Recently, on National Agriculture Day, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced a public awareness campaign promoting the “Product of USA” voluntary labeling program for meat, poultry and egg products derived from animals exclusively born, raised, harvested and processed in the U.S.
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, USA (R-CALF) CEO Bill Bullard has worked on this particular topic for years. “We’re pleased with the secretary’s support of this new standard,” Bullard said. “When consumers see the ‘Product of USA’ label, they can be assured the beef is entirely a USA product produced by domestic farmers, ranchers, and packers. This advances our goal of empowering consumers to support America’s beef supply chain.”
United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) President Justin Tupper said, “This campaign is about rebuilding trust. When consumers can quickly identify products truly made here at home, everybody wins—families, rural communities, and the U.S. cattle industry.”
As of this writing, NCBA hadn’t made a public comment.
(Editor’s note: The following statement from NCBA was provided to WLJ on March 30 on behalf of NCBA Executive Director of Government Affairs Kent Bacus: “NCBA welcomes USDA’s efforts to promote awareness and use of the new ‘Product of USA’ label. NCBA has been engaged on this issue for several years, after a producer-led NCBA working group first raised concerns that imported beef could be labeled as ‘Product of the USA.’ Through our grassroots policy process, NCBA initiated the Product of the USA review, and USDA’s final rule closes this loophole by preventing imported beef being sold under a U.S. label. We appreciate USDA’s efforts and its continued approval of labels that create premium opportunities for producers while remaining trade compliant.”
Both R-CALF and USCA support the rollout but still seek a mandatory program. Keep in mind the USDA already has a voluntary country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program. While the two programs are closely aligned, this new label campaign that launched in January comes with a new marketing effort and more producer input.
This label carries an agenda-driven aura from multiple angles. First, it aligns with the Trump administration’s “America First” campaign goals. USDA and Health and Human Services have worked together to promote healthy foods supporting beef production and consumption—think food pyramid updates, the Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework, and efforts to reduce bureaucratic burdens.
It’s also important to note that Rollins has made herself widely available to the public. This show of transparency and willingness to work for producers has earned her a lot of favor across our industry’s platforms. Overall, her tenure is hard to fault, though at times it seems she may be listening to certain sectors more than others.
That being said, this label puts me more on the fence than before when it comes to labeling of beef products. For the record, I don’t like imported beef any more than most of you. However, I also understand that global economics, politics and issues far out of our control are at play and recognize that our industry cannot achieve 99% carcass utilization without an export market. Having an export market, in return, means we have an import market.
On the USDA website, this public awareness campaign announcement uses a commercial advertisement to promote the program and features four 2025 Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association world champions, including bareback rider Rocker Steiner. It also included social media influencer Granny Bibbins. The commercial starts with a group of dairy cows walking at daylight before immediately jumping to a bucking bull coming out of a chute. The 53-second commercial left me confused. While there is an obvious connection between rodeo and ranching, there is also a gap in the marketing of this label.
Ranchers are consistently told to tell our story: the picturesque ranch setting and effort of raising wholesome, humanely raised livestock. We are constantly told the consumer wants to know HOW the animals were raised. This is the entire scope surrounding the idea that the consumer wants American-raised products and are willing to pay a premium for it. I’m as big of a rodeo fan as the next guy, but I feel the campaign for this new label missed the mark for beef production. I was under the impression that generational family ranchers told our story, not a bareback rider with a rap sheet.
To the bigger issue—beef labeling. I have no issue with mandatory COOL; let USDA require it. What isn’t often discussed is what happens next. If the endpoint of the chain has labeling requirements, at what point will they require the starting point to also have a label? According to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which oversees this label, comments submitted voiced concerns over proprietary information of producers, burdensome regulations, input costs and requirements of unnecessary third-party verification programs to name a few.
Regarding traceability and confidentiality, the FSIS says several domestic trade associations have concerns about the feasibility of maintaining records that provide full traceability back to originating farms and producers. Some concerned parties also expressed issue with the potential threat of recordkeeping requirements compromising confidentiality of business operations information. FSIS disputed those concerns, but the fact remains that this is one of the biggest obstacles, aside from the logistics of putting EID tags in all cattle leaving the ranch of origin.
There’s a lot of unanswered questions, but if an added cost is going to be put on the feeder and packer level, that expense will come from somewhere. The consumer is already being squeezed. The packer has been consistently losing for nearly two years. If this were to become mandatory, would the cow-calf guy incur the costs at both ends?
This is just some food for thought as this public awareness campaign makes its debut. It’s hard to fault the administration for prioritizing American agriculture, though there are signs the cart may be ahead of the horse because this campaign feels rushed. I would rather have seen this include more collaboration and better dialed-in messaging with visual aids on point and delivered in a way that both the consumer and the producer could agree this was truly America First. If this isn’t done right the first time, it’ll be harder to fix down the road, and if they rush this issue, would they rush an ID program as well? — LOGAN IPSEN
1 Comment