely “made U.S. swine
finishers reluctant to import Canadian finishing animals, in light of some major U.S. packers’
stated unwillingness to process Canadian-origin animals.”102 Another report suggested that COOL
was affecting the U.S. hog sector, particularly in Iowa, as packers moved to process only U.S.-
born hogs. With many Iowa producers operating finishing operations that source feeder pigs from
Canada, a USDA document on COOL implementation cited that some producers’ barns are
“empty because of a lack of an assured outlet for slaughter hogs of mixed country of origin” (i.e.,
Product of Canada and United States). USDA also reported that some lenders were not extending
credit to operations that finish mixed-origin pigs, and that lower prices at times were “being paid
for mixed origin slaughter hogs compared to hogs of exclusively U.S. origin.”103
During 2010-2012 U.S. hog imports flattened. In 2012, hog imports declined 2% to 5.6 million
head, the smallest amount since 2002. Imports for immediate slaughter averaged more than 2.3
million head from 2000 to 2009, but dropped sharply to just over 820,000 head in 2012. The
number of feeder hog imports was unchanged in 2012, and have been around 4.7-4.8 million the
last three years. Hog imports from Canada are expected to decline slightly in 2013.104
102 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, April 16, 2009, p. 4.
103 Cattle Buyers Weekly, “MCOOL Hurts Iowa Hog Finishers,” April 27, 2009.
104 See footnote 96, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
41
Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling
Author Contact Information
Remy Jurenas
Joel L. Greene
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
rjurenas@crs.loc.gov, 7-7281
jgreene@crs.loc.gov, 7-9877
Acknowledgments
CRS Legislative Attorneys Daniel T. Shedd and Brandon J. Murrill provided reviews of the WTO
processes and procedures. Also, CRS Legislative Attorneys Emily Barbour and Jeanne Grimmett, retired,
contributed the basics on these WTO topics in earlier report updates.
Congressional Research Service
42