Country of Origin Labeling for Meat

About a decade ago, the US Congress passed mandatory country of origin labeling for a variety of food products including beef and pork.  At the time, we did some research on the costs of the law and the demand responses that would be required to offset those costs.  

In the intervening years, the law was implemented, the US was taken to court by Canada and Mexico, and the US labeling law was deemed to be an illegal trade barrier by the World Trade Organization (WTO).  However, rather than dropping the law altogether, lawmakers have doubled down and made them even more onerous and costly in an attempt to comply with the WTO ruling (you can read the current regs here).    ​

There is a key disconnect that is driving much of this debate.  When you ask people on surveys if they want to know the origin of their meat products, almost all say "yes."   But, when you look at the data on whether people read origin labels or whether demand for meat has been affected by the origin laws, a much different story emerges.   ​

Given that backdrop, I found the recent editorial by the president of the National Cattlemans Beef Association interesting (the Kansas Study to which he refers is here, and as you can see, I was a co-author on that publication)​.  Here is an excerpt:

It seems as if the first thing that is said whenever COOL is brought up is, “I am proud of the cattle my family raises,” and that is absolutely correct. I too am very proud of my family’s operation and all the work my wife and I, with our children and grandchildren, do to produce great beef. But a mandatory labeling program run by the federal government is not the way I want to showcase my product and add value. Labeling programs can work - just look at Certified Angus Beef or Safeway’s “Rancher’s Reserve.” These are marketing programs that are run by individuals with a specific interest and that is to promote and sell more beef to put on dinner tables across America. That is why these programs are successful. Additionally there is a tremendous amount of time and effort that goes into marketing these programs to the consumer.. But slapping on a label that says where this product was born, raised and slaughtered does not achieve the same result. In fact, a study by Kansas State University conducted in November of 2012 titled Mandatory County of Origin Labeling: Consumer Demand Impact made some key findings on this subject. The study found that mere country-of-origin information has not impacted consumer demand for beef or other covered products, and in fact, that many consumers are unaware labeling information exists. This is the issue with allowing the federal government to mandate a marketing program - it is not in their wheelhouse. Marketing at its very core relies on the distinction of one product from another. Neither USDA, nor any other government agency, can make that distinction based on origin labeling.

Riskiest Meats

The Center for Science in the Public Interest put out a report today detailing the "riskiest meats."  It is interesting framing.  Why didn't they write the article, reverse the order, and title it the "safest meats?"  Probably because saying sausage and ham is relatively safe isn't as head-line grabbing as saying ground beef and chicken are relatively risky.    ​

In any event, what I want to point out here is that the ​the study authors should really perform the ranking on a per pound of meat eaten (or per dollar spent) basis, as we argued should be done in this piece a month or so back in Food Safety Magazine. 

Chicken is the most widely consumed meat.  Thus, it shouldn't be at all surprising to find that ​it causes the most illnesses.  There's just a lot of it.  Similarly, ground beef is (I believe but could be wrong) the most widely consumed beef product.  What you want to do to judge relative risk is put things on an equivalent basis - like pound-per-pound or dollar-per-dollar.  In a sense, all the CSPI authors have done is ranked meats in terms of their volume of consumption.  

Finally, to put things in perspective, it is important to ask whether meat, overall, is getting safer or riskier.  I don't know about meat specifically, but for food generally, the CDC tracks these numbers.  When you look at major, problematic pathogens like E. Coli, CDC data reveal, that laboratory confirmed cases are down today relative to a decade and a half ago.  The only pathogen to experience a major rise over this time is Vibrio, which represents a small number of cases to begin with.  

Ham

I dare anyone to find a funnier video of an animal protein being featured in song and dance

New Country of Origin Rules

Today the USDA Ag Marketing Service announced new proposed rules for mandatory country of origin labeling.​  According to a couple sources:

Under the proposed rule, origin designations for animals slaughtered in the United States would be required to specify the production steps of birth, raising, and slaughter of the animal. In addition, this proposed rule would eliminate the allowance for any commingling of muscle cut covered commodities of different origins. These changes will provide consumers with more specific information about muscle cut covered commodities.

​Yes, consumers will have more specific information but isn't this going to be very costly?  It is certainly more costly than current mandatory labeling rules.  If consumers want this information and are willing to pay for it, why isn't there some enterprising meat packer already providing it?  

Don't get me wrong, consumers do value origin information.  That's not the issue.  The question is what it costs to provide it and whether there are any market failures that would prohibit origin labels to organically emerge were they to be sufficiently valued.

No Need to Fear the Horse Meat Burger

Today, the Oklahoman (the largest newspaper in the state), ​ran an editorial I wrote on the European horse meat scandal.  I also touched on the consequences of the end of horse slaughter in the US.  Here are a few snippets:

An expanding European horse meat scandal has left many Americans wondering whether the same could happen here. Americans are unlikely to find a horse burger. Before celebrating, it might do some good to learn why.

Because horse slaughter ended in the US in 2007.  The consequences?

Unable to find a home for aged or crippled horses, ranchers faced high prices for euthanasia and disposal. Many horses were abandoned and left to starve. Investigations into horse abuse, for example, increased 60 percent in Colorado following slaughter cessation. Our research suggests that slaughter cessation caused a 36 percent drop in horse prices at a major Oklahoma auction and resulted in losses of $4 million per year in the yearling quarter horse market.

and

Americans are unlikely to find horse meat on their plate because we no longer produce any. It's possible that mislabeled products could be imported, but about 90 percent of the beef eaten by Americans is homegrown. If mislabeled products were found here, the answer wouldn't be, as we've seen, to ban horse slaughter. However much we are culturally predisposed to abhor eating horse, the reality is that it's safe and perfectly tasty. Just ask the French

and:​

. . . if a food retailer lies, there are legal remedies. The mere knowledge of liability, not to mention lost reputation, incentivizes truth telling. More vigilance might have stopped the faux beef sellers in Europe. But no government can prevent us from all harm. Nor should we want it to. Vigilance is costly and our governments are already doing too much.

in conclusion

The lesson from these equine scandals isn't necessarily that the government should have been doing more. Rather, politicians should learn what every good horse intuitively knows: Look before you leap.