The Agriculture Department hopes Americans
will pay more for U.S. beef, in an attempt to appease ranchers
upset over increased, cheaper imports.
·
Origin-labeling
push: The Trump administration is considering mandatory
country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef
to give consumers a clear choice between U.S. and imported beef.
·
Background: The initiative
comes as ranchers oppose plans to import more
than 660 million pounds of lean beef trimmings at reduced
tariffs for use in ground beef.
·
Ranchers'
concern: Increased imports could create greater competition
for U.S. cattle and reduce prices received by American ranchers.
·
Administration's
objective: Agriculture Secretary Brooke
Rollins said the labeling
effort aims to protect both the American
rancher and American consumer.
·
Consumer
choice: Under the proposed approach, shoppers could
choose U.S.-origin beef, potentially at a premium, or cheaper
beef containing imported meat.
·
Cattle
industry divided: Large ranchers, retailers, meatpackers and
feedlot operators generally argue that mandatory labeling
would create additional compliance and tracking costs.
·
Small
ranchers' support: Independent and smaller ranchers argue that
modern technology could make origin tracking relatively inexpensive and that labeling could improve the value of their cattle.
·
Executive
order: President Trump recently signed an executive
order directing the Agriculture Secretary and U.S. Trade Representative to review
COOL regulations and conduct an economic analysis within 90 days.
·
Possible
implementation: Officials could issue new regulations if legally
permitted or recommend that Congress pass legislation. Any new
labeling requirements would not take effect before 2027.
·
WTO
obstacle: Mandatory beef labeling
previously triggered a trade dispute with Canada
and Mexico.
·
2015
repeal: The WTO ruled against the earlier U.S. requirements
and authorized Canada and Mexico to impose more
than $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs. Congress
subsequently repealed mandatory beef and pork labeling
in 2015.
·
Legal
challenge: Any new mandatory system would likely need
to address the previous WTO ruling and may
require Congressional action.
·
Alternative
proposal: Secretary Rollins suggested that imported
beef could potentially carry a label stating “Not
product of the U.S.A.”
·
Traceability
challenge: Cattle can pass through multiple stages—from
ranch to auction, backgrounder, feedlot, slaughterhouse and retailer—making origin
tracking and certification more complicated and costly.
·
Industry
positions: The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association supports
mandatory labeling provided it complies with WTO rules,
while Nebraska Cattlemen supports voluntary
rather than mandatory labeling.
·
Questionable
economic benefits: A 2015 Agriculture Department analysis concluded
that the economic benefits of mandatory COOL would not
be sufficient to offset compliance costs, while
evidence that consumers changed purchasing behavior was
limited.
·
High
beef prices: Ground-beef prices have increased 64%
since the 2015 report, or 16%
after adjusting for inflation, according to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
·
Consumer
priorities: Kansas State University research indicates
that country of origin ranks near the bottom of factors
consumers consider when buying meat; taste and freshness rank much higher, alongside
factors such as safety and price.
·
Potential
cost: Economists estimated that the 2008 COOL rules
would have cost the beef and cattle industry more
than $8 billion over a decade, with most costs falling
on retailers.
·
Technology
argument: Supporters say improvements in digital
traceability and tracking technology could
reduce the cost of implementing COOL today.
·
Immediate
rancher problem: New labeling rules
would not address the immediate financial pressure on ranchers. Live
cattle prices have fallen 14% since late June, with
some ranchers attributing the decline partly to imports and uncertainty.
·
Key
issue: The debate pits consumer
transparency and potential support for domestic ranchers against
concerns over higher compliance costs, WTO obligations,
market efficiency and consumer willingness to pay premiums.
[ABS News Service/18.09.2026]
The
Trump administration is hoping mandatory country-of-origin labeling
will help alleviate its beef problem.
Ranchers
are upset over President Trump’s plan to import more than 660 million pounds of
lean beef trimmings, which are mixed with fat trimmings to make ground beef, under
reduced tariffs. Greater competition with foreign beef would lower the price they
receive for their own cattle.
The
administration wants to give shoppers a choice while trying to assuage ranchers:
Seek out all American beef and potentially pay a premium for it, or opt for the
cheaper, imported alternative.
“My
goal and top priority in bringing this labeling back is
No. 1, to protect the American rancher and No. 2, to protect the American consumer,”
Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, said in an interview.
The
new effort faces some resistance, as the cattle industry is split on whether mandatory
labeling would be helpful. Retailers, meatpackers, feedlot
owners and ranchers with large herds argue it imposes too many costs, while independent
ranchers and those with smaller herds say it can be done cheaply and will benefit
their bottom line.
This
month, the president signed an executive order applying a number of new rules to
the beef and cattle industries. The labeling section orders
the agriculture secretary and U.S. trade representative to review regulations and
provide an economic analysis of mandatory country-of-origin labeling
within 90 days. They can then either issue new regulations, if legally allowed,
or make recommendations to Congress about laws they think should be passed on the
issue.
Any
changes to rules on labeling would not take place until
2027 at the earliest. Most fresh fruit, vegetables, fish and some meats sold in
U.S. grocery stores already require a country-of-origin label. Beef and pork do
not, however, because of a convoluted history of legislation and trade disputes.
The
2002 Farm Bill required retailers to put origin labels on fresh beef and a number
of meats, fruits and vegetables. An expansion passed in 2008 added chicken to the
list and modified rules on beef labels. Canada and Mexico complained to the World
Trade Organization, arguing those requirements violated their trade agreements because
it forced them to spend millions of dollars to comply with the rules.
The
W.T.O. agreed and allowed Canada and Mexico to impose over $1 billion in retaliatory
tariffs on the United States. To avoid those tariffs, Congress repealed the labeling rules for beef and pork in 2015 but left them in place
for other products like chicken, fresh fruits and vegetables.
Any
formal re-implementation of mandatory labeling is likely
to have to be passed by Congress and tackle the previous W.T.O. ruling. “If Congress
isn’t willing to act, there are other things we can do,” Ms. Rollins said. For instance,
she suggested, beef from other countries could get a label that said: “Not product
of the U.S.A.”
Cattle
typically passes through a number of hands before getting to supermarkets. It can
go from pasture to auction barn to backgrounder to feedlot to slaughterhouse to
retailer, with each step along the way adding costs to track and certify where the
animal came from.
The
United States Cattlemen’s Association supports mandatory country-of-origin labeling, but only if it can be done in a way that adheres to
W.T.O. rules. “They shouldn’t be able to ride our coattails just because they get
to bring beef in and mix it with ours,” Justin Tupper, the organization’s president,
said about foreign beef producers.
Even
some supporters, however, acknowledge research that shows mandatory labeling would not be a panacea.
In
2015, the Agriculture Department’s chief economist found that the economic benefits
of putting in place country-of-origin labels “would be insufficient to offset the
costs of the requirements.” And there was little evidence that consumers changed
their shopping habits when origin information was provided.
Beef
has also become more expensive. The price of a pound of ground beef is up 64 percent
since the report was written, and 16 percent after adjusting for inflation, according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“We
are all proud Americans, and we want to put a flag on there and have people consume
our product,” said Craig Uden, the president of the Nebraska Cattlemen, which supports
voluntary, but not mandatory, labeling. “But we also know
that people are going to buy what they are going to buy.”
Glynn
Tonsor, a livestock economist at Kansas State University, runs a monthly survey
called the meat demand monitor. Place of origin regularly finishes second to last,
only ahead of environmental impact, in a ranking of attributes respondents consider
important when buying meat. Taste and freshness top the list.
“That
tells me the average Joe, average Jane in the U.S. does not prioritize it as much
as they do taste, freshness, safety, price, nutrition, go down the line,” Mr. Tonsor
said. Mr. Tonsor and other economists also found that the 2008 rules for country-of-origin
labeling would have cost the beef and cattle industry
more than $8 billion over a decade. Most of that cost would have fallen on retailers,
but ranchers would have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to track and
provide origin information to cattle buyers.
Proponents
said that improvements in technology could make tracing beef less costly today,
and rules around what products have to bear the label and how could be modified.
Ms. Rollins said the Make America Healthy Again movement and the emphasis of red
meat in new dietary guidelines were signs that Americans cared about protein and
its origin.
But
any changes will come too late to impact the immediate finances of small ranchers.
Fall is when most cattle are sold — six months after calves are born in the spring
— and live cattle prices have dropped 14 percent since late June. Some ranchers
blame that on increased imports and uncertainty in the cattle industry.
“We
don’t need more policy,” Mr. Uden said. “We need the market to be the market. I
really don’t want the government marketing my product.”