Several consumer organizations have called on President Barack Obama (D) to appeal a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that favored Canada and Mexico in a dispute over U.S. country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork products. In their February 24, 2012, letter, Consumers Union, Food & Water Watch, Public Citizen, and the Consumer Federation of America contend that the WTO panel issued a “conflicted ruling” by affirming this country’s right to require COOL for meat products, but finding that specific requirements were less favorable to Canada and Mexico. Details about the WTO ruling appear in Issue 419 of this Update. According to the letter, COOL “is wildly popular in the U.S., as poll after poll show overwhelming support for labeling. Indeed, nations around the world are implementing variants of such laws.”
Category Archives Global Courts
The consumer group Emun Hazibur has reportedly filed a complaint with Israel’s antitrust authority alleging that The Strauss Group, ranked second among food manufacturers in the country, is exploiting its 63 percent share of the chocolate market by overcharging customers. The group and several others apparently compared the company’s prices to leading brands in other markets and found some Strauss products about one-third more expensive. According to a news source, Strauss called some of the data inaccurate and indicated that it had recently reduced prices on 50 of its core products. It also apparently claimed that final customer prices are set by retailers. Israel’s antitrust authority reportedly determined several years ago that Strauss-Elite illegally manipulated the market to hinder the sale of imported chocolate from Britain. See Haaretz.com, February 27, 2012; Confectionerynews.com, February 29, 2012.
A U.K.-based public interest charity has filed 54 separate complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) contending that the subject companies, including Cadbury and Pringles, are promoting food products high in sugars, fat or salt to children online. Described by the Children’s Food Campaign (CFC) as a “super complaint,” the case reflects the findings of a report the charity released in December 2011 claiming that food advertisers use brand characters, animations, games, competitions, and videos online and through social media to heavily market junk food to children. It calls for the U.K. government to close a loophole allowing ads for products that cannot be aired during children’s programming to be freely promoted online. According to CFC spokesperson Malcolm Clark, youth marketing standards applicable to TV should be matched online. The existing code apparently states, “marketing communications must not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children.”…
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has announced that the United States will file an appeal in a dispute with Mexico before the World Trade Organization (WTO) over U.S. labeling provisions that allow producers meeting dolphin-safe requirements to label their products accordingly. One of the U.S. conditions challenged by Mexico provides that this label cannot be used if dolphins are purposefully chased and encircled to catch tuna. In September 2011, WTO handed Mexico a partial victory, finding that the U.S. measures were more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. Additional information about the dispute appears in Issue 409 of this Update. According to a Trade Representative spokesperson, “Our dolphin-safe labeling measures for tuna products provide information for American consumers as they make food purchasing decisions for their families. Our decision to appeal the WTO ruling in this case demonstrates the commitment of the United States to our…
A World Trade Organization (WTO) panel has issued a ruling against the United States in a dispute with Mexico and Canada over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations for beef and pork products. According to the November 18, 2011, panel report, Canada and Mexico filed complaints arguing that U.S. COOL regulations enacted in 2008 afford “imported livestock treatment less favorable than that accorded to like domestic livestock.” In addition to labeling requirements, the regulations evidently required the segregation of imported livestock before processing, as well as ear tags certifying that the cattle are free of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Although the WTO panel reportedly affirmed the right of the United States to enact COOL regulations, it found that the specific requirements provided less favorable treatment to Canadian and Mexican livestock. “Additionally, the panel determined that the U.S. COOL requirements fail to fulfill their consumer information objective because the information included on the labels…
The Canadian Wheat Board, which apparently serves as the marketing organization for western Canadian wheat, durum wheat and barley farmers, has filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in his capacity as Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, alleging that he failed to consult with the board as required by law before “causing to be introduced in Parliament on October 18, 2011,” a bill that would create an open market and essentially eliminate the board’s “exclusive statutory marketing authority in respect of wheat and barley.” The board claims to have “a legal mandate to extract the highest overall returns for farmers by effectively leveraging the powers of the single desk.” According to a news source, the board narrowly approved the legal action; directors elected by farmers, for the most part, supported it, while those appointed by the government voted against it. Opposition farmer Henry Vos, calling…
The European General Court (ECG) has determined that the European Commission (EC) erred in removing the antibacterial chemical 2,4,4’-tricihloro2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether (triclosan) from the list of additives that may be used to make plastic materials and other articles that come into contact with foods. Microban Int’l Ltd. v. EC, No. T-262 (ECG, decided October 25, 2011). The court first determined that the EC’s action constituted a regulatory act of direct concern to the applicants, companies that make the additive. The court then ruled both that the EC based its decision on the wrong law and failed to follow the correct procedures in removing triclosan from the list. The court noted that the chemical was previously included on the provisional list of additives which can continue to be used subject to national law on the basis of a European Food Safety Authority determination in 2004 that “although triclosan was a substance for which an…
Dole Food Co. has reportedly signed a definitive settlement agreement that could conclude five U.S. lawsuits and 33 lawsuits filed in Nicaragua by banana plantation workers purportedly exposed to the agricultural chemical DBCP (1,2-Dibromo3-chloropropane). At stake are potential alleged damages in excess of $9 billion. According to Dole’s October 3, 2011, news release, the company “will not fund the settlement by making any payments until specific conditions are satisfied, including receiving a signed release from each plaintiff, dismissals of cases and judgments, and a good faith settlement determination by the Los Angeles Superior Court that is presiding over four of the U.S. cases.”
The European Union Court of Justice has determined that Anheuser-Busch and Czech competitor Budejovicky Budvar may both use the Budweiser trademark in the United Kingdom. Budejovicky Budvar v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., No. C-482/09 (ECJ Sept. 22, 2011). Emphasizing the exceptional circumstances of the case, the court found that because the companies used the marks in good faith for nearly 30 years and because U.K. consumers “are well aware of the difference between the beers of Budvar and those of Anheuser-Busch, since their tastes, prices and get-ups have always been different,” the company that owns the earlier trademark cannot “obtain the cancellation of an identical later trade mark designating identical goods.” The court relied on European law to decide the case and in so doing rejected an advocate general opinion that indicated the issue must be decided as a matter of national law. Information about a related decision appears in Issue 388 of…
Concluding that “dolphin-safe” tuna product labels authorized by the U.S. Commerce Department “are more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective,” a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel has given a partial victory to Mexico, which filed a complaint in 2009 claiming that the labels were illegal because they excluded Mexican yellowfin tuna from the U.S. market and shut down one-third of its tuna fleet. The WTO panel rejected Mexico’s claim that the U.S. labeling provisions discriminate against its tuna products, finding “that Mexican tuna products are not afforded less favourable treatment than tuna products of the US and other origins in respect of the US dolphin safe labeling provisions on the basis of their origin.” Still, the panel recommended that the United States be asked “to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations” under the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement. Mexican Economy Secretary Bruno Ferrari reportedly responded to news…
