Bill Overview
Title: American Beef Labeling Act of 2022
Description: This bill reinstates mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements for beef. Specifically, the bill requires the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to develop a means of reinstating the requirements that complies with the rules of the World Trade Organization. The USTR and the Department of Agriculture must implement the means within one year.
Sponsors: Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5]
Target Audience
Population: Global beef consumers
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill requires beef to have a country-of-origin label, which can affect consumer choice.
- It impacts beef producers and distributors by potentially affecting how they label products and possibly alter supply chains.
- It reinstates mandatory labeling, influencing market dynamics within the beef industry.
- The labeling requirement aims to provide transparency for consumers, who may prefer to buy American beef.
Reasoning
- The policy affects different stakeholders differently; hence, it's important to interview a representative sample.
- Beef producers face potential costs or benefits depending on how the labeling affects demand for their products.
- Distributors and retailers might need to adjust pricing or stock levels based on consumer preferences tied to the labeling.
- Consumers could experience more confidence in their beef purchasing decisions, possibly affecting their wellbeing.
- Not everyone in the beef supply chain or consumer base will experience significant change, thus impacting the commonness scores.
- The policy budget is limited, so significant infrastructure changes might be gradual, affecting the timeline of perceived changes.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see the focus on American beef.
- Labeling might help increase demand for local beef, though increased labeling costs are a concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Supermarket Manager (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to adjust our supply chain for traceability.
- It might create a preference for labeled products, affecting stock.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Entrepreneur (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I prefer knowing where my food comes from, even if I don't buy beef often.
- It supports transparency but might slightly increase costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Beef Processor (Kansas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might require more resources to meet labeling regulations.
- Any changes affecting product flow concern us immediately.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing the source of beef can help me make healthier choices.
- It's good for peace of mind, even though I'm mostly retired.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Agricultural Policy Analyst (Iowa)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to stronger preference for domestic beef.
- Over time, it might spark more detailed disclosures in food labeling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (Oregon)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Labeling may lead to increased awareness about food sources.
- It encourages sustainable practices potentially benefiting the environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Advocating for clear labeling has been critical.
- This is a step towards consumer rights in the food industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Beef Distribution Manager (Nebraska)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to adapt logistics to accommodate labeling changes.
- Long-term, this assures product transparency and may increase trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
University Professor (Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could affect consumer choice behaviors significantly.
- It provides new data for research on preference shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $45000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Compliance with U.S. trade obligations under WTO is critical to avoiding trade disputes.
- Labeling requirements could alter competitive dynamics in the beef market, potentially affecting import levels.
- Potential backlash from international trade partners if not properly implemented.