Country-of-Origin Labeling

Rollins Promotes Product of USA Label, Announces Support of MCOOL

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:12:47 GMT

USDA is launching a national public awareness campaign to inform meat, poultry and egg producers of the “ Product of USA ” voluntary labeling standard, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2026, and increases consumer understanding of what the label means.

In a press release , Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins says, “Our great patriot ranchers and producers grow, raise, and harvest the world’s safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply. American consumers want to support America by buying American and this label will strengthen our food supply chain through transparency, fairness, and trust. This new standard policy ensures producers who invest in a fully American supply chain can compete fairly, and it gives consumers the confidence they deserve about the food they bring home.”

The “Product of USA” label is reserved exclusively for meat, poultry and egg products from animals that were born, raised, harvested and processed in the U.S. The claim is voluntary, but companies using it must meet this transparent and verifiable requirement. This ends the prior practice that allowed imported products to carry the claim after minimal processing and strengthens consumer confidence by aligning with what Americans expect and demand.

Friday’s announcement on enforcement and promotion of the strengthened “Product of USA” label is a key deliverable under this initiative, advancing the Trump administration’s priorities of fairness, competition and consumer trust.

Rollins: “Big Supporter” of MCOOL

Rollins says she is a “big supporter” of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (MCOOL) for U.S. meat products.

According to Agri-Pulse’s April 1 Daybreak , Rollins shared her support with reporters prior to a grazing roundtable discussing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to modernize federal grazing management on Tuesday.

Verifying her comments were intended for MCOOL and not in reference to the voluntary labeling rule, a USDA spokesperson says, “Yes, we can confirm the Secretary’s comments yesterday in support of MCOOL.”

Rollins says she considers the issue one of consumer transparency rather than market intervention.

“It’s just a transparency question,” she explains.

According to the USDA website , COOL is a consumer labeling law that requires retailers (most grocery stores and supermarkets) to identify the country of origin on certain foods referred to as “covered commodities.” The 2002 and 2008 farm bills and the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of muscle cuts and ground lamb, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng and macadamia nuts.

While in place for some products, MCOOL for beef and pork was repealed in 2015 following World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes. Efforts like the American Beef Labeling Act are actively trying to bring it back.

FSIS Releases Updated Guidelines for Verification of U.S.-Origin Label Claims

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:40:11 GMT

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued a directive for inspection program personnel (IPP) Dec. 10 that provides instructions for label verification of voluntary U.S.-origin claims.

As of Jan. 1, 2026, establishments that use a U.S.-origin claim on FSIS-regulated products will need to maintain and provide the agency access to documentation that demonstrates how the product meets the regulatory criteria for use of the claim.

FSIS published the final rule, “Voluntary Labeling of FSIS-Regulated Products with U.S.-Origin Claims,” in March 2024, amending the regulations to define the conditions under which the labeling of meat and poultry products may bear voluntary label claims indicating that the product is of U.S. origin.

The final rule also clarified requirements for voluntary state-origin claims. FSIS said it will initially focus verification efforts on “Product of USA” and “Made in the USA” claims beginning in January. FSIS may issue further instructions for state-origin claims in a future revision of the directive.

In addition to the directive, FSIS provided an updated guideline for label approval designed to prevent the introduction of adulterated or misbranded products into commerce. Labeling and Program Delivery Staff (LPDS) will implement a prior label approval system for labels intended to be used on federally inspected meat, poultry and egg products, including imported products. Without approved labels, meat, poultry and egg products may not be sold, offered for sale, or otherwise distributed in commerce.

Changes from the Previous Version

This guideline, dated December 2025, replaces the previous version dated March 2024. FSIS says it will update this guideline as necessary when new information becomes available.

This version incorporates the following changes:

Adds clarification to the section “Geographic Claims on Labels.”
Adds information and examples to the section “‘Product of USA,’ ‘Made in the USA’ and Other Voluntary U.S.-Origin Claims” that provides clarification on the requirements for the voluntary U.S.-origin label claims, “Product of USA” and “Made in the USA.”
Adds information and examples to the section “Factual Claims Other than ‘Product of USA’ and ‘Made in the USA.’”
Adds an example to the section “Required Documentation to Support U.S.-Origin Claims.”
Updates Appendix 9 to provide clarification about the impact of the final rule “Voluntary Labeling of FSIS-Regulated Products with U.S.-Origin Claims” on different types of state endorsement program logos.

The guidelines also confirmed that the meaning of “raised” is from birth to slaughter, and the term “harvested” may be used to mean slaughtered. In addition, FSIS says the U.S. origin requirements do not apply to sub-ingredients.

Upcoming Webinars on the Voluntary “Product of USA” Labeling Claim

To assist industry and state partners in understanding the new requirements, FSIS plans to host two informational webinars: one for industry stakeholders and the other for state government officials.

Visit the Voluntary “Product of USA” Labeling Claim Webinars 2025 event page on the FSIS website for event details. FSIS encourages all interested establishments, state inspection program officials, and trade associations to attend the appropriate session.

Industry stakeholder webinar: Dec. 15, 1-2 p.m. ET
State government official webinar: Dec. 16, 1-2 p.m. ET

The webinars will cover updated guidance and offer an opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions. An updated guidance document will be available in the Federal Register and additional background information on the webinars will be posted to the FSIS events page next week. These materials will provide additional clarity on eligibility, documentation and compliance expectations for establishments choosing to use the revised claim.

Two-Thirds of Consumers Deem Transparency Very to Extremely Important, Survey Finds

Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:06:24 GMT

Two-thirds of consumers say transparency in animal protein is extremely or very important, says Merck Animal Health, as part of the company’s results in its first consumer transparency research study.

The study focused on gauging consumers’ growing interest in transparency in animal protein and its importance in their purchasing decision and brand trust. Specifically, the study explored the consumers’ perception of industry transparency when to comes to animal welfare and sustainability and the crossover between transparency, traceability and their willingness to pay for transparency label claims.

Surveyed consumers were given the following definitions:
Transparency: knowing how food is grown, raised and made
Traceability: know where foods come from, or more specifically, being able to follow the movement of food products and ingredients through the supply chain

Study Results

Capturing the opinions of over 1,000 consumers who represent the U.S. shopper, highlights of the study’s results include:
• 66% reported transparency in animal proteins (meat, fish, eggs and dairy) as extremely or very important; reasons were considered personal, such as health and nutrition
• 86% of consumers who reported transparency as important also rank traceability as extremely or very important; 40% of those consumers also want to know where the livestock comes from
• Over 50% reported they were willing to pay a 5% premium for transparent labeling
• 55% reported environmental sustainability as very to extremely important
• 66% reported animal care and treatment very to extremely important

“The survey results tell us consumers want more information than ever in order to make informed decisions about the food they put on their dinner tables,” says Allison Flinn, DVM, executive director of value chain and consumer affairs at Merck Animal Health.

Merck Animal Health describes the company’s DNA TRACEBACK platform as one example of an animal protein traceability solution to accurately trace meat and seafood from farm to table that helps build trust in food labels. Utilizing “nature’s bar code”—DNA—this technology assigns a unique barcode number at slaughter to each animal that can be traced through the supply chain from the farm gate, to the processing plant and to the restaurant plate.

Sustainability, nutrition, food safety and animal welfare are all topics consumers want to know more about, and greater transparency builds trust, Flinn adds. This research also provides insights into how farmers, ranchers, food brands and allied industry partners, like Merck Animal Health, can collaborate to meet their expectations.

Appeals Court Dismisses “Product of the U.S.A.” Labeling Lawsuit

Tue, 15 Mar 2022 13:34:27 GMT

A federal appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by cattle ranchers over the alleged mislabeling of beef as a “Product of the U.S.A.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th District in Denver ruled 2-1 on Friday to dismiss the class-action lawsuit filed in January 2020 by New Mexico ranchers Robin Thornton and Michael Lucero.

The original lawsuit named Tyson Foods, Cargill Meat Solutions, JBS USA and National Beef Packing Co., with plaintiffs claiming the companies mislead consumers by labeling beef as “Product of the U.S.A.” when the cattle may have been born and raised in another country.

At issue are USDA rules that allow the “Product of the U.S.A.” label to be used when the meat is further processed by U.S. companies. The lawsuit had been dismissed last year, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the lower court by ruling that the plaintiff’s arguments was preempted by federal law.

“Allowing plaintiffs to impose (a different label standard) would impose a requirement different from what USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has already approved as consistent with the Federal Meat Inspection Act,” U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Moritz said in the 21-page opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Senior U.S. Circuit Court Judge Carlos Lucero, said the label is misleading when it is used on products from animals raised outside the U.S. Lucero also said he believes the labels violate USDA’s regulation that bar meat from giving “any false indication of origin.”

Vilsack Says He’s Open To COOL

Tue, 02 Feb 2021 20:16:19 GMT

During Senate confirmation hearings on Tuesday, Tom Vilsack, the former Ag Secretary who is President Biden’s nominee to return as Ag Secretary, said he is willing to consider reimplementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations for meat products.

Addressing a question from Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer about whether he beliees the current labeling policy adequately informed consumers, Vilsack said, “If it’s the same policy as it was four years ago when I left, the answer is no.”

As Ag Secretary under President Obama, Vilsack said, “We made every concerted effort to try to create better transparency and better information for consumers, because we understand that consumers want to know where their food comes from.”

Vilsack said the Obama Administration attempted on three occasions to strengthen COOL but was unsuccessful because of Canadian challenges to the law through the World Trade Organization (WTO). In December 2015, Congress repealed the COOL law for beef and pork because of a series of WTO rulings that prohibited labels based on country of origin on some products.

The Canadian government argued that COOL worked to the detriment of the meat industry on both sides of the border by increasing costs, lowering processing efficiency and otherwise distorting trade across the Canada-U.S. border. Mexico made similar claims.

In May 2015 the WTO ruled that U.S. COOL requirements discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock, and subsequently authorized Canada and Mexico to impose $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs against U.S. imports.

“I am absolutely willing to listen to anybody who has an idea” about how the U.S. can implement COOL where the WTO doesn’t “slap it down,”Vilsack said.

South Dakota Senator John Thune asked Vilsack about volatility in the cattle markets and “what actions (Vilsack) would take to strengthen the integrity of the cattle market.”

Vilsack responded he would use every “capacity we have with USDA to make sure that we have open, fair and transparent markets.” He said he would seek price discovery data and economic analysis to “determine whether or not there’s a problem,” and if so, “using the tools we have to provide greater competition, greater openness, greater transparency, greater fairness.”

Vilsack also expressed interest in expanding processing opportunities “so that we’re not overly reliant on a small number of processors.” He also said he would work with the Department of Justice to “determine whether or not they see reasons for additional action on their behalf.”

COOL Finds New Hope in Freshmen Democrats

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:49:43 GMT

Country-of-origin labeling (COOL) has new life in Washington, D.C. That’s because 27 freshmen House Democrats sent a June 25 letter to Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer , and are urging the resurrection of COOL requirements as part of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Those 27 House members say a vote on USMCA should not occur until the White House also includes strong enforcement provisions on labor and environment in the trade agreement.

Despite the newfound COOL support, analysts are calling the COOL resurrection a “long-shot.”

COOL was in effect from 2009 to 2015, requiring that beef and pork product labels cite where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered. Canada and Mexico challenged the law with the World Trade Organization, which ruled against the U.S. COOL regulations. Threatened with a combined $1.1 billion in annual retaliatory duties, the U.S. Congress repealed COOL in December 2015.

The letter from the Congress members stated: “Mexico and Canada already have used trade rules to undermine the food labeling that America’s farmers and ranchers support and the transparency that consumers demand. A final NAFTA package must restore the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) passed by Congress and affirmed by U.S. courts.”

Austin Laufersweiler, spokesman for Rep. Andy Levin, one of the letter’s organizers, said the labeling provision was included “because it benefits workers, who are at the heart of the protections the freshmen are trying to have included.”

Among American groups pushing for reinstatement of COOL regulations are the National Farmers Union (NFU), Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF), and the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA). Groups opposing COOL are the North American Meat Institute (NAMI), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).

In a letter to Congressional leaders signed by 39 of its state affiliates, NCBA president President Jennifer Houston urged quick passage of USMCA, and also encouraged Congress to oppose renewed efforts to implement COOL.

“MCOOL was U.S. law for six years until it was repealed by Congress in 2015 to avoid $1 billion of retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico that were sanctioned by the World Trade Organization (WTO),” the letter says. “The truth is MCOOL cost the U.S. beef industry hundreds of millions of dollars to implement, and the vast majority of consumers never paid attention to it. Our industry has suffered enough with this bad idea and we do not need to relive the sins of the past.”

Mexico has already approved USMCA, and it’s not immediately clear what impact the reintroduction of COOL would have on that approval. But Canadians have already voiced their opposition.

“While Canada respects that shoppers should be able to make informed decisions about the food they buy, mandatory COOL measures would place an undue burden on Canadian and American livestock supply chains, hurting producers on both sides of the border,” a spokesperson for the Canadian embassy in Washington wrote in an email to CQ Roll Call, a Washington D.C. news outlet that covers Congress.

Canada and Mexico objected to COOL because of the added cost burden it places on packers and retailers, and they claim U.S. buyers of cattle and hogs offered lower prices to Canadian or Mexican suppliers, or simply switched to U.S. suppliers.

In an April 2015 report, “Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL),” USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist supported the idea such labeling laws remain costly and ineffective.

“The economic benefits of implementing the COOL regulations would be insufficient to offset the costs of the requirements whether analyzing the impacts through economic models of beef, pork, and poultry industries or of the U.S. economy as a whole,” the report said.

Regarding consumer interest, the report said, “USDA’s regulatory impact analyses concluded that while there is evidence of consumer interest in COOL information, measurable economic benefits from mandatory COOL would be small. USDA’s regulatory impact analyses also found little evidence that consumers would be likely to increase their purchases of food items bearing U.S.-origin labels.”

In terms of producers, packers and retailers, the report said “USDA’s regulatory impact analysis for the 2009 COOL rule estimated incremental implementation costs of $1.3 billion for beef, $300 million for pork, $183 million for chicken, and $2.6 billion for all covered commodities (beef, pork, chicken, lamb, goat, fish, fruits, vegetables, ginseng, peanuts, pecans, and macadamia nuts).”

Related stories:

Will Trump Reinstate COOL Regs?

Is COOL on the Front Burner Again?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:47:40 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump has said reshaping America’s trade policies will be one of the top priorities for his administration. A memo drafted by his transition team obtained by CNN appears to lay out the skeleton of Trump’s trade policy for the first 200 days of his presidency, including the withdrawal from the North American Free Trade Agreement, and possibly reinstating country-of-origin labeling (COOL).

First implemented in 2009 and then repealed last year, the COOL program required that retail outlets label food according to its origin. Canada and Mexico challenged that rule as an unfair trade restriction to the World Trade Organization, which ruled in their favor.

Under WTO rules, the U.S. could have faced retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico had the COOL regulations not been repealed. However, Trump’s trade policies may not adhere to past agreements.

The document obtained by CNN says, “The Trump trade plan breaks with the globalist wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties. The Trump administration will reverse decades of conciliatory trade policy. New trade agreements will be negotiated that provide for the interests of US workers and companies first.”

Support for reinstating COOL was voiced this week from Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., in a conference call. Thune, re-elected to his third term, told reporters he would like to see COOL brought back, especially in light of struggling U.S. cattle markets.

Renewed COOL discussions in the U.S. has alarmed Canadian cattlemen. They say they will urge their lawmakers in Ottawa to retaliate against the U.S. if the Trump administration imposes COOL, regulations they see as discriminatory.

Last year the WTO authorized Canada to retaliate against the U.S. over COOL, setting the annual level at $1.06 billion.

Should the Trump administration move forward with implementing COOL, it could pit farm-state lawmakers against one another. For instance, one of the champions for repealing COOL last year was Senator Pat Roberts, R-Kan., Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. In a news release last year, Roberts’ office claimed he has opposed mandatory COOL from its inception.

Appeals Court Upholds Labels on Meat Packages

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:40:09 GMT

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld new government rules requiring labels on packaged steaks, ribs and other cuts of meat to say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered.

The meat industry has attempted to block the rules, which went into effect last year, saying they are costly and provide no health benefits to the consumer. The industry said in court that the rules go beyond what Congress intended and violate First Amendment rights to freedom of speech by forcing meat producers to provide information about their products without “directly advancing a government interest.”

The full appellate panel heard the case after a three-judge appeals panel ruled against the industry but suggested that the full court may want to review its decision. The first panel had ruled that the industry’s claims were unlikely to succeed in court and said a consumer’s interest in choosing domestic meat is worthy of what the court called a “minimal” intrusion on the meat industry’s First Amendment rights.

In the opinion issued Tuesday, Judge Stephen F. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who was also on the three-judge panel, upheld the earlier decision and wrote for the majority of the full panel. He wrote that the government’s interest in country-of-origin labels is “substantial” because there is a long history of such disclosures, a demonstrated consumer interest in knowing where food comes from and individual health concerns and market impacts that could arise if there is a foodborne illness outbreak in one of the countries.

The lawsuit was led by the American Meat Institute, which represents the nation’s largest meatpackers, and joined by other meat industry groups. The meat industry has argued that the paperwork behind the labels is burdensome and that it’s not practical to keep cattle and hogs from other countries separate from domestic animals.

In a statement, AMI said the decision is disappointing.

“We have maintained all along that the country of origin rule harms livestock producers and the industry and affords little benefit to consumers,” said James H. Hodges, the group’s interim president and CEO. “This decision will perpetuate those harms.”

Hodges did not say whether the industry will appeal to the Supreme Court. He said the group will “evaluate our options moving forward.”

The labeling rules have support from consumer groups, environmental groups and some farm groups. U.S. Ranchers who raise cattle near the northern border and compete with Canadian ranchers have been most supportive of the rules, which Congress wrote in 2002 and revised in 2008 after years of haggling with the meat industry. Ranchers and meatpackers in the Southwest who do a lot of business with Mexico have traditionally opposed it.

Under the rules, a label must be specific. For example, it may say the animal that produced the meat was “born in Mexico, raised and slaughtered in the United States” or “born, raised and slaughtered in the United States.” Those rules are a revision from USDA rules originally issued in 2009 that would have been less specific and would have allowed the labels to say “Product of U.S.” or “Product of U.S. and Canada.” USDA revised the rules after a World Trade Organization challenge from Mexico and Canada.

The meat industry aggressively lobbied Congress to repeal the rules in the most recent five-year farm bill signed by President Barack Obama earlier this year. But farm-state lawmakers said there wasn’t enough congressional support for repeal.

Will Trump Reinstate COOL Regs?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:12:38 GMT

Cattlemen who were denied a legal challenge to current U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations say they hope President Trump will side with them and reinstate the regulations that were put in place in 2009. Other industry observers say such a possibility is a Hail Mary.

The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington in Spokane, granted summary judgement to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a lawsuit filed last year. The lawsuit, filed by R-CALF USA and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPoW), alleged that USDA is required, but is failing to provide country-of-origin labeling on imported beef and pork. The suit named USDA and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue as defendants.

Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson agreed with the plaintiffs that the government’s decision caused them financial harm, yet ruled in favor of the government saying the statute of limitations had run out, and that Congress had clearly intended to have the labeling end.

“The fact that the court agreed with us that independent pork and beef producers are harmed by COOL makes it even clearer that the Trump Administration and Congress must act now to protect them,” said David Muraskin, lead counsel for R-CALF in the suit. “This movement has been gaining ground outside of court, and we expect it to continue doing so despite this ruling.”

The court determined that the cattle producers were time-barred from prevailing in their case because the regulations that allowed the removal of COOL labels on imported beef was promulgated in 1989 and the statute of limitations expired in 1995. The court did not agree with the cattle producers that the clock should have been reset after the 2016 repeal of the COOL for beef.

Moreover, the court found that Congress’ act of repealing COOL for beef signified its clear intent to allow imported beef to be sold to consumers without COOL markings.

“President Trump now has the opportunity to immediately reinstate COOL in his ongoing renegotiation of NAFTA as well as by initiating a rulemaking within USDA to require imported beef to bear its foreign marking through retail sale, just as the COOL rule effectively did from 2009 through 2015,” said R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard.

However, support for re-instating COOL is not universal throughout the industry. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), and the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) have opposed COOL since it was first introduced.

“The North American Meat Institute is pleased” with this week’s ruling in favor of USDA, Mark Dopp, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Scientific Affairs/General Counsel told Drovers in an email. “The court’s order makes clear that, the complaint was not only barred by the statute of limitations regarding the imported products rule promulgated in 1989, even if that had not been the case both the 1989 rule and 2016 rule removing beef and pork from mandatory COOL accurately reflect Congressional intent.”