49–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–131 

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 

2015 

MAY 29, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONAWAY, from the Committee on Agriculture, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2393] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2393) to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal country of origin labeling requirements with respect to beef, 

pork, and chicken, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 

2015’’. 

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR BEEF, PORK, AND 

CHICKEN. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 

1638) is amended—— 

(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (7); 

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (8), and (9) as paragraphs 

(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively; and 

(3) in paragraph (1)(A) (as so redesignated)—— 

(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following new clause: 

‘‘(i) muscle cuts of lamb and venison;’’; 

(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new clause: 

‘‘(ii) ground lamb and ground venison;’’; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

(C) by striking clause (viii); and 

(D) by redesignating clauses (ix), (x), and (xi) as clauses (viii), (ix), and 

(x), respectively. 

(b) NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.—Section 282 of the Agricultural Marketing 

Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638a) is amended—— 

(1) in subsection (a)(2)—— 

(A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘BEEF, LAMB, PORK, CHICKEN,’’ and inserting ‘‘LAMB,’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘beef, lamb, pork, chicken,’’ and inserting ‘‘lamb,’’ each 

place it appears in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D); and 

(C) in subparagraph (E)—— 

(i) in the heading, by striking ‘‘GROUND BEEF, PORK, LAMB, CHICKEN,’’ 

and inserting ‘‘GROUND LAMB,’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘ground beef, ground pork, ground lamb, ground chicken,’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘ground lamb,’’; and 

(2) in subsection (f)(2)—— 

(A) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and 

(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (B) and 

(C), respectively. 

BRIEF EXPLANATION

The Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, H.R. 

2393, amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal 

country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In 2002, Congress enacted mandatory country-of-origin labeling 

(COOL) provisions requiring retailers of certain meat products to 

inform consumers of a product’s country-of-origin. Controversial aspects of COOL prompted Congress to revisit the law in the 2008 

Farm Bill, which included several amendments to the 2002 statute. 

Less than five months after the COOL implementing rule was 

published in 2008, Canada and Mexico challenged the rule at the 

WTO, arguing that it had a trade-distorting impact by reducing the 

value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market. 

The process has since progressed through the dispute settlement 

panel phase (report issued November 2011), and a U.S. appeal to 

the WTO’s Appellate Body (report issued June 2012). In both instances, the WTO found that the way U.S. COOL regulations were 

implemented violated U.S. WTO obligations by discriminating 

against imported livestock. 

The United States was given until May 2013 to bring its COOL 

regulations into compliance with the findings of the dispute settlement panel, as modified by the Appellate Body. In response, USDA 

issued a revised COOL rule in May 2013 which required that production steps—born, raised, and slaughtered, by origin country—be 

included on meat labels. The revised rule also prohibited the commingling of meat from imported and domestic livestock. Canada 

and Mexico claimed the revised rule did not bring the United 

States into compliance, and furthermore they said the revised rule, 

especially the prohibition on commingling, was more onerous than 

the original rule. A key criterion of current COOL implementation 

is that it requires ‘‘segregation’’ of animals by country of origin, 

which raises the cost of utilizing imported livestock. 

At the request of Canada and Mexico, the WTO established a 

compliance panel to determine if the revised rule brought the 

United States into compliance with previous rulings. The compliVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:28 Jun 01, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR131.XXX HR131

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

ance panel report, released October 20, 2014, upheld the earlier 

findings of discrimination. 

The United States filed to appeal the compliance panel report on 

November 28, 2014. On May 18, 2015, the WTO rejected the 

United States’ appeal and found for the fourth and final time that 

the U.S. COOL requirements for beef and pork are unavoidably 

discriminatory. The final ruling kick-starts the WTO process to determine the level of retaliatory tariffs Canada and Mexico can now 

impose of the U.S., which has widely been predicted to have effects 

in the billions of dollars. 

On Wednesday, March 25, the House Agriculture Committee’s 

Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee held a public 

hearing to examine the implications of potential retaliation against 

the U.S. Witnesses at the hearing testified as follows: 

Canada and Mexico are by far the United States’ largest 

export markets, and purchased a record $485 billion in 

manufactured goods in 2014. Those exports support millions of U.S. jobs. WTO-authorized retaliation by two of 

the largest U.S. trading partners could result in billions in 

tariffs affecting multiple sectors of the U.S. economy, 

threatening the livelihoods of American families. 

With the threat of retaliation looming for our nation’s 

manufacturers, time has run out. The NAM and the COOL 

Reform Coalition urge Congress to bring the United States 

back into compliance with its WTO obligations fully and 

quickly through the repeal of these WTO inconsistent provisions. 

—Ms. Linda M. Dempsey, Vice President of International 

Economic Affairs, National Association of Manufacturers, 

Washington, D.C. 

Overall, an estimated $21.8 billion of personal income 

and $35 billion of gross national product are supported by 

the U.S. hog industry. Regrettably for the U.S. pork industry, pork is on Canada’s target list and will likely be on 

Mexico’s. Because COOL involves agricultural products, retaliation is inevitably going to fall heavily on U.S. agriculture. 

Congress must be prepared to repeal the offending parts 

of the statue to bring the U.S. into compliance with WTO 

rules. Congress should not allow retaliation against pork 

producers and other sectors of the U.S. economy. 

—Mr. John P. Weber, President Elect, National Pork Producers Council, Dysart, IA 

The importance of the U.S. trade relationship with Canada and Mexico for American workers, farmers, ranchers, 

and companies of all kinds is worth bearing in mind. A 

trade dispute with a minor commercial partner can be 

damaging; a trade dispute with the two largest markets 

for U.S. exports could be highly damaging. 

More than 95% of the world’s consumers live outside our 

markets, but American farmers, workers, and companies 

will not be able to sell their goods and services to those 

consumers if we fail to live up to these rules ourselves. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

[T]he Chamber strongly urges Congress to move swiftly 

to approve legislation repealing the COOL requirements 

for muscle cuts of meat due to the imminent and all-butcertain adverse ruling by the WTO Appellate Body in May. 

Failure to do so could cost tens of thousands of American 

jobs and jeopardize mutually beneficial trade relationships 

with our two closest neighbors and largest export markets. 

—Mr. Christopher W. Wenk, Executive Director of International Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, 

D.C. 

With Canada the number one and Mexico the number 

six market for U.S. wine exports, COOL-related retaliatory 

tariffs would have an enormously negative economic impact on our winemakers and grape growers. 

COOL-related retaliatory tariffs will result in an enormous loss of sales for U.S. wineries, estimated to be in the 

hundreds of millions of dollars. Since the strong growth of 

U.S. wine exports to Canada and Mexico over the past decade has in part been due to USDA’s Market Access Program, it would be most unfortunate now for Congress to 

allow another U.S. law, such as COOL to undo these hardfought export gains. 

—Mr. Tom LaFaille, Vice President and International 

Trade Counsel, Wine Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Forty percent of U.S. confectionery exports are to Canada ($900 million) while 15 percent (more than $300 million) are to Mexico. These two markets together total over 

50 percent of U.S. confectionery exports. We are deeply 

concerned that retaliatory duties from both countries will 

target our industry. 

U.S confectioners have worked hard to grow the presence of U.S. confections and intermediates in Canada and 

our efforts are paying off. Exports of finished chocolate 

grew by almost $45 million in just the last two years, 

while exports of bulk chocolate grew by almost $12 million. 

Those years of investment will quickly be diminished if the 

retaliations are implemented. 

We are aware already of Canadian companies using the 

threat of the retaliation to lure manufacturers to new and 

more secure supply sources. The loss of business will impact U.S. confectionery companies and their workers, also 

their communities. 

—Ms. Alison Bodor, Executive Vice President, National 

Confectioners Association, Washington, D.C. 

The solution is for Congress to repeal COOL now. Halfmeasures or other alterations to COOL will only bring 

more uncertainty and possible WTO challenges. That is 

unacceptable to the meat industry, as well as to the other 

industries forced to look over their shoulders, worried 

about potential retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico. We encourage you to work with Chairman Conaway to 

repeal COOL before retaliation is implemented. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

—Mr. Michael T. Smith, Special Projects Manager, Harris 

Ranch Company, Selma, CA; on behalf of the National 

Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack has also been quoted numerous times acknowledging the repeal of the offending COOL requirements as a viable option to bringing the U.S. into compliance 

with its WTO obligations and avoiding retaliatory measures. 

In November 2014, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack said that 

USDA analysis shows that there is no regulatory fix that will allow 

COOL regulations to be consistent with the COOL law and also 

satisfy the WTO rulings. Secretary Vilsack said that Canada and 

Mexico would need to specifically say what measures would be acceptable, or Congress would have to provide, in the law, ‘‘different 

directions’’ to USDA to allow for WTO compliance. 

Testifying before the House Appropriations subcommittee on agriculture on February 25, 2015, Secretary Vilsack explained ‘‘[s]o 

either there has to be a generic label established by Congress or 

you have to essentially repeal what is in the current law if we lose 

the WTO appeal. Those are the two options.’’ 

In a May 1, 2015 letter to Congress, Secretary Vilsack reaffirmed 

the need for Congress to repeal the disputed COOL requirements 

or develop a generic North America label. However, Canada and 

Mexico have previously rejected the North America label rendering 

that option unacceptable. 

Furthermore, an April 2015 report to Congress from USDA explains that COOL requirements result in extraordinary costs with 

little to no corresponding benefits: 

In terms of producers, packers, and retailers, 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). 

[T]he increased costs of producing, processing, and marketing food products to comply with COOL without a commensurate measurable increase in consumer demand results in economic losses to producers, packers, retailers, 

and consumers and leads to a smaller overall industry 

with higher consumer prices and less product available. 

[A]lthough consumers desiring COOL information benefit from its provision, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that such benefits translate into measurable increases in consumer demand for beef, pork, or chicken. 

Due to increases in the costs of production resulting from 

COOL implementation, however, the results of economic 

models indicate that consumers over the longer run face 

higher beef and pork prices and therefore purchase less 

beef and pork. 

Namely, the benefits to COOL do not result in measurable increases in demand that are sufficient to offset losses 

to producers stemming from costs to implement the rule. 

Finally, although chicken was not a part of the WTO dispute between Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., the industry requested that 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

COOL requirements for chicken be repealed as well due to the high 

costs and minimal benefits associated with the requirements. The 

National Chicken Council has repeatedly expressed its desire to be 

removed from COOL requirements and recently reiterated its support for repeal in a May 21, 2015 letter to Chairman Conaway stating: 

The National Chicken Council greatly appreciates your 

swift action yesterday in the House Agriculture Committee 

to repeal country of original labeling regulations for beef, 

pork and chicken products. Canada and Mexico are our 

two largest trading partners, and we have a keen interest 

in sustaining and growing these important export markets. 

The U.S. chicken industry is a proponent of free and 

open trade. While we cannot speak on behalf of Canada 

and Mexico as to why they limited their WTO appeal on 

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) to pork and beef, we 

are keenly aware that chicken was near the top of the list 

for retaliation by both countries. NCC supports legislative 

action that will allow U.S. laws and regulations pertaining 

to meat and poultry to be compliant with our international 

trade obligations. 

NCC is fully supportive of your COOL repeal bill, H.R. 

2393, and are grateful for your and Representatives Costa 

and Rouzer’s leadership in resolving this critical issue before retaliatory tariffs are imposed on United States agricultural exports. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 of the bill designates the title of the bill as the ‘‘Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015.’’ 

Section 2. Repeal of country of origin labeling requirements for beef, 

pork, and chicken 

Section 2 of the bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

1946 to repeal country of origin labeling requirements for beef, 

pork, and chicken. Subsection (a) amends the definitions section, 

section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, to remove 

definitions of and subsequent references to beef, pork, and chicken. 

Subsection (b) amends section 282 of the Agricultural Marketing 

Act of 1946 to repeal country of origin labeling notice requirements 

for beef, pork, and chicken. Subsection (c) further amends section 

282 and is a conforming amendment to remove unnecessary references to two voluntary programs. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

I. HEARINGS

On March 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign 

Agriculture held a public hearing to examine the implications of potential retaliatory measures taken against the United States in response to meat labeling requirements. 

Members of the Subcommittee heard testimony and discussed 

the impacts of potential retaliation by Canada and Mexico in reVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:28 Jun 01, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR131.XXX HR131

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

sponse to the United States’ country-of-origin labeling requirements for beef and pork. During the hearing, the following witnesses testified on matters included in H.R. 2393: 

• Mr. John P. Weber, President Elect, National Pork Producers 

Council, Dysart, IA 

• Mr. Christopher W. Wenk, Executive Director of International 

Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

• Mr. Roger Johnson, President, National Farmers Union, Washington, D.C. 

• Ms. Linda M. Dempsey, Vice President of International Economic Affairs, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, 

D.C. 

• Mr. Tom LaFaille, Vice President and International Trade 

Counsel, Wine Institute, Washington, D.C. 

• Ms. Alison Bodor, Executive Vice President, National Confectioners Association, Washington, D.C. 

• Mr. Michael T. Smith, Special Projects Manager, Harris Ranch 

Company, Selma, CA 

II. FULL COMMITTEE

The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with a 

quorum present, on May 20, 2015, to consider H.R. 2393, a bill to 

amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal country of 

origin labeling requirements with respect to beef, pork, and poultry, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 2393 was placed before the Committee for consideration. 

Without objection a first reading of the bill was waived, and it was 

open to amendment at any point. 

Chairman Conaway, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Rouzer, and Mr. Costa 

were recognized for statements. Mr. Costa offered an amendment 

to insert a short title for the bill as the ‘‘Country of Origin Labeling 

Amendments Act of 2015’’. The amendment was adopted by voice 

vote. 

There being no further amendments, Mr. Costa moved that H.R. 

2393, as amended, be adopted and reported favorably to the House 

with the recommendation that it do pass. Mr. King asked for a recorded vote. By a roll call vote of 38 yeas to 6 nays, H.R. 2393, as 

amended, was ordered reported. See Roll Call No. 1. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, Chairman Conaway advised 

Members that pursuant to the rules of the House of Representatives Members had until May 22, 2015, to file any supplemental, 

minority, additional, or dissenting views with the Committee. 

Without objection, staff was given permission to make any necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect the intent 

of the Committee. Chairman Conaway thanked all the Members 

and adjourned the meeting. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth the record of the following 

roll call votes taken with respect to H.R. 2393. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

ROLL CALL #NO.1

Summary: Costa Motion to report the bill, H.R. 2393, as amended, favorably to the House with the recommendation that it do 

pass. 

Offered By: Representative Jim Costa 

Results: Passed by a recorded vote of 38 yeas to 6 nays. 

YEAS NAYS 

1. Mr. Conaway 1. Mr. Peterson 

2. Mr. Neugebauer 2. Mr. Walz 

3. Mr. Goodlatte 3. Mr. McGovern 

4. Mr. Lucas 4. Ms. Lujan Grisham 

5. Mr. King 5. Ms. Kuster 

6. Mr. Rogers 6. Mr. Nolan 

7. Mr. Thompson 

8. Mr. Gibbs 

9. Mr. Austin Scott 

10. Mr. Crawford 

11. Mr. DesJarlais 

12. Mr. Gibson 

13. Mrs. Hartzler 

14. Mr. Benishek 

15. Mr. Denham 

16. Mr. LaMalfa 

17. Mr. Davis 

18. Mr. Yoho 

19. Mrs. Walorski 

20. Mr. Allen 

21. Mr. Bost 

22. Mr. Rouzer 

23. Mr. Abraham 

24. Mr. Moolenaar 

25. Mr. Newhouse 

26. Mr. David Scott 

27. Mr. Costa 

28. Ms. Fudge 

29. Ms. DelBene 

30. Mr. Vela 

31. Mrs. Bustos 

32. Mr. Maloney 

33. Mrs. Kirkpatrick 

34. Mr. Aguilar 

35. Ms. Plaskett 

36. Ms. Adams 

37. Ms. Graham 

38. Mr. Ashford 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE (SECTIONS 308, 402, AND 423) 

The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new budget authority, 

new spending authority, new credit authority, or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to be prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under clause 3(c)(3) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 

402 and 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 submitted to 

the Committee prior to the filing of this report are as follows: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 28, 2015. 

Hon. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, 

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jim Langley. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2393—Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 

H.R. 2393 would repeal existing requirements for retailers of 

beef, pork, and chicken to inform customers at the final point of 

sale of the country of origin of those products. The repeal would not 

affect existing requirements for country-of-origin labeling for lamb, 

venison, goat meat, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, 

farm-raised and wild fish, ginseng, pecans, and macadamia nuts. 

USDA inspects retail stores and audits supply chains through cooperative agreements with state agencies to enforce requirements 

for county-of-origin labeling. Based on information from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), CBO estimates that enactment 

of this bill would have an insignificant effect on spending subject 

to appropriation over the 2016–2020 period because USDA would 

continue to enforce compliance with labeling requirements for other 

commodities. In 2015, USDA received an appropriation of $5 million for country-of-origin inspections. Enacting H.R. 2393 would not 

affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 2393 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jim Langley. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel, Deputy Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

and objectives of this legislation are to repeal the country of origin 

labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken in order to come 

into compliance with a World Trade Organization ruling. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopted as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(Public Law 104–4). 

EARMARK STATEMENT REQUIRED BY CLAUSE 9 OF RULE XXI OF THE

RULES OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H.R. 2393 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), 

or 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of 

Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified 

in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee does not believe that the legislation directs an 

executive branch official to conduct any specific rule making proceedings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT OF 1946 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle D—Country of Origin Labeling 

SEC. 281. DEFINITIONS. 

In this subtitle: 

ø(1) BEEF.—The term ‘‘beef’’ means meat produced from cattle (including veal).¿ 

ø(2)¿ (1) COVERED COMMODITY.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘covered commodity’’ 

means— 

ø(i) muscle cuts of beef, lamb, pork, and venison; 

ø(ii) ground beef, ground lamb, ground pork, and 

ground venison;¿ 

(i) muscle cuts of lamb and venison; 

(ii) ground lamb and ground venison; 

(iii) farm-raised fish; 

(iv) wild fish; 

(v) a perishable agricultural commodity; 

(vi) peanuts; and 

(vii) meat produced from goats; 

ø(viii) chicken, in whole and in part;¿ 

ø(ix)¿ (viii) ginseng; 

ø(x)¿ (ix) pecans; and 

ø(xi)¿ (x) macadamia nuts. 

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘covered commodity’’ does 

not include an item described in subparagraph (A) if the 

item is an ingredient in a processed food item. 

ø(3)¿ (2) FARM-RAISED FISH.—The term ‘‘farm-raised fish’’ includes— 

(A) farm-raised shellfish; and 

(B) fillets, steaks, nuggets, and any other flesh from a 

farm-raised fish or shellfish. 

ø(4)¿ (3) FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT.—The term ‘‘food 

service establishment’’ means a restaurant, cafeteria, lunch 

room, food stand, saloon, tavern, bar, lounge, or other similar 

facility operated as an enterprise engaged in the business of 

selling food to the public. 

ø(5)¿ (4) LAMB.—The term ‘‘lamb’’ means meat, other than 

mutton, produced from sheep. 

ø(6)¿ (5) PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY; RETAILER.— 

The terms ‘‘perishable agricultural commodity’’ and ‘‘retailer’’ 

have the meanings given the terms in section 1(b) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (7 U.S.C. 

499a(b)). 

ø(7) PORK.—The term ‘‘pork’’ means meat produced from 

hogs.¿ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

ø(8)¿ (6) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

ø(9)¿ (7) WILD FISH.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘wild fish’’ means naturallyborn or hatchery-raised fish and shellfish harvested in the 

wild. 

(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘wild fish’’ includes a fillet, 

steak, nugget, and any other flesh from wild fish or shellfish. 

(C) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘wild fish’’ excludes net-pen 

aquacultural or other farm-raised fish. 

SEC. 282. NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— (1) REQUIREMENT.—Except as provided in subsection (b), a 

retailer of a covered commodity shall inform consumers, at the 

final point of sale of the covered commodity to consumers, of 

the country of origin of the covered commodity. 

(2) DESIGNATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FOR øBEEF, LAMB, PORK, CHICKEN,¿ LAMB, GOAT, AND VENISON MEAT.— (A) UNITED STATES COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.—A retailer of a 

covered commodity that is øbeef, lamb, pork, chicken,¿ 

lamb, goat, or venison meat may designate the covered 

commodity as exclusively having a United States country 

of origin only if the covered commodity is derived from an 

animal that was— 

(i) exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the 

United States; 

(ii) born and raised in Alaska or Hawaii and transported for a period of not more than 60 days through 

Canada to the United States and slaughtered in the 

United States; or 

(iii) present in the United States on or before July 

15, 2008, and once present in the United States, remained continuously in the United States. 

(B) MULTIPLE COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN.— (i) IN GENERAL.—A retailer of a covered commodity 

that is øbeef, lamb, pork, chicken,¿ lamb, goat, or venison meat that is derived from an animal that is— 

(I) not exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered 

in the United States, 

(II) born, raised, or slaughtered in the United 

States, and 

(III) not imported into the United States for immediate slaughter, 

may designate the country of origin of such covered 

commodity as all of the countries in which the animal 

may have been born, raised, or slaughtered. 

(ii) RELATION TO GENERAL REQUIREMENT.—Nothing 

in this subparagraph alters the mandatory requirement to inform consumers of the country of origin of 

covered commodities under paragraph (1). 

(C) IMPORTED FOR IMMEDIATE SLAUGHTER.—A retailer of 

a covered commodity that is øbeef, lamb, pork, chicken,¿ 

lamb, goat, or venison meat that is derived from an animal 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

that is imported into the United States for immediate 

slaughter shall designate the origin of such covered commodity as— 

(i) the country from which the animal was imported; 

and 

(ii) the United States. 

(D) FOREIGN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.—A retailer of a covered commodity that is øbeef, lamb, pork, chicken,¿ lamb, 

goat, or venison meat that is derived from an animal that 

is not born, raised, or slaughtered in the United States 

shall designate a country other than the United States as 

the country of origin of such commodity. 

(E) øGROUND BEEF, PORK, LAMB, CHICKEN,¿ GROUND

LAMB, GOAT, AND VENISON.—The notice of country of origin 

for øground beef, ground pork, ground lamb, ground chicken,¿ ground lamb, ground goat, or ground venison shall include— 

(i) a list of all countries of origin of such øground 

beef, ground pork, ground lamb, ground chicken,¿ 

ground lamb, ground goat, or ground venison; or 

(ii) a list of all reasonably possible countries of origin of such øground beef, ground pork, ground lamb, 

ground chicken,¿ ground lamb, ground goat, or ground 

venison. 

(3) DESIGNATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FOR FISH.— (A) IN GENERAL.—A retailer of a covered commodity that 

is farm-raised fish or wild fish may designate the covered 

commodity as having a United States country of origin 

only if the covered commodity— 

(i) in the case of farm-raised fish, is hatched, raised, 

harvested, and processed in the United States; and 

(ii) in the case of wild fish, is— 

(I) harvested in the United States, a territory of 

the United States, or a State, or by a vessel that 

is documented under chapter 121 of title 46, 

United States Code, or registered in the United 

States; and 

(II) processed in the United States, a territory of 

the United States, or a State, including the waters 

thereof, or aboard a vessel that is documented 

under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, 

or registered in the United States. 

(B) DESIGNATION OF WILD FISH AND FARM-RAISED FISH.— 

The notice of country of origin for wild fish and farmraised fish shall distinguish between wild fish and farmraised fish. 

(4) DESIGNATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FOR PERISHABLE AG- RICULTURAL COMMODITIES, GINSENG, PEANUTS, PECANS, AND

MACADAMIA NUTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—A retailer of a covered commodity that 

is a perishable agricultural commodity, ginseng, peanut, 

pecan, or macadamia nut may designate the covered commodity as having a United States country of origin only if 

the covered commodity is exclusively produced in the 

United States. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

(B) STATE, REGION, LOCALITY OF THE UNITED STATES.— With respect to a covered commodity that is a perishable 

agricultural commodity, ginseng, peanut, pecan, or macadamia nut produced exclusively in the United States, designation by a retailer of the State, region, or locality of the 

United States where such commodity was produced shall 

be sufficient to identify the United States as the country 

of origin. 

(b) EXEMPTION FOR FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS.—Subsection 

(a) shall not apply to a covered commodity if the covered commodity is— 

(1) prepared or served in a food service establishment; and 

(2)(A) offered for sale or sold at the food service establishment in normal retail quantities; or 

(B) served to consumers at the food service establishment. 

(c) METHOD OF NOTIFICATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The information required by subsection (a) 

may be provided to consumers by means of a label, stamp, 

mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the covered 

commodity or on the package, display, holding unit, or bin containing the commodity at the final point of sale to consumers. 

(2) LABELED COMMODITIES.—If the covered commodity is already individually labeled for retail sale regarding country of 

origin, the retailer shall not be required to provide any additional information to comply with this section. 

(d) AUDIT VERIFICATION SYSTEM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may conduct an audit of any 

person that prepares, stores, handles, or distributes a covered 

commodity for retail sale to verify compliance with this subtitle 

(including the regulations promulgated under section 284(b)). 

(2) RECORD REQUIREMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—A person subject to an audit under 

paragraph (1) shall provide the Secretary with verification 

of the country of origin of covered commodities. Records 

maintained in the course of the normal conduct of the 

business of such person, including animal health papers, 

import or customs documents, or producer affidavits, may 

serve as such verification. 

(B) PROHIBITION ON REQUIREMENT OF ADDITIONAL

RECORDS.—The Secretary may not require a person that 

prepares, stores, handles, or distributes a covered commodity to maintain a record of the country of origin of a 

covered commodity other than those maintained in the 

course of the normal conduct of the business of such person. 

(e) INFORMATION.—Any person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer shall provide information 

to the retailer indicating the country of origin of the covered commodity. 

(f) CERTIFICATION OF ORIGIN.— (1) MANDATORY IDENTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall not 

use a mandatory identification system to verify the country of 

origin of a covered commodity. 

(2) EXISTING CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS.—To certify the country of origin of a covered commodity, the Secretary may use as 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

a model certification programs in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including— 

(A) the carcass grading and certification system carried 

out under this Act; 

ø(B) the voluntary country of origin beef labeling system 

carried out under this Act; 

ø(C) voluntary programs established to certify certain 

premium beef cuts;¿ 

ø(D)¿ (B) the origin verification system established to 

carry out the child and adult care food program established under section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National 

School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766); or 

ø(E)¿ (C) the origin verification system established to 

carry out the market access program under section 203 of 

the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623). 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(16) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

The purpose of country of origin labeling—to provide information 

to consumers about the food they eat—has repeatedly been ruled 

by the WTO to be a legitimate regulatory goal. The challenge for 

us is to find a way to provide U.S. consumers with the information 

they have said in numerous surveys that they would like to see on 

food labels. These surveys include those conducted by leading consumer organizations such as Consumers Union and the Consumer 

Federation of America. Many other countries have been able to 

achieve this goal without sanctions. We should not so readily abandon our efforts to provide U.S. consumers with information they 

have repeatedly said they want. 

We agree with the goal of avoiding retaliation under the World 

Trade Organization (WTO) decision on country of origin labeling, 

but a repeal of mandatory labeling for beef, pork and poultry is 

premature. Retaliation is unlikely to begin for many months. In the 

case of Brazil’s cotton case against the United States, retaliation 

began 21 months after the WTO upheld the panel ruling on appeal. 

Many supporters of a repeal of country of origin labeling have argued that retaliation by Canada and Mexico will result in lost 

trade opportunities. In fact, we do not know how much the WTO 

will allow Canada and Mexico to raise tariffs as a result of the decision. The amount will largely depend on how much of the 

meatpacking industry’s segregation and tracking costs can be attributed to country of origin labeling. In fact, meatpackers already 

have infrastructure in place to track voluntary marketing attributes such as ‘‘certified Angus,’’ ‘‘grass-fed,’’ ‘‘organic,’’ and USDA 

grades including ‘‘choice’’ and ‘‘prime.’’ It makes little sense to repeal country of origin labeling when we do not yet know the 

amount of retaliation that may be permitted. 

COLLIN C. PETERSON. 

RICHARD M. NOLAN. 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ. 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS