rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Canada protests while U.S. consumer groups celebrate revised meat labelling policy

Image: Andrew Filer/Flickr

The United States government has revised its Country of Origin Labelling program, or COOL, ostensibly to bring it in line with a World Trade Organization decision in 2011 (upheld at the appeal stage in 2012) that the meat labelling rules were too onerous and violated the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). U.S. consumer groups immediately celebrated the government's "sensible steps to strengthen COOL requirements for meat," but the Canadian government just as quickly denounced them as even more discriminatory against Canadian meat than before the WTO decision.

According to the U.S. government, under the COOL program, "retailers must provide their customers with information about the origin of various food products, including fruits, vegetables, fish and shellfish and meats." The USDA says this mandatory requirement is to "help consumers make informed purchasing decisions about the food they buy."

Makes sense to me. I've always wondered where all that fish comes from in the grocery story, the stuff just sitting there on the ice for god knows how long. Alas, there are no labels in Canada.

But a policy victory for U.S. consumers was portrayed as an attack on non-U.S. meat producers by the Canadian and Mexican governments in their joint WTO cases against COOL. Canada argued that COOL involved a "lengthy labelling and tracking system with an unnecessary paperwork burden and additional red tape." The government suggested a voluntary labelling scheme, or that COOL be changed so it reflected "standards suggested by the Codex Alimentarius, which is an international food standards body at which numerous international food companies play a central role," according to Public Citizen.

The WTO agreed with Canada and Mexico that COOL was not cool. This is kind of funny, since we are told again and again by free traders that the consumer is the most important actor in international trade. They are supposed to get the best product for the best price and to have the best possible information to make their consumer decisions -- producers be damned! (At least that's what they say about milk farmers.) Here is a clear case of consumer be damned, though the impact on Canadian meat producers was significant, according to industry and government.

"When the United States implemented COOL in 2008, the impact on the Canadian livestock industry was immediately negative," says a Canadian government press release last summer. "Between 2008 and 2009, exports to the United States of Canadian feeder cattle declined 49 percent and exports of slaughter hogs declined 58 percent. COOL led to the disintegration of the North American supply chain, created unpredictability in the market and imposed additional costs on producers on both sides of the border."

The revised COOL regulations, announced March 8 by the USDA, "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."

Food and Water Watch issued the following statement about the revision to COOL:

"The proposed changes eliminate the vague and misleading 'mixed origin' country of origin label for meat and ensures that each cut of meat clearly displays each stage of production (where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered) on the label. This commonsense approach improves the usefulness of the information consumers receive from the label and allows livestock producers to distinguish their products in the marketplace.

"Improving the integrity of country of origin labels and providing clear, straightforward information also addresses concerns brought in a World Trade Organization challenge to the current rules. We urge the USDA to finalize this proposed rule."

We don't buy mystery vegetables. I'm not sure why North Americans should accept mystery meat either.

Image: Andrew Filer/Flickr

Thank you for reading this story...

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.

If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.

We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.

Make a donation.Become a monthly supporter.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.