MCOOL: No Silver Bullet Nathan Lawson Director, Kentucky Beef Council
Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (mCOOL) has been a hot topic in the beef industry for years. Repealed in December of 2015 (for beef and pork), retailers have not been required to provide country of origin information on beef products since. Over time, my opinion on mandatory country of origin labeling has changed. On the surface the idea and the intention of a government mandate requiring origin labeling seems right, good and transparent. Afterall, we’re proud of the product we produce, we’re confident in the manner in which we produce it and we love our country. However, food labeling laws are complex, prone to loop holes and tend to generate highly emotional, passionate positions that are common when it comes to food choices. As with most mandates and government programs, mCOOL was highly complex, riddled with loopholes and yielded unintended consequences that had a net negative effect on our industry. Even without mCOOL, we find ourselves calling for the USDA to critically evaluate “product of the US” label claims, due to concerns over the integrity of those claims. At the risk of being misunderstood, I’d like to share a few thoughts I’ve had on the issue, if for no other reason than to encourage you to think hard about mCOOL.
to create consumer confidence, the product must be traceable back to the point of origin. Which begs the question; what is that point for beef? Is it the processor, finisher, backgrounder/ stocker, order buyer, or cow/calf producer? What does the consumer think? Ultimately, the most defendable point in the beef life-cycle would be the farm or ranch of birth. We know consumers have a growing desire to know their farmer. In most cases consumers have the cow/calf farmer in mind when they think of beef. If a label claim is to produce added value to the product what matters most is what consumers want. In our work at the Beef Council, we are reminded time and time again by our partners in promotion and advertising, as well as through consumer research, that consumers are eager to know the people behind their beef. Consumers trust farmers. Trust drives confidence. I think the question for us is; are we willing to be forced into traceability for the sake of a government mandated product label claim? In order for any such claim to have integrity US cattle traceability would have to exist industry wide, it would not be successful if that traceability was only imposed on imported cattle or beef. Such actions would only create barriers to successful trade and exports of high value US beef.
For mCOOL to have integrity traceability must exist. That seems simple enough, right? Maybe, but are we ready? Traceability in the cattle business has been tossed around for decades. National animal ID, source and age verification, premise ID, even electronic ear tags are all points in the traceability timeline. In order for a mandatory food labeling law to be effective, having the necessary teeth it needs
The original form of mCOOL reduced competition. Competition drives price. We need not look any further than the current market for land and housing to understand this concept. In today’s market you had better not price it unless you’re willing to part with it. A critical flaw and unintended consequence of mCOOL was the impact it had on trade. Unfair trade is unsustainable. We have the most desirable
beef in the world! Just last month we celebrated our Independence as a nation. It is particularly striking to me that our pursuit of freedom as a nation began in response to unfair trade practices that penalized Americans for purchasing goods from countries other than Great Britain. Think about that. Why would we, as a free nation impose on ourselves legislation that would intentionally hinder our ability to capture the highest possible value for our product, all of our product? I don’t know about you, but it’s been quite some time since my family and I sat down to a tasty dinner of beef tongue. Yet in Japan beef tongue is on the menu! Demand for such beef variety meats is weak in the US, however we are able to capture real value for those cuts in the global market. Annually exports of all beef cuts and variety meats is roughly 14%. We do import some beef as well, about 10% annually (primarily in the form of lean trim that is used for ground beef in foodservice). It’s hard for me to see how we could eliminate all beef imports and not negatively impact our ability to export. Good relationships are built on fair deals. The old saying, “the American Farmer feeds the world”, has never been more-true than today. Global competition for US farm products is high and we need to protect that demand by encouraging competition. Voluntary programs add value, mandatory programs eliminate differentiation. We need not look any further than Kentucky Proud for an excellent example of what a source verified marketing program and label claim can do for our markets. Consider Beef Solutions; voluntary, source verified, KY Proud. Through this program consumers have confidence that a KY Proud branded product is sourced from a Kentucky farm family and producers have the opportunity to identify their product not only as a product of the US, but of the Bluegrass as well. Consider other voluntary programs such as; Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC), CPH45 and the like. Such voluntary marketing approaches leave the decision up to us and provide an opportunity for us to reap any potential reward for our additional work. By contrast, mandatory programs spread any potential rewards out over the whole, eliminating an individual producer’s ability to differentiate themselves and their product. It is undeniable that voluntary programs add value. Mandatory country of origin labeling has become such a “wedge” issue in our industry, dividing an otherwise exceptional industry that produces the highest quality, most sustainable beef in the world. Let’s look for opportunities to capitalize on that quality and sustainability.
14 • Cow Country • August
