When you see a label that states 鈥淧roduct of USA鈥� or 鈥淢ade in the USA鈥� on a package of meat at the grocery store, you'd be forgiven for assuming the meat inside came from livestock bred in the U.S. You might be surprised, then, to find out the product you bought may actually have originated in a foreign country鈥攁nd was merely repackaged in the United States.
Regulators at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) want to reduce that consumer confusion. USDA officials announced tighter restrictions this week for some country-of-origin labels on beef and pork.
The change will likely make labels clearer for consumers鈥攂ut they could also have an impact on Colorado鈥檚 sizable livestock industry.
The will require meat labeled as a product of the U.S. to come from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed domestically. It was announced at the National Farmers Union Annual Convention in Phoenix, Ariz., and will go into effect at the start of 2026.
The updated rule is a change some Colorado ranchers have welcomed.
鈥淢y beef is now being recognized that it is grown in the USA,鈥� said Marie Bonds, a fifth-generation cattle rancher in La Plata County and president of the Colorado Independent Cattlegrowers Association. 鈥淏efore, I mean, anything could be labeled as 'USA.'鈥�
Bonds said the previous rule put American cattle producers like her at a disadvantage because the four big meatpacking companies that dominate U.S. meat production鈥擟argill, JBS, Tyson and National Beef Packing鈥攈ave long been able to slap 鈥淢ade in the USA鈥� labels on foreign meat they imported for cheap. That eliminated any home turf advantage domestic producers like Bonds would have among consumers who are increasingly concerned about where their food comes from.
Curt Werner, a rancher with a cow-calf operation near Sterling, Colo., is hopeful the stricter labeling requirements will benefit local meat producers.
"You can go to the grocery store, pick up a package of beef, it'll say 'Product of USA' or 'USDA Inspected.' But that could come from any of the literally dozens of countries that import beef into the United States," Werner said. 鈥淲hat we'd hope for is that if consumers are able to differentiate, you'd see an increased demand for American-raised beef, and perhaps less demand for imported beef.鈥�
According to Rocky Mountain Farmers Union President Chad Franke, Colorado ranchers may see only a modest benefit after the new rule鈥攁t least at first. Franke said that's due to the complex landscape of meat processing and markets, in which meat processors procure their raw materials from myriad sources and consumers are separated from the ranchers who raise their meat by several degrees of intermediaries, from feedlot operators to meatpackers. Nevertheless, he said there are other reasons to support it.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a truth in labeling issue,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hen consumers see a 鈥楶roduct of the USA鈥� label, they assume it is a product of the United States.鈥�
The new rule, he said, will align the meaning of the label with consumers鈥� expectations that U.S.-labeled meat was raised on an American ranch.
Get top headlines and 萝莉少女 reporting directly to your mailbox each week when you subscribe to In The NoCo.
A debate over labels
But some in Colorado鈥檚 livestock industry are unimpressed with the new 鈥淧roduct of USA鈥� label requirements. Colorado Livestock Association CEO Zach Riley called it an 鈥渁nti-trade practice.鈥�
鈥淚t's definitely got the potential to be exclusionary, and could vilify some of our international trading partners,鈥� he said, citing concerns that disrupting key trade relationships could threaten the food supply.
According to Riley, the rule is completely misguided. He argued imported meat is held to the same standard as domestically-produced meat, so the label is meaningless from a quality standpoint.
鈥淚t still is USDA-inspected, still rendered here, sorted through here,鈥� he said. 鈥淵ou still have to meet the level of standard that makes it 'U.S. good.'鈥�
Riley also suggested Colorado producers won鈥檛 benefit from the revamped labels because consumer demand is driven more by price than by labels.
鈥淚t's not some silver bullet cure for why certain producers don't get the price they think they're deserving of,鈥� he said.
But the new rule does have some experimental evidence to back it up. The change came after results from a suggested consumers were willing to pay more for meat products with a 鈥淧roduct of USA鈥� label.
The argument for mandatory, universal labeling
Meanwhile, Franke and Werner said the new 鈥淧roduct of USA鈥� rule doesn鈥檛 go far enough. While it tightens up the requirements for labels U.S. producers voluntarily put on their meat and egg products, it stops short of requiring mandatory country-of-origin labels for imported meat products.
Franke said mandating country-of-origin labels for all meat, foreign and domestic, would be more meaningful to consumers and increase the benefits for domestic producers. U.S. meat products would have a marketplace advantage over imported meats as labeling transparency and consumer awareness grows.
鈥淚f the price is the same for 'Product of the USA' versus an imported meat, people will very much choose the U.S. meat,鈥� Franke said.
But without universal country-of-origin labeling on meat products, most consumers don鈥檛 have enough information to make an informed decision.
鈥淰irtually every other food product is labeled,鈥� Werner said. 鈥淵ou can pick up an apple, it'll say where it comes from. Orange, it'll have a sticker on it. Virtually every other product imported to the United States, except beef and pork, is required to have a label.鈥�
A complex backstory
But mandatory universal country-of-origin labeling remains a hotly debated topic in the state鈥檚 livestock industry and beyond. The Colorado Livestock Association opposes mandatory labels, and the practice has a complicated backstory in the U.S.
Until 2015, country-of-origin labels were required in the U.S. for all imported meats. Mexico and Canada the policy with the World Trade Organization (WTO), however, saying it put their meat products at an unfair disadvantage in American markets.
The WTO ultimately with the challengers. By the end of 2015, U.S. the labeling laws were for pork and beef products, though they for a host of other products, including lamb, chicken, goat and fish.
Over the years, there have been at the and levels to reinstate mandatory country-of-origin laws, including . As recently as last summer, a of aimed at strengthening country-of-origin labeling rules for beef at the national level were introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, one of them from a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers that included Colorado鈥檚 Lauren Boebert鈥攁lthough she later withdrew her co-sponsorship. Another to reinstate mandatory country-of-origin labeling was introduced in the senate a few months earlier.
None of those bills made it through the committee process, and any new laws around beef and pork product labeling would have to also comply with the WTO ruling, which would likely require reopening the case with Mexico and Canada.
But Riley, with the Colorado Livestock Association, is not anxious to see any of the proposed mandatory labeling legislation move forward.
鈥淲e believe in producers鈥� right to do what they see fit for their own operation,鈥� he said.
Rancher Curt Werner, on the other hand, supports it.
"It's very, very important not only for consumers to know where their beef is coming from, but also for American producers. Imported beef is produced much more cheaply than it is the United States," Werner said. "Anything short of mandatory country-of-origin labeling ... is just a half measure."
