U.S. capitulates on meat labelling
The following editorial appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Friday:
The World Trade Organization said Monday the U.S. violates international trade pacts by requiring “country of origin” labels on packages of meat. Although the practice benefits consumers, who deserve to know where their beef and pork come from, it’s likely to end because of pressure from Canada and Mexico.
Two days later, the House Agriculture Committee voted 38-6 to repeal the law that puts such labels on meat. It’s the start of an ironic capitulation in a month when U.S. President Barack Obama said, “No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.”
The president made the statement at Nike headquarters May 6 in a speech about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The WTO decision is not related to that proposed agreement but was in response to longstanding complaints from Mexico and Canada that the U.S. labelling requirements unfairly hurt their sales. American meat processors despise the rules, too, saying they require segregation of imported animals and onerous record-keeping.
Increasingly health-conscious consumers, however, rightly look to labels for assurance of quality, and they trust products made, grown and raised in the U.S.
Two years ago, a Consumer Reports study showed 78 per cent of Americans prefer to buy U.S. products, and 60 per cent prefer to do so even if they cost more. Labels become more important when it comes to produce and meat, which, has the potential to kill you if carrying E. coli or mad cow disease.
Emboldened by the WTO ruling, Mexico and Canada vow to retaliate economically if the U.S. doesn’t change its label policy. Ontario says it will impose punitive tariffs on 38 products including wine, orange juice and cereal. This summons a platitude: with friends like this, who needs enemies? Cooler heads would find compromise, but with American meat processors also clamouring for change, new labels are likely coming, even though consumers are right to have a beef with that.