Removal of COOL not cool at all, By Vera Hall

VERA NALL: Removal of COOL not cool at all

The U. S. House of Representatives recently voted to repeal Country of Origin Labeling. If the Senate also passes a repeal, the law that requires all beef and pork products sold in retail stores to be labeled to show where the animal was born, raised and harvested will be removed.

Posted Aug. 3, 2015 at 10:29 PM

The U. S. House of Representatives recently voted to repeal Country of Origin Labeling. If the Senate also passes a repeal, the law that requires all beef and pork products sold in retail stores to be labeled to show where the animal was born, raised and harvested will be removed.

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) gives consumers a chance to return to the shelf any beef imported from countries they believe may export unsafe meat. With records of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as “mad cow disease,” in Brazil as late as 2014, consumers have reason to be thankful for COOL.

Missouri state Rep. Bill Reiboldt has said he fears this will have an economic impact on U.S. industries and supports repeal. In his July 14 Capitol Report, he stated, “In the time period that COOL has been in effect, farmers and ranchers have seen no significant benefit from it. … Perhaps more importantly, studies show that consumers really don’t factor in the country of origin when purchasing meat products.”

This statement contradicts the non-profit advocacy group Consumer Federation of America, which did a poll that showed 90 percent of Americans believe they have a right to know the country of origin of fresh meat they purchase.

The National Farmers Union, which generally represents smaller farmers and ranchers, supports COOL. “My local producers are proud of the products they produce,” the spokesman said. “They want to be able to tell the consumer that this product is from the U.S.”

The organization commissioned a study, which found that COOL had not had a significant negative effect on the price paid for imported slaughter cattle, feeder cattle or cattle for immediate slaughter.

Despite this finding, Canada and Mexico complained to the World trade Organization (WTO), an international organization of unelected officials who have been characterized as having the goal to increase private profits at the cost of all other considerations. They sided with the complainants’ claims that labeling discriminated against livestock from those nations and threatened to impose tariffs if the labeling law isn’t repealed.

Similarly, Japan threatened to file a complaint with the WTO against Taiwan and filed one against South Korea for requiring place of origin labels on food coming from radiation-infested regions of Japan following the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster (Source: NaturalNews).

Fortunately, COOL on seafood protects the United States. This allows shoppers to avoid potentially contaminated fish from Japan or manure-fed fish from China, where farmers sometimes eliminate the cost of commercial food by feeding waste from poultry and livestock to their fish (FDA, July 2009).

WTO, which the London Times has said stands for “World Take Over,” is pressuring lawmakers to repeal COOL. If they are as successful in lobbying the Senate as they were with the House, the health and safety of the American people will be sacrificed on the altar of agribusiness profits.

The House voted 300 to 131 to repeal the law. The Senate has heard the bill in committee and is expected to vote on the measure soon.

Let’s hope that loyalty to the American people they represent is stronger than the pressure from those who would profit from the repeal of the safeguard of Country of Origin Labeling.

Vera Nall writes a column for the Daily News.