USDA Issues Proposed Rule On COOL

The proposed COOL rule, to be published in the March 11 Federal Register, would modify the labeling provisions for muscle cut covered commodities.

USDA has issued a proposed rule to modify the labeling provisions for muscle cut commodities covered under the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) program. Notice of the proposed rule will appear in the March 11 edition of the Federal Register.

“USDA expects that these changes will improve the overall operation of the program and also bring the current mandatory COOL requirements into compliance with U.S. international trade obligations,” says USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.

The proposed rule would modify the labeling provisions for muscle cut covered commodities to require the origin designations to include information about where each of the production steps (i.e., born, raised, slaughtered) occurred and would remove the allowance for commingling of muscle cuts.

In June 2012, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) affirmed an earlier WTO Panel decision finding that the U.S.’ COOL requirements for certain meat commodities discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock imports, and thus were inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. The U.S. has until May 23, 2013, to come into compliance with the WTO ruling in COOL.

View the proposed rule here. Comments must be received by April 11, 2013. AMS will consider all timely comments that are submitted regarding the proposed rule. Comments should be submitted electronically here, or to Julie Henderson, Director; USDA, AMS, LPS, COOL Division; 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 2620-S; Washington, D.C. 20250; telephone number (202) 720-4486; or fax (202) 260-4486.

Under COOL, retailers must provide their customers with information about the origin of various food products, including fruits, vegetables, fish and shellfish and meats. Mandatory COOL requirements help consumers make informed purchasing decisions about the food they buy. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is responsible for the implementation, administration and enforcement of the COOL regulations.

The final COOL regulations became effective March 16, 2009. Since then, AMS has devoted significant resources to education and outreach. Over these last four years, AMS has closely reviewed industry compliance with COOL. In 2012, USDA and its state cooperators conducted more than 3,800 compliance reviews of retailers. These reviews established an estimated 98 percent compliance rate for commodities under COOL. Learn more about COOL here.

 

You might also like:

Seven Keys To Ranch Profitability

The Mandatory COOL Saga Is Nearly Over

Ram Truck Super Bowl Ad Shares The Heart Of Ag

Discuss this Article 3

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2013

Read it here - March 12 Federal Register https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/03/12/2013-05576/mandatory...

"muscle cut covered commodities would be required to include location information for each of the production steps (i.e., “Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the United States”)."

Seems like the "born" part of the location information ultimately requires tracking data or certification for each production step that would have an audit trail back to the ranch of origin. No more just "Product of the U.S.”

And doing that is gonna cost us - "The Agency believes that incremental economic benefits from the proposed labeling of production steps are difficult to quantify, and will be comparatively small relative to those that were discussed in the 2009 final rule."

brutherford
on Mar 12, 2013

This is a really good point. And it sets up a conundrum for those who believe that MCOOL is a good thing, but oppose mandatory animal ID. I realize that mandatory animal ID, in the strictest sense of the debate, doesn't have to do with this argument, But if government regs stipulate, as described above, that location information is required for each production step, isn't that a backdoor implementation of, if not mandatory individual animal ID, at least mandatory traceback capabilities? And if so, what's the difference between the two?

Burt Rutherford, Senior Editor

rex (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2013

So we get something nobody wants and that is an improvement?
People, who fear mandatory ID, fear mandatory traceback and to a lesser extent the possibility that something with no ID might be unmarketable.
Many of them pushed for MCOOL.
Meanwhile, Canada and other WTO plaintiffs say the proposed rule hasn't fixed anything.

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your BEEF Magazine ID
(optional)

BEEF Newsletter Sign Up

Search 2.5+ million listings