Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) has bubbled to the surface again as a topic for our political leaders to contemplate. As my concern for Artificial Intelligence grows, I thought I would juxtapose my thoughts on COOL versus a chatbot’s response on the same subject. I asked ChatbotGPT by OpenAI, a three-year-old company in which Microsoft recently invested $1 billion, to compose a COOL response, so identified below.

Background: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) recently extended the comment period to June 11 on its proposed rule for a voluntary “Product of USA” labeling claim, which allows the voluntary “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” claim to be used only on FSIS-regulated products that are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States.

My thoughts on COOL:

In my opinion, any form of COOL should be voluntary only, not mandatory. If such products are to be identified as exclusively from the US, they must be completely from the US and not shipped in, processed and labeled as US produced. Mindful of my competition with ChatGPT, I first thought of other products marketed to US consumers that were clearly identified if not touted to be from “foreign” producers. I mean who doesn’t want to sleep between “300 count Egyptian cotton sheets”? Or, feel the velvety softness of “Merino wool sweaters” or enjoy the wafting fragrance of a “Chanel” perfume? All three of these couple such marketing descriptors with a country of origin designation.

Would the same hold true for meat and poultry so identified? Are US consumers clamoring to know where the meat and poultry products they are buying originated and were processed? COOL proponents are saying, “Yes,” quoting surveys they have seen or produced. But counter to that is the World Trade Organization threatening trade retaliation if such COOL regulations implemented by the US government are mandatory.

In his 1985 State of the Union address, President Reagan said, “We must shift our efforts from making more things to making things better and competing in world markets based on quality… No nation has ever improved its standard of living by making things easy for its competitors.”

If there are US meat and poultry companies who want to tout their US produced products’ attributes versus similar “offshore” meat products, more power to them, but as President Reagan has said, “…they must be better to compete effectively.”

There is, however, no need to mandatorily identify US produced and processed meat and poultry with COOL; consumers don’t need it and, heaven forbid, what if they like the foreign stuff better. COOL then becomes the marketing arm for foreign meat and poultry companies. Besides, we need foreign markets for our products free from any form of retaliation.

Here is ChatbotGPT’s response to my query, “Is country of origin labeling necessary for US produced meat and poultry?” — which took 31 seconds for ChatbotGPT to write.

ChatbotGPT response:

“Proponents of COOL argue that it is essential for consumers to know where their food comes from for health, safety, and ethical reasons. It ensures transparency and helps consumers make informed purchasing decisions. Supporters of COOL from a nationalist perspective argue that supporting domestic products is crucial for the survival of domestic industries and securing domestic jobs. On the other hand, opponents of COOL suggest that it increases the cost of production, leading to higher prices for consumers, and puts an administrative burden on producers. Many opponents also argue that COOL is unnecessary as current food safety regulations implemented by the USDA are already robust enough to ensure food safety.

In 2015, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against the US’s COOL regulations, stating that they constituted an unfair trade practice by discriminating against imported meat products. As a result, COOL requirements were removed for beef and pork products to prevent trade retaliation by other nations.

In conclusion, the question of whether COOL is necessary for US-produced meat and poultry products is a matter of perspective. While it may provide consumers with important information and support domestic industries, it may also increase costs and put an administrative burden on producers. Ultimately, it would depend on the priorities of consumers, lawmakers, and industry stakeholders.”

ChatbotGPT’s response is much more erudite than mine. As I said in my last blog, the ChatbotGPT’s ability, as well as AI in general, is foreboding for our future.

COOL: ChatbotGPT vs. Me

Join for free* to continue reading.