The Great Debate

More than eight months after losing a case at the World Trade Organization, the United States has finally begun changing its protectionist regulations for mandatory country-of-origin labels (COOL) on meat. Unfortunately, while the Obama administration claims that it is implementing the WTO’s recommendations, it is actually making the regulations more protectionist.

Congressional intervention now seems the only avenue left to defend consumer interests from the Big Cattle lobby and restore what’s left of America’s reputation in the global trading system.

Here is the back-story: Regulations now require meat from cattle or hogs slaughtered in the United States to carry labels with the country or countries involved in production. If the animal was born and raised in the United States, for example, the meat must be labeled “Product of the United States.” If the animal was born or raised outside the United States and then brought here for slaughter, the meat must carry a label revealing this and listing the countries.

Supporters often argue that labels with such information empower consumers and improve food safety. But their efforts can also be viewed as protectionist.

If consumer demand for origin information were sufficient to justify the cost of those labels, they would not need to be mandated by law. The fact that retailers don’t voluntarily provide this information shows that consumers are not willing to pay a high enough premium to justify the expense. And those costs are significant. Compliance with the current COOL regulations has been estimated to cost the beef industry more than $1.2 billion.

Recently, the Texas commissioner of agriculture reacted with outrage to the fact that employees of the United States Department of Agriculture would dare suggest, in an internal newsletter on “greening” the Washington headquarters, that co-workers might consider practicing “Meatless Mondays” to reduce the environmental impact of their diet. “Last I checked,” blogged Commissioner Todd Staples, “USDA had a very specific duty to promote and champion American agriculture. Imagine Ford or Chevy discouraging the purchase of their pickup trucks. Anyone else see the absurdity? How about the betrayal?”

Staples went on to call the suggestion to forgo meat once in a while ”treasonous.” L’état, c’est boeuf. But there’s a bigger question: Is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s purpose, indeed, simply to promote the consumption of American commodities in the same way Ford tries to sell F-150s? Or is it instead to help agriculture work for the American public at large?

Staples’s response to Meatless Mondays captures a pervasive way of thinking in the world of modern American agriculture. Some of the soft spots in Staples’s argument are immediately obvious. For one thing, agriculture includes fruits, vegetables, grains and dairy, too. “We’re not saying ‘don’t eat,’” counters Bob Martin, a food policy expert at Johns Hopkins and an adviser to the Meatless Mondays campaign. “So we’re not anti-agriculture.”