The Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has announced new administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) for businesses that fail to meet the requirements laid out in the Meat Inspection Act (MIA) and Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 (MIR). According to a July 16, 2014, press release, the agency is amending the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations to “allow CFIA inspectors to issue an AMP for noncompliance with 84 provisions of [MIA] and [MIR],” which include items related to both food safety and non-safety issues such as labeling. “AMPs are an additional tool that will support the CFIA in delivering its mandate for food safety, explained Chief Food Safety Officer for Canada Martine Dubuc. “AMPs do not replace existing inspection and enforcement tools, but instead offer additional flexibility in addressing meat-related violations.” Issue 531
Tag Archives Canada
Briefing has been completed before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on a petition seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding California’s prohibition on the sale of food produced by force feeding birds to enlarge the liver beyond normal size. Association des Éleveur de Canards des d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 13-1313 (U.S., distributed for Sept. 29, 2014, conference on July 16). Additional details about the Ninth Circuit’s ruling appear in Issue 497 of this Update. Joining the Canadian and New York foie gras producers that filed the certiorari petition are the attorneys general (AGs) of 13 states. Their amici curiae brief claims that the petition presents an issue of “exceptional importance to the preservation of state sovereignty,” namely, that the lower court’s decision “allows the states to engage in economic isolationism, set themselves against one another, and balkanize the nation, thus giving rise to trade wars…
Several major food companies have sent a letter to four U.S. senators and representatives urging Congress to direct Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to suspend revised country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules on muscle cuts of meat because they discriminate against Canada and Mexico. The letter argues that if the WTO determines that the rule violates U.S. trade obligations, it could authorize retaliation from Mexico and Canada, which “has already issued a preliminary retaliation list targeting a broad spectrum of commodities and manufactured products that will affect every state in the country.” The new rules dictate that meat producers must disclose where their livestock was born, raised and slaughtered and can no longer commingle livestock from differing origins to ensure COOL accuracy. The food company coalition has also challenged the new U.S. Department of Agriculture rules in federal court, and the case is pending after an en banc rehearing in the D.C.…
U.S. Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have written a March 11, 2014, letter to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), urging the agencies to reject the European Union’s (EU’s) request that product names such as feta, parmesan and muenster be reserved as “geographical indicators.” As part of ongoing Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations, the EU has reportedly claimed that common cheese names “can only be appropriately displayed on products made in certain areas of Europe.” To this end, it has apparently used free trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries to restrict U.S. exports “under the guise of protection for its geographical indicators.” But the U.S. dairy industry has vociferously criticized the proposal, noting that names like cheddar and provolone are familiar to consumers and widely accepted on the global market. Signed by more than 50 senators, the letter asks USTR…
A federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in Pennsylvania has determined that individual-purchaser plaintiffs and a direct-purchaser class failed to discover evidence that U.S. chocolate companies conspired to increase prices for immediate-consumption products between 2002 and 2007, and, with “nothing more than speculation as to the who, what, when, where, and how of communications that allegedly facilitated the parallel price increases,” the court was compelled to grant the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ Section 1 antitrust claims under the Sherman Act. See In re Chocolate Confectionery Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1935 (M.D. Pa., decided February 26, 2014). The litigation involves some 91 lawsuits transferred to the MDL court for pre-trial proceedings. Defendants Nestlé U.S.A., Inc., The Hershey Co., and Mars, Inc. and Mars Snackfood U.S. LLC control about 75 percent of the U.S. chocolate-products market, and during the relevant time period, which saw prices for cocoa increase 53…
Canadian researchers have warned that many off-the-shelf brewed teas purportedly contain lead in excess of levels considered safe for pregnant and lactating women. Gerry Schwarlfenberg, et al., “The Benefits and Risks of Consuming Brewed Tea: Beware of Toxic Element Contamination,” Journal of Toxicology, December 2013. Using 30 samples of black, green, white, and oolong teas obtained from supermarkets and health food stores, the study’s authors steeped the teas using one tea bag and 250 mL of distilled water for 3-4 minutes and 15-17 minutes. The results evidently showed that “all brewed teas contained lead,” with 73 percent of teas brewed for three minutes and 83 percent of teas brewed for 15 minutes having lead levels ranging from 0.1 µgm/L to 4.39 µgm/L. According to the study, California’s Proposition 65 currently sets an acceptable limit for lead in reproductive health at 0.5 µgm/L per day. In addition, the study notes that…
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has reportedly established a compliance panel at the request of Canada and Mexico in an ongoing dispute over the U.S. country-of-origin (COOL) meat labeling rules. Canada’s International Trade Minister Ed Fast and Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz applauded the WTO action, saying that the United States must “respect its international trade obligations and put an end to mandatory Country of Origin labeling.” Canada argues that recent changes to the COOL implementing regulations did not bring them into conformity with WTO obligations. Because the compliance panel consists of the original members who found that the U.S. law was unfair to foreign meat producers, the Canadian officials suggest that the process will be accelerated. If the challenge succeeds, “which may include an appeal to the WTO Appellate Body, Canada could seek authorization from the WTO to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports.” Meanwhile, meat and livestock organizations that…
A World Trade Organization (WTO) arbitrator has determined that the United States must conform its country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) rules in accordance with an earlier ruling by May 23, 2013, finding that 10 months was a reasonable time for implementation. Additional details about the dispute, which involved a challenge brought by Canada and Mexico over 2008 COOL provisions for beef and pork products, appear in Issue 446 of this Update. According to a news source, the labeling program has sharply reduced U.S. imports of Canadian pigs and cattle, because it purportedly raised U.S. packers’ costs by requiring them to segregate imported animals from U.S. livestock. COOL supporters contend that such labeling provides consumers with important information about food origins. Canada’s International Trade Minister Ed Fast and Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz reportedly said, “We are particularly pleased that the arbitrator determined a reasonable period of time close to that proposed by Canada and…
The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers Association (R-CALF USA) has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in a Colorado federal court against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, alleging that WTO’s determination that the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Act (COOL) imposes discriminatory burdens on meat imported from Canada and Mexico is contrary to U.S. law and the Uruguay Round Agreements. Made in the USA Foundation, Inc. v. WTO, No. 12-2337 (D. Colo., filed September 1, 2012). Details about WTO’s ruling appear in Issue 419 of this Update. With some 5,400 members in 45 states, R-CALF USA apparently worked with Congress to pass the COOL legislation “that reserves the USA label for only cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S.A.” The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs will lose income as a result of WTO’s ruling and that its members “are…
The World Trade Organization Appellate Body has partially rejected the U.S. Office of the Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) appeal in a dispute with Canada and Mexico over “country of origin” labeling (COOL) for beef and pork products. After WTO’s Dispute Settlement Panel ruled in November 2011 that specific provisions of the U.S. COOL program provided less favorable treatment to Canadian and Mexican livestock, USTR appealed the ruling on the ground that COOL does not impose unfavorable treatment of imported products because it “requires meat derived from both imported and domestic livestock to be labeled under the exact same set of circumstances.” Additional details about the appeal appear in Issue 433 of this Update. In upholding the Dispute Panel’s assessment, the WTO Appellate Body agreed that “the COOL measure treats imported livestock differently than domestic livestock,” in part because it creates “an incentive in favor of processing exclusively domestic livestock and a…
