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 World Trade Organization
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…
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…
The United States has reportedly decided not to file an appeal from a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that its ban on Chinese poultry imports, imposed in 2004 upon fears of an avian flu outbreak, was illegal. According to a news source, this ends the trade dispute. While the legislative ban expired within five years, under current U.S. law, the U.S. Department of Agriculture cannot allow poultry imports unless the foreign country’s food safety procedures are deemed equivalent to those used in the United States. A 2009 appropriations bill included this provision despite lobbying by U.S. trade organizations against it. See FoodNavigator-USA.com, October 27, 2010. Meanwhile, WTO has apparently decided to open to the public the second hearing on a complaint filed by Canada and Mexico, challenging the U.S. promulgation of country-of-origin labeling for cattle and hog imports. The parties reportedly requested an open hearing, which will take place December…
A World Trade Organization (WTO) panel has determined that the United States has violated its trade obligations by refusing to allow Chinese chicken parts into the U.S. market, an action that was apparently taken in a 2009 federal spending bill that denied the use of any U.S. Department of Agriculture funding to establish or implement any measure that would allow the importation. The law extended a five-year U.S. ban on Chinese chicken that was imposed during a bird flu outbreak. While the WTO can sanction countries that violate trade rules, this could take several years because the United States has the option to appeal the verdict. According to a news source, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has indicated that the restrictions were temporary and are due to expire soon. See USA Today, September 29, 2010.
The European Union (EU) and Argentina have apparently reached an agreement in a dispute before the World Trade Organization (WTO) involving genetically engineered products and the application of biotechnology to agriculture. The agreement, which provides for the establishment of a regular dialogue on these issues, follows a similar agreement the EU struck with Canada, which, along with Argentina and the United States, challenged the EU’s legislation on biotech products. The WTO dispute settlement body previously found that the EU violated international agreements by applying a general de facto moratorium on the approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from 1999 to 2003 and imposing undue delays on the approval of 23 product specific applications. The WTO also found that six member states failed to base their national safeguard measures on appropriate risk assessment. According to EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, “This is the second settlement regarding the WTO case on…
A federal court in Washington has reportedly denied a feedlot company’s request to invalidate or delay implementation of the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2008. Easterday Ranches, Inc. v. USDA, No. __ (E.D. Wash., decided February 5, 2010). According to news sources, the company argued that the COOL regulations, which do not allow beef imported from Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States to be labeled as a U.S. product, conflicted with U.S. Treasury Department rules, would raise its recordkeeping and operational costs, and deter packers from paying fair prices for Canadian cattle. The Treasury rules apparently provide that beef is deemed a U.S. product if it undergoes “substantial transformation,” e.g., slaughter, within this country. The court refused to postpone USDA’s rules and further declined to order the agency to create an exception to COOL allowing cattle imported from Canada and…
The American Meat Institute (AMI) has apparently submitted comments to the Office of U.S. Trade Representative contending that country of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements violate U.S. international trade obligations. According to AMI, the nation’s “credibility is undermined when U.S. legislation violates America’s commitments” under international agreements. AMI claims that the COOL requirements “are not consistent with U.S. obligations” under World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement obligations or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The organization apparently characterizes COOL as “de facto discrimination against foreign products, a result even contemplated by sponsors of the legislation who declared that it would be ‘helpful to a lot of American agricultural producers’ and force companies to rely ‘on our independent producers here in this country.’” Canada and Mexico have asked the WTO to rule on the legality of the COOL law. See AMI Press Release, January 8, 2010; meatingplace.com, January 11,…
EU ambassadors this week signed an agreement with Latin American and U.S. officials to end “a 15-year dispute over EU banana imports,” according to a December 15, 2009, press release, which described the impasse as “the longest trade dispute in history.” The European Union has apparently agreed to “gradually cut its import tariff on bananas from Latin America from €176 per tonne to €114,” in addition to providing €200 million to African and Caribbean banana-exporting countries “to help them adjust to stiffer competition from Latin America.” In return, Latin American countries will “not demand further cuts” and the United States has consented to drop its World Trade Organization (WTO) complaint against Europe’s banana importation practices. “This dispute on bananas has soured global trade relations for too long,” stated EU Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, who noted that the accord was “well-balanced” and likely to further European objectives…
