After 10 years of internal battling, Congress recently repealed the law known in the food industry as COOL, an acronym for Country of Origin Labeling.

Congress had little choice after the World Trade Organization (WTO) threatened to implement sanctions against the United States, starting at $1 billion in the form of new tariffs on items exported from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico. Both Mexico and Canada said the U.S. COOL laws violated the WTO ban on discrimination against foreign livestock.

Brief history of COOL

The laws and regulations of COOL were created to let consumers know where their meat and poultry products originated. The Tariff Act of 1930 mandates that anything of foreign origin or the container it is in is marked as to its country of origin. Exemptions from this rule included meat and poultry products.

It wasn't until 2002 that the Tariff Act was amended to include these imports under the COOL requirements as included in the Farm Bills of 2002 and 2008. The impetus behind the 2002 decision came about as a response to the fear of mad cow disease.

The changes for the importation of these products require importers to give retailers country of origin labeling information so they can provide the information to consumers. COOL labeling may be imprinted on the product or its packaging, on a bulk shipping container or on a document that stays with the product until it is sold to the consumer.

Exemptions and exclusions from COOL include restaurants and cafeterias as well as processed foods, lamb, seafood and venison.

Objections from Canada and Mexico

Canada and Mexico — the two largest exporters of meat, pork and poultry to the U.S. were the two most vociferous nations complaining to the WTO that the COOL requirements gave an unfair competitive edge to the United States. WTO has a dispute settlement process, and four times the WTO sided with America's neighbors.

The initial complaints were handled by meat, pork and poultry industry representatives. But later in the process, the federal government became involved as the likelihood of a trade war with both Mexico and Canada was becoming imminent. The two nations were promising retaliatory import duties and fees on American products.

Members of the U.S. beef and meat-packing industries applauded the decision to repeal the bill, which the House of Representatives did last June. Finally, the Senate repealed the COOL legislation in December, and President Barack Obama signed it into law.

Supporters of COOL regulations are mostly consumer groups who feel the rescinding of COOL is a setback to consumers by denying them important information about origins of products — especially at a time when consumers are seeking more transparency and information about their food. Some groups' criticisms were harsher, claiming that ending COOL was a gift to the meat-packing industry as it included ground beef and certain pork products that were not part of the WTO complaints.

Those opposing the law were, of course, happy with the new ban on COOL, saying it removed a threat against the United States' beef, pork and poultry industries along with the meat-packing industry, which often had to label a product as born in one country and raised and slaughtered in another.

The debate about the labeling of meat products does not end with this decision. This summer, Vermont plans to require labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which is also highly controversial.