COOL Is Not Cool With WTO

By Laurel Maloy, contributing writer, Food Online

The World Trade Organization’s compliance panel has put a crimp in Country-of-Origin Labeling, setting up a no-win for our nation’s trade policies and the American consumer.

According to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch’s director, Lori Wallach, the Obama administration should appeal this latest World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling. As a nation, we are “damned if we do, damned if we don’t.” Weakening country-of-origin labeling (COOL) would deprive consumers of the basic right to know exactly where their meat comes from. Conversely, strengthening COOL would result in Canada and Mexico, the two countries challenging the policy, to continue the case. Additionally, the already stalled Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) will be further complicated, possibly stalling indefinitely their Fast Track status. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends upon who you are talking to. This action will further politicize food safety with big businesses on one side and the American consumer on the other.

Public Citizen held a press briefing regarding the decision. Featured speakers included Wallach, Patrick Woodall, research director, Food & Water Watch, Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, Elizabeth Drake, partner with Stewart & Stewart, and a representative of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association.

Canada and Mexico filed a challenge to COOL in 2008, though the challenge did not prevent the rule from officially taking effect on March 16, 2009. The biggest sticking point with Canada and Mexico is the mandatory requirement for COOL labeling. Both countries prefer it be a voluntary program. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is responsible for administration and enforcement.

Though the focus has been on COOL for meat products, namely muscle cut and ground meats of beef, chicken, goat, lamb, pork, and veal, the following are also considered covered commodities under COOL:

• Wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish
• Peanuts, pecans, and macadamia nuts
• Fruits and vegetables, fresh and frozen
• Ginseng

This latest hit by WTO has American’s questioning the ability of the organization to dictate trade policy to our government. Wallach’s comment clearly lambasts the decision and calls it a threat to our most basic rights, “knowing the source and safety of what’s on our dinner plate.”

This long and drawn out fight has resulted in a number of efforts to comply with the WTOs wishes, albeit unsuccessfully. A 2012 WTO ruling declared the law “not acceptable,” and the changes made in May, 2013 have also now been turned down by the WTO compliance panel. WTO has a history of striking down popular U.S. consumer policies. Rulings made in April and May of 2012, regarding voluntary “dolphin-safe” labeling and a ban on candy-, chocolate-, and clove-flavored cigarettes, respectively, have required the U.S. to make policy changes. These policy changes are again being challenged by WTO panels such as the one that issued this latest ruling.

The future of COOL is uncertain. What is certain is that WTO has once again stalled regulatory requirements supported by 92 percent of the American public. There are few issues, and even fewer politicians, that have that type of overwhelming support.