WASHINGTON — The Produce Marketing Association praised the U.S. House Wednesday for voting to repeal country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meat products in hopes to prevent up to $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs on produce products alone in a trade dispute with Canada and Mexico.

The World Trade Organization has ruled four times against the United States’ COOL regulations for meat products after Canada and Mexico challenged them as discriminatory for its cattle and hogs. Two days after the U.S. government lost its final appeal, the House Agriculture Committee passed a bill that would repeal mandatory COOL for beef, pork and poultry products.

Throughout the process, Canada has threatened retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of products, including U.S. apples and cherries, and just filed a request with WTO to collect $3 billion in tariffs.

With the threat of retaliation looming, the House voted 300-131 in favor of the COOL repeal bill, H.R. 2393.

“California exports billions of dollars of commodities and manufactured goods to Canada and Mexico, many of which are produced in the San Joaquin Valley,” said Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA). “The tariff retaliations will cost California more than $1 billion, inflicting a devastating blow to the state’s economic well-being. The COOL Amendments Act will put the U.S. back in compliance with its international trade obligations and stop trade retaliations by two of the nation’s top export partners."

“The produce industry applauds the work of [House Agriculture Committee] Chairman [K. Michael] Conaway — through his leadership, today’s vote shows that members of Congress value the importance of trade and they recognized the potential $1 billion loss in produce exports to Canada and Mexico through tariffs and the uncertainty it would create for long-term contracts,” PMA President Cathy Burns said in a statement after the vote.

“Our industry depends on a fair, transparent and reliable international trading system to supply consumers around with world with affordable fresh produce year-round. As the bill moves to the Senate, we’re asking for their careful consideration and quick resolution,” she added.

Food retailers also praised the House vote.

“Clinging to a failed law in the face of economic harm simply does not make sense. Even the USDA’s own economic analysis of COOL found that it hurt producers, packers, retailers and consumers without offering any clear economic benefits in return,” said Leslie Sarasin, president and CEO of the Food Marketing Institute.

Some groups are trying to slow the legislation, however, and appealing to Senate lawmakers to find a negotiated resolution.

“U.S. consumers want more information about their food, not less,” said Chris Waldrop of Consumer Federation of America. “CFA urges the Senate to wait until the WTO process is finalized before determining a course of action.”