The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002 (commonly referred to as the 2002 Farm Bill) was signed into law by President Bush on May 13, 2002.  Title X of the FSRIA amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require that certain "covered commodities" be labeled with the country of origin at the retail outlet. Covered commodities included beef (including veal), pork, and lamb (excluding mutton) muscle cuts; and ground beef, pork, lamb. Also included were farm-raised and wild fish, peanuts, and fresh fruits and vegetables. Poultry meat was not included.

The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) was charged with developing regulations for a voluntary COOL system by September 30,2002 and a mandatory COOL (sometimes referred to as MCOOL) system by September 30, 2004. The voluntary guidelines are available on the AMS web site.

On January 23, 2004, President Bush signed PL108-49 which delays COOL, except for fish, until September 2006. Mandatory COOL for fish became effective on September 30, 2004; however, enforcement was delayed until April 4, 2005 to allow rules to be implemented.

COOL legislation exempted covered commodities from labeling when they are ingredients in a processed food product. For example, ground beef in a canned spaghetti and meatball product would presumably be exempt. The legislation also exempted all food service establishments from retailers who must label meat products.

The legislation stated that the Secretary of Agriculture may require that any person that prepares, stores, handles, or distributes a covered commodity for retail sale maintain a verifiable record keeping audit trail that will permit the Secretary to verify compliance. However, the legislation also said that the Secretary shall not use a mandatory identification system to verify the country of origin of a covered commodity.

COOL was intensely debated by livestock and meat industry groups and Congress before it was enacted and the fierce debate has continued. There are many arguments both for and against COOL. Proponents argue that COOL would allow the U.S. meat industry the opportunity to create a differentiated product (born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S.). They believe that consumers want to know what country, or groups of countries, that meat comes from; and that consumers may be willing to pay more for U.S. meat.

Opponents of COOL claim that the program would significantly increase costs of producing meat in an industry where profit margins are already slim. They argue that most imported meat is sold in processed food products and/or in food service establishments which are exempt from COOL requirements. Some opponents favor a volunteer rather than a mandatory COOL law.

Tim Petry
NDSU Extension Livestock Economist
8/8/03