Canadian opposition to U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) efforts has been strong and consistent, even against a voluntary labeling proposal introduced in the U.S. Senate in July.
Last month, Senate Agriculture Committee members John Hoeven (R-ND) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who serves as the committee’s ranking member, introduced the Voluntary Country-Of-Origin Labeling and Trade Enhancement Act of 2015 (S.1844), a bill they heralded as a potential solution to the COOL debate currently before the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The WTO has ruled four times that the mandatory U.S. COOL rule requiring information on meat labels detailing where an animal was born, raised, and slaughtered was not consistent with trade obligations. While Hoeven and Stabenow touted their bill as a WTO-compliant way to solve the dispute, it failed to receive a vote before the August recess, meaning the Senate has to act on S. 1844 or a clean repeal bill passed by the House and offered in the Senate by Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS).
“Should the United States move forward with their shortsighted proposal, Canada will have no choice but to impose billions of dollars of retaliatory tariffs on United States exports,” said Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz.
Canada opposes a proposed voluntary regime for the same reason it opposes the mandatory provisions of the current U.S. law: segregation. The proposed U.S. voluntary program would still require segregation of live animals in order for producers to claim that meat from those animals is a “product of the United States.”
In the United States, an animal must be born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States to be considered a product of that country. In Canada, the animal must spend “a period of at least 60 days in Canada prior to slaughter” in a Canadian facility to be considered a “product of Canada,” leaving the possibility of U.S.-born livestock being accepted as domestic product in Canada.
On September 15-16, the WTO will hear arbitration arguments to decide if retaliatory tariffs by Canada and Mexico will be authorized and if so, how much. Canadian and Mexican officials contend that combined damages brought about by the mandatory U.S. COOL program could be as high as about $3.1 billion a year.
A legal brief from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) says Canadian and Mexican figures are far too high, suggesting a combined figure of almost $91 million is more appropriate. USTR says Canada and Mexico are using a “flawed economic methodology that severely overestimates the level of nullification or impairments attributable to COOL.”
