Missouri Cattlemen oppose mandatory country of origin labeling regulations

The Special Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs convened on March 31, 2025, to discuss critical issues surrounding country of origin labeling (COOL) for agricultural products, particularly beef. The meeting featured testimony from representatives of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association, who expressed strong opposition to mandatory COOL regulations, citing historical failures and economic burdens associated with previous implementations.

The discussion began with a historical overview of COOL, which was introduced in the 2002 Farm Bill. It was noted that a subsequent economic analysis conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found no significant benefits for producers and estimated that the program cost the industry approximately $8 billion. This analysis led to a bipartisan effort in Congress to repeal the mandatory labeling, culminating in a repeal signed into law by President Obama.

The representatives emphasized their preference for voluntary, producer-led programs over government mandates, arguing that such programs have proven more effective and beneficial for producers. They highlighted the importance of consumer choice and transparency, asserting that voluntary labeling initiatives, such as Certified Angus Beef, provide clear and recognizable branding that consumers trust.

Committee members raised concerns about the implications of voluntary labeling, questioning whether it adequately protects consumers and ensures product integrity. Some members expressed a desire for clearer labeling standards to prevent consumer confusion, particularly regarding the origins of meat products.

The representatives from the Missouri Cattlemen's Association reiterated their stance against mandatory COOL, arguing that it would not address the underlying issues of traceability and transparency in the beef supply chain. They maintained that the industry should focus on improving voluntary programs rather than reverting to government mandates.

As the meeting concluded, the committee members acknowledged the complexity of the issue and the need for further discussions on how to balance producer interests with consumer demands for transparency in food labeling. The committee plans to continue exploring these topics in future sessions, aiming to find a solution that satisfies both producers and consumers alike.