Depending on your age, when you read the title of this blog you may have started singing the Bruce Springsteen song in your head. Being a Gen Xer, I can attest that Bruce Springsteen was one of the “coolest” singers of our time…even releasing a memoir called “Cool Rockin’ Daddy.” Fast forward 30 years and now the terms “Born in the USA’ and COOL are together again, but this time, it is related to the meat industry.

“Product of the USA” is a term that is often printed on the label/box of a meat item, but the definition of what that term means has been in question. FSIS is responsible for accurate labeling, but this term isn’t as clear cut as it appears to be. Currently, any product that is processed in the USA can be labelled as “Product of the USA." For example, beef trimmings imported from another country that are ground and packaged in a facility in the USA can be labeled as “Product of the USA." The USDA recently conducted a nationwide study and determined that consumers expect that the label means that the product was “born, raised and processed” in the USA. Therefore, the label can be misleading. As a result of this, USDA released a Proposed Rule on March 6 to ensure that the voluntary terms “Product of the USA” or “Made in the USA” are in line with consumer expectations meaning that these terms can only be used on meat, poultry and egg products that were “born, raised, slaughtered and processed” in the USA.

The proposed rule seems logical, accurate and the most transparent path forward for consumer trust. Looking from the outside, a question that is always asked is, “Why don’t they just do….x,y,x?" I assure you that everyone has a very simple answer, but government decisions are always more complex than they appear to be and there are always consequences. Working in a government agency and making decisions are not as simple as it seems from the outside. This debate has been ongoing for years most recently going back to Country of Origin (COOL) labelling that was originally mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill and enacted in 2008 just to be repealed in 2015. The quick repeal came as a result of rulings from the World Trade Organization (WTO) when they sided with Canada in alleging that COOL “worked to the detriment of the meat industry on both sides of the border by increasing costs, lowering processing efficiency and otherwise distorting trade across the Canada-U.S. border.” Mexico aligned with Canada in the claims. As a result, the WTO determined that COOL labeling cost Mexico and Canada $1.1 billion and if the labelling continues, they are allowed to impose this retaliatory tariff on the US industry. Clearly, this could be costly to the US meat and poultry industry.

Canadian Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau and International Trade Minister Mary Ng, as well as Mexico’s Ag Minister, have already publicly opposed the new proposed rule so we will be facing another battle over this label. This could cause disruptions in livestock and meat trade across the border. I am firmly in support of accurate labeling to ensure that the consumer is informed about a product. However, the outcome of this proposed rule and label could be costly. There are always consequences to any new rule or policy. The immediate and long-term impact to the US livestock industry have yet to be determined. Any financial benefit to the labeling may be negated by tariffs.

This is something that has to be navigated very carefully. It will involve USDA, Congress and will be elevated again to WTO, costing time and money. We must carefully consider the risks and benefits and remember that it isn’t always as simple as it appears to be.

Born in the USA

Join for free* to continue reading.