DOCSLIB.ORG

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and Livestock Producers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and Livestock Producers CIS 1146 Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and Livestock Producers by Danielle Gunn and C. Wilson Gray Country of Origin Labeling, or “COOL,” became This publication provides information on the law in the 2002 Farm Bill. Implementation was background of the law, how it might affect sales delayed twice by Congress. The COOL law was of U.S. meat, and how producers can track and modified and implemented by the 2008 Farm provide documentation regarding the origin of Bill, which mandated that COOL become effec- their livestock. tive September 30, 2008. The “final rule” for COOL—which gives details on how the law is to be implemented—was released on January 12, What is COOL? 2009, and became effective on March 16, 2009. COOL requires country of origin labeling for This mandatory law requires that producers muscle cuts of beef, lamb, chicken, goat, and provide country of origin information in order to pork; ground beef, ground lamb, ground sell their products. The USDA’s Agricultural chicken, ground goat, and ground pork; as well Marketing Service sometimes refers to COOL as as perishable agricultural commodities includ- “MCOOL,” or Mandatory Country of Origin ing fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables; Labeling. peanuts; pecans; ginseng; and macadamia nuts. The law first passed in 2002 as part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, but APPENDIX CONTENTS the implementation was delayed in 2004 for all commodities except for wild and farm-raised fish RECOMMENDED COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AFFIDAVIT/ DECLARATION STATEMENTS and shellfish. In 2005 the implementation was delayed again until September 30, 2008. Continuous Country of Origin Affidavit/Declaration............8 On July 29, 2008, an “interim final rule” was Origin Declaration Language for Seller/Buyer Invoices and Other Sales Documents with a Continuous Declaration on released which details how the law is to be Record or as a Stand-Alone Declaration of Origin.............8 implemented. This rule went into effect on September 30. The final rule was released on Appended Declaration Statement for Immediate/Direct January 12, 2009, and contains minor changes Supplier Transactions to Packers ......................................8 to the interim rule. COOL RECORD SHEETS Some meat producers might be under the Breeding stock records of sale ..........................................9 impression that COOL is a food-safety law. In Cow-Calf records of sale.................................................10 fact, COOL is essentially a marketing program Feeders/stockers records of sale....................................11 to ensure that consumers receive one piece of information about covered commodities: the University of Idaho • College of Agricultural and Life Sciences country of origin. It cannot be construed as a food In some cases, according to the Choices mag- safety issue because it makes no changes in who azine article, consumers may in fact prefer meat can supply commodities or the requirements for from other countries. In a blind taste test, 34% of supplying commodities in the marketplace. All consumers said they preferred the taste of food products offered to U.S. consumers have Canadian beef compared to U.S. beef, and were supposedly already passed existing food safety willing to pay a premium for the Canadian standards. COOL is administered by the product. Argentine beef was favored over U.S. Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) because it beef by 23% of consumers, and Australian beef is a marketing program. Food safety issues are by 17% of consumers. handled by the Food Safety and Inspection Interestingly, the Australian and Argentine Service (FSIS), or by the Animal and Plant beef products were from grass-fed cattle, while Health Inspection Service (APHIS), along with US and Canadian beef is generally grain-fed. the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Choices article points out that for some con- sumers, grass-fed beef is considered a higher quality product in terms of nutritional content. Will COOL help sell U.S. meat? Thus, the COOL law might actually lead some Most consumers want to know where their food consumers to buy meat from other countries, if comes from. In fact, according to a poll by that meat is viewed as being just as safe as the Zogby International, 94% believe they have a U.S. product, and superior in terms of taste and right to know the country of origin of their food. nutrition. The poll indicated that 90% believe knowing the Will consumers actually pay attention to the country of origin will allow them to make safer country of origin label? A study just released by food choices. Nearly half (48%) said they don’t USDA’s Economic Research Service revealed that know where the majority of their food comes consumer use of nutritional labeling has from. Nearly two-thirds go out of their way to declined over the last 10 years since the labels buy locally produced food. were modified to provide more clear and consis- If consumers want COOL information, does tent information for shoppers. This is especially that translate into a premium price for U.S. origin true for younger shoppers. We will have to wait meats? The answer is maybe. According to a 2004 and see whether the COOL labeling might also article in Choices magazine, several surveys have see similar changes over time. The report states: been conducted to assess U.S. consumers’ willing- “This report examines changes in consumers’ ness to pay a premium price for meat that is use of nutrition labels on food packages between labeled as a U.S. product, compared to unlabeled 1995-96 and 2005-06. The analysis finds that, meat. The results vary widely depending on the although a majority of consumers report using survey. Consumers indicated a willingness to pay nutrition labels when buying food, use has anywhere from 2.5% to 58% extra for meat that declined for most label components, including was from the United States (table 1). The article the Nutrition Facts panel and information about also points out that consumers are only willing to calories, fats, cholesterol, and sodium. By con- pay a premium for U.S. meat if the U.S. product is trast, use of fiber information has increased. The believed to be safer and of higher quality than decline in label use is particularly marked for the the meat from other countries. cohort of adults less than 30 years old.” Table 1. Consumer indication of how much more theyʼd be willing to pay to obtain meat products with a “USA” label, compared to unlabeled meat products Survey Steak Hamburger Colorado, on-site survey, 2002 38% more 58% more Chicago and Denver, on-site survey, 2002 11% more 24% more United States survey via mail, 2003 2.5%-2.9% more (no data) Source: Umberger, Wendy J. Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Country-of-Origin Labeled Meat? Choices, 4th Quarter 2004. Available online at http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-4/cool/2004-4-04.htm page 2 What will be labeled? abbreviation “U.K.” can represent “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” The mandatory country of origin labeling law Symbols or flags alone are not acceptable. requires many, but not all, retailers to ensure that country of origin information is provided A meat product from beef (including veal), for certain beef, lamb, pork and poultry products pork, lamb, chicken or goat must bear a COOL (covered commodities). The word “lamb” refers label or is subject to labeling providing COOL to any meat from sheep, including mutton. The information if: law also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 1. It is sold at retail, AND issue regulations to implement these labeling requirements. While the final rule was released 2. It is a muscle cut, or on January 12, some aspects of the regulation 3. It is a ground product. could still be subject to change. The product is EXEMPT from COOL labeling Packers and processors that supply covered requirements if: commodities to retailers must provide COOL information to the retailers. That information 1. The meat product is sold at a food service can be provided to retailers in a number of establishment (such as restaurants, delis, ways, including providing the labels to the and institutions), OR retailer or labeling the product directly. 2. The meat product has undergone specific The law expressly establishes four general processing resulting in a change of char- categories of meat products. acter (such as cooking, curing, smoking or restructuring), or has been combined with 1. Product of the United States—A covered at least one other covered commodity or commodity is eligible for designation as other substantive food component. The “Product of the U.S.” only if it is derived exemption includes, for example, the fol- “from an animal that is exclusively born, lowing: (a) hot dogs and sausages, (b) raised and slaughtered in the United lunch meat, (c) cooked products, (d) States,” according to the AMS final rule. breaded products, (e) cured products, (f) 2. Multiple countries of origin—A product products in which the meat is an ingredi- is deemed to have multiple countries of ent (e.g., spaghetti sauce, pizza, frozen origin if the animal from which it was dinners), (g) fabricated steak, (h) meat- derived was born and/or raised in a differ- loaf, and (i) marinated pork tenderloin. ent country or countries, and then The labeling requirement states: slaughtered in the U.S. Covered commodi- ties in this category would have to iden- “In determining what is considered reasonable, tify all the relevant countries, including when a raw material from a specific origin is not the country in which slaughter took in a processor's inventory for more than 60 days, place. that country shall no longer be included as a possible country of origin.” 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Country-Of-Origin Labeling for Foods
    Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods Remy Jurenas Specialist in Agricultural Policy July 15, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22955 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods Summary Many retail food stores are now required to inform consumers about the country of origin of fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood, 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. Both the authorization and implementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service have not been without controversy. Much attention has focused on the labeling rules that now apply to meat and meat product imports. A number of leading agricultural and food industry groups continue to oppose COOL as costly and unnecessary. They and some major food and livestock exporters to the United States (e.g., Canada and Mexico) also view the new 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 that many U.S. trading partners have their own, equally restrictive import labeling requirements. Obama Administration officials announced in February 2009 that they would allow the final rule on COOL, published just before the end of the Bush Administration on January 15, 2009, to take effect as planned on March 16, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • 879 Part 134—Country of Origin Marking
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS; Treasury Pt. 134 removal or obliteration of the name, Subpart A—General Provisions mark, or trademark by reason of which 134.1 Definitions. the articles were seized. 134.2 Additional duties. (b) Copyright violations. Articles for- 134.3 Delivery withheld until marked and feited for violation of the copyright redelivery ordered. laws shall be destroyed. 134.4 Penalties for removal, defacement, or (c) Articles bearing a counterfeit trade- alteration of marking. mark. Merchandise forfeited for viola- Subpart B—Articles Subject to Marking tion of the trademark laws shall be de- stroyed, unless it is determined that 134.11 Country of origin marking required. the merchandise is not unsafe or a haz- 134.12 Foreign articles reshipped from a U.S. possession. ard to health and the Commissioner of 134.13 Imported articles repacked or manip- Customs or his designee has the writ- ulated. ten consent of the U.S. trademark 134.14 Articles usually combined. owner, in which case the Commissioner of Customs or his designee may dispose Subpart C—Marking of Containers or of the merchandise, after obliteration Holders of the trademark, where feasible, by: 134.21 Special marking. (1) Delivery to any Federal, State, or 134.22 General rules for marking of con- local government agency that, in the tainers or holders. opinion of the Commissioner or his des- 134.23 Containers or holders designed for or capable of reuse. ignee, has established a need for the 134.24 Containers or holders not designed merchandise; or for or capable of reuse.
    [Show full text]
  • HP Color Laserjet Pro MFP M479 Series Lighten Your Workload, Focus on Your Business Winning in Business Means Working Smarter
    Data sheet HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M479 series Lighten your workload, focus on your business Winning in business means working smarter. The HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M479 is designed to let you focus your time where it’s most effective-growing your business and staying ahead of the competition. HP Color LaserJet Pro M479dw HP Color LaserJet Pro M479fnw Dynamic security enabled printer. Only Built to keep you – and your business – moving forward Scan files directly to Microsoft® SharePoint®, email, USB, and network folders.1 intended to be used with cartridges using an Help save time by automating all the steps in a complicated workflow and apply saved HP original chip. Cartridges using a non-HP settings.2 chip may not work, and those that work today Print wirelessly with or without the network, stay connected with dual band Wi-Fi and 3,4,5 may not work in the future. Learn more at: Wi-Fi direct. Print effortlessly from any device, virtually anywhere, to any HP printer – securely http://www.hp.com/go/learnaboutsupplies through the cloud.6 Highlights HP's best-in-class security – detect and stop attacks7 A suite of embedded security features help protect your MFP from being an entry point 2 sided printing for attacks.7 Dual-band Wi-Fi & wireless Help ensure security of confidential information with optional PIN/Pull printing to retrieve Embedded Security features print jobs.8 HP Roam enabled Optional HP JetAdvantage Security Manager lets you set configuration. Scan to Sharepoint, email, USB and network folders Thwart potential attacks and take immediate action with instant notification of security issues.9 Simply designed to uncomplicate your day Set up this MFP fast, and easily manage device settings to help increase overall printing efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)
    REPORT TO CONGRESS Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) April 2015 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Economist Washington, D.C. Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Modeling Approaches ..................................................................................................................... 3 Equilibrium Displacement Model Approach .............................................................................. 3 Other Approaches ........................................................................................................................ 4 Assumed Regulatory Costs ......................................................................................................... 5 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Estimated Impacts on Consumers ............................................................................................... 8 Estimated Impacts on Producers, Processors, and Retailers ....................................................... 9 Estimated Impacts of the 2009 Rule ........................................................................................ 9 Estimated Impacts of the 2013 Rule ...................................................................................... 12 Conclusions
    [Show full text]
  • Marking of Country of Origin on U.S. Imports
    Marking of Country of Origin on U.S. Imports Informed Compliance Publication Publication No. 1150-0620 Every article of foreign origin entering the United States must be legibly marked with the English name of the country of origin unless an exception from marking is provided for in the law. SPECIAL NOTE: This webpage is strictly about marking of country of origin on U.S. imports and is for general information purposes only. Reliance solely on this general information may not be considered reasonable care. Recognizing that many complicated factors may be involved in origin issues (raw materials are from one country while the product is assembled in another), an importer may wish to obtain a binding ruling from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. For more information please see determining the correct Country of Origin to use under the Customs Regulations, 19 CFR Part 177. Please be aware that in addition to this information, certain products are subject to additional labeling requirements. For example, clothing must have labels indicating fabric content and washing instructions. Other products with special labeling requirements include tobacco (the Surgeon General’s Warning Statement), food and pharmaceuticals, and automobiles. General Information What is the purpose of marking? To inform the ultimate purchaser in the United States of the country in which the imported article was made. Who is the ultimate purchaser? The ultimate purchaser is generally the last person in the United States who will receive the article in the form in which it was imported. If the article will be used in manufacture, the manufacturer or processor in the United States is the ultimate purchaser if the processing of the imported article results in a substantial transformation of the imported article, becomes a good of the United States under the NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR Part 102), or becomes a good of the United States under the textile rules of origin (19 CFR 102.21), as applicable.
    [Show full text]
  • United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (Cool) Requirements
    WT/DS384/AB/RW WT/DS386/AB/RW 18 May 2015 (15-2569) Page: 1/191 Original: English UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CANADA AND MEXICO AB-2014-10 Reports of the Appellate Body Note: The Appellate Body is issuing these Reports in the form of a single document constituting two separate Appellate Body Reports: WT/DS384/AB/RW; and WT/DS386/AB/RW. The cover page, preliminary pages, sections 1 through 5, and the annexes are common to both Reports. The page header throughout the document bears the two document symbols WT/DS384/AB/RW and WT/DS386/AB/RW, with the following exceptions: section 6 on pages CDA-169 to CDA-172, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS384/AB/RW; and section 6 on pages MEX-173 to MEX-176, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS386/AB/RW. WT/DS384/AB/RW • WT/DS386/AB/RW - 2 - Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 11 2 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS ..................... 16 2.1 Claims of error by the United States – Appellant .............................................. 16 2.1.1 Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement ........................................................................... 16 2.1.1.1 The increased recordkeeping burden entailed by the amended COOL measure ............. 17 2.1.1.2 The accuracy of labels prescribed by the amended COOL measure ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Made in Usa Standard
    Complying with the MADE IN USA STANDARD Federal Trade Commission | business.ftc.gov Table of Contents Introduction 1 Basic Information About Made In USA Claims 2 The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims 4 Qualified Claims 9 The FTC and The Customs Service 13 Other Statutes 15 What To Do About Violations 17 For More Information 18 Your Opportunity to Comment 18 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims 19 Endnotes 33 Introduction The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with preventing deception and unfairness in the marketplace. The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading claims that a product is of U.S. origin. Traditionally, the Commission has required that a product advertised as Made in USA be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. After a comprehensive review of Made in USA and other U.S. origin claims in product advertising and labeling, the Commission announced in December 1997 that it would retain the “all or virtually all” standard. The Commission also issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims to provide guidance to marketers who want to make an unqualified Made in USA claim under the “all or virtually all” standard and those who want to make a qualified Made in USA claim. This publication provides additional guidance about how to comply with the “all or virtually all” standard. It also offers some general information about the U.S. Customs Service’s requirement that all products of foreign origin imported into the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements
    GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements September 2019 (Revised) Prepared by the American Herbal Products Association This document was originally published in August 1999 under the title “Labeling of dietary supplements: Saying it right the first time.” It has been updated to reflect interim changes in law, including those from the May 2016 Final Rule revising FDA’s nutrition labeling regulations. This document is the property of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) and is for AHPA purposes only. Unless given prior approval from AHPA, it shall not be reproduced, circulated, or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of AHPA, its Committees, and its members. Cite as: American Herbal Products Association. September 2019. GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements. AHPA: Silver Spring, MD. GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements Disclaimer The information contained herein is not and should not be considered legal advice. This AHPA publication is not a substitute for the actual statutes, regulations, and agency guidance that apply to the products and activities that are discussed herein. The information contained herein is not intended to replace or supersede federal or any state statutes, regulations or guidance. This document is specifically relevant to federal labeling requirements for dietary supplement products. No other issues related to the manufacture, marketing, or sale of food, dietary ingredients, dietary supplements, cosmetics, or any other class of consumer goods are addressed herein. While AHPA believes the information herein is accurate, AHPA advises all individuals and entities using this information to discuss all aspects of their application of this information with an attorney or qualified consultant, or with personnel at relevant regulatory agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Country of Origin Compliance: Challenges for International Supply Chain Managers
    May 2002 Bulletin 02-19 Country of Origin Compliance: Challenges for International Supply Chain Managers If you have questions or would Your company imports components from countries in Asia, North America, and like additional information on Europe, and then combines them with various U.S. components in a facility in the the material covered in this United States to create a finished product. Bulletin, please contact the author: ? What is the country of origin and how must the finished product be Jason P. Matechak marked for purposes of Customs regulations? (Washington) ? Can you mark the finished product “Made in USA?” 202.414.9224 [email protected] ? Can you sell the finished product to both civilian and defense agencies of …or the Reed Smith attorney the U.S. government? with whom you regularly work, There are no easy answers to these questions, and the correct answers may seem or the head of Reed Smith’s Government Contracts/Export inconsistent. For example, the finished product may not need to be marked for Controls Practice Group: Customs purposes because it is not deemed to be a foreign product, while at the same time it could be sold to the U.S. government because it meets the James K. Kearney requirements of the Buy American Act, but could not be labeled “Made in USA” (Washington) because it does not satisfy the relevant Federal Trade Commission rules. 202.414.9228 Alternatively, the finished product might have to be marked with a foreign country [email protected] of origin for Customs purposes, and thus could not be marked “Made in USA,” but may or may not be eligible for sale to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Certification of Origin
    GUIDELINES ON CERTIFICATION OF ORIGIN July 2014 (updated in June 2018) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1. What is certification of origin? .......................................................................................... 4 2. Who are the key players involved? .................................................................................. 5 2.1. Who needs a proof of origin? .................................................................................. 5 2.2. Who issues a proof of origin? ................................................................................... 6 II. PREFERENTIAL ORIGIN 3. When is a proof of origin needed for preferential purposes? ............................................ 6 4. Issuer of proof of origin for preferential ........................................................................... 7 5. Characteristics of different systems for certification of origin .......................................... 7 5.1. Certification of origin involving the competent authority of the exporting country ..... 7 5.2. Self-certification of origin .......................................................................................... 8 5.2.1. Approved exporter system ............................................................................... 9 5.2.2. Registered exporter system ............................................................................. 9 5.2.3. Fully exporter-based system ............................................................................ 9 5.2.4. Importer-based system
    [Show full text]
  • An Argument for WTO Oversight of Ecolabels
    An Argument for WTO Oversight of Ecolabels Hajin Kim* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 422 II. CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 423 A. Ecolabels and the Green Gap .......................................................... 423 B. Opposition to WTO Oversight ....................................................... 426 1. Environmentalists ....................................................................... 426 2. Developing countries ................................................................. 429 III. WTO OVERSIGHT IN THEORY: BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS ................... 431 A. The WTO Generally ............................................................................ 431 B. Legal Scope ............................................................................................ 432 C. TBT Agreement Application in Theory ...................................... 437 1. No discrimination unless justified by legitimate regulatory motivations .............................................................. 437 2. No more trade-restrictive than necessary ........................ 439 3. Minimization of the number of standards and regulations ...................................................................................... 443 4. The use of performance over design requirements ...... 444 5. Transparency ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Country of Origin Effect of Eco-Label
    Economics 2021; 10(3): 79-86 http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/eco doi: 10.11648/j.eco.20211003.12 ISSN: 2376-659X (Print); ISSN: 2376-6603 (Online) On the Country of Origin Effect of Eco-Label Yingjun Xu Research Center for Food Safety and Green Agricultural Development, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao, China Email address: To cite this article: Yingjun Xu. On the Country of Origin Effect of Eco-Label. Economics. Vol. 10, No. 3, 2021, pp. 79-86. doi: 10.11648/j.eco.20211003.12 Received : July 4, 2021; Accepted : July 13, 2021; Published : July 27, 2021 Abstract: With the rapid development of global industrialization and urbanization, the ecological problems is increasingly aggravating. The consumers’ demand for safety and environment friendly food is increasing. Taking organic tomato as an example, we design the choice experiment to acquire 847 consumers’ relevant data from Shandong province, and use the random parameters logit model to investigate the consumers' preferences for organic labels from different countries (or districts). The results show that consumers have the highest willing to pay for EU organic label, the Chinese Hong Kong organic label, the Brazil organic label and the China organic label are behind successively. The influence of the ecological consciousness on the consumer preference is small. In general, consumers’ preference orders for organic labels from different countries (or districts) are the same for all ecological consciousness groups. The willingness to pay of the consumers in the low ecological consciousness group and the middle ecological consciousness group are very close, while the willingness to pay of the consumers in the high ecological consciousness group is slightly higher than that of the consumers in the low and middle ecological consciousness group.
    [Show full text]