The May 2017 repeal of the United States’ Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (MCOOL) requirements, following years of dispute at the World Trade Organization, triggered a wave of supply chain adjustments across the meat and produce sectors. By 2018, suppliers and processors were grappling with the operational consequences of this regulatory shift. The repeal removed federal obligations for origin labeling on beef and pork, but it did not simplify the landscape as much as some had expected. Instead, it pushed responsibility down to state-level regimes and retailer-driven programs, creating a patchwork of requirements that supply chains had to navigate carefully.
For livestock producers and packers, one of the more immediate concerns was understanding where state-level labeling mandates or voluntary standards still applied. Many states introduced their own initiatives aimed at preserving transparency for consumers, and large retailers continued to demand origin information to meet private-label standards or to align with customer expectations. In response, producers were encouraged to utilize the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s open plant registration data. This resource provided an essential directory of federally inspected facilities, including information on approved processing plants and slaughterhouses. By mapping supply relationships against this dataset, livestock producers could ensure that animals processed in their facilities were correctly attributed within any remaining labeling frameworks.
Produce suppliers faced similar challenges. While the repeal focused primarily on meat, the shifting regulatory tone influenced broader discussions about food provenance. Major grocers often tightened their own sourcing protocols to fill what they saw as a gap left by federal policy. Suppliers had to respond by formalizing internal systems for tracking farm origins and transport routes, ensuring they could continue to satisfy retailer-specific requirements without the anchor of MCOOL’s national standard.
Mapping supply routes from farm to retailer took on new urgency. Without federal rules dictating country-of-origin labeling at the point of sale, firms had to create documentation processes that could flexibly support various labeling regimes. This meant integrating farm-level data—such as birth records for cattle or field harvest logs for produce—into transport documentation that followed goods through each node of the supply chain. The aim was to produce an uninterrupted record that could be called upon to satisfy a retailer audit or support voluntary origin claims.
A method that proved effective for many companies involved overlaying supply-chain maps with data from the USDA plant registration and transportation inspection records. By creating visual representations of supply movements, firms could better identify points where labeling declarations were being generated or modified. This approach also made it easier to spot inconsistencies or gaps that might cause issues under state-level rules or retailer policies. Modern supply-chain software platforms often included modules designed to support these functions, enabling companies to automate data collection and reporting.
The experience of adapting to MCOOL’s repeal highlighted the complexities of regulatory change in a highly integrated agricultural supply chain. While federal obligations had been removed, the demand for transparency—driven by states, retailers, and consumers—remained strong. Companies that responded proactively, investing in systems and processes to maintain accurate origin data, were better positioned to navigate the evolving landscape. They not only stayed ahead of compliance risks but also maintained trust with partners and customers who continued to value origin information as part of their purchasing decisions.