A New Mexico federal court has dismissed allegations that several food companies falsely labeled beef as a "Product of the USA" because the cattle were raised in other countries but brought to the United States for slaughter and processing. Shook attorneys represented Tyson Foods Inc. in the litigation. Lucero v. Tyson Foods Inc., No. 20-0106 (D.N.M., entered August 27, 2020). "Plaintiffs do not seek to impose equivalent requirements as those imposed by the [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)] or to enforce the USDA's labeling requirements," the court stated. "Rather, they seek to impose different labeling requirements by asking this Court to declare USDA approved labels misleading. Plaintiffs' interpretation of 21 USC § 678 would render the express presumption clause a nullity." The court, holding that all of the plaintiffs' claims were preempted and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim as a matter of law, dismissed the case with prejudice.
Tag Archives COOL
A Washington federal court has granted summary judgment to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in a lawsuit filed by ranchers and cattle producers challenging the agency's regulations governing the removal of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef and pork. Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. USDA, No. 17-0223 (entered June 5, 2018). The complaint alleged that the 2016 COOL Requirement Removal Rule conflicted with the Tariff Act of 1930, which stated that “every article of foreign origin . . . imported into the United States shall be marked . . . in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article.” The court found that the relevant provisions in the 2016 rule were enacted to comply with World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions finding that the COOL requirements of the Agricultural Marketing Act discriminated against imported meat. The court…
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a final determination that the country of origin of coffee beans is the country in which the coffee beans are roasted. CBP ruled that “roasting green coffee beans substantially transforms the beans into a new and different article of commerce." The agency issues country-of-origin rulings “for the purpose of granting waivers of certain ‘Buy American’ restrictions in United States law or practice” for government procurement.
Two livestock trade associations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging the agency’s 2016 repeal of marking and labeling regulations violates the Meat Inspection Act and the Tariff Act. Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of Am. v. U.S. Dept of Agric., No. 17-0223 (E.D. Wash., filed June 19, 2017). The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF) and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPW) assert that the Meat Inspection Act requires that meat from animals slaughtered outside the United States be “marked and labeled as required for imported articles” and the Tariff Act requires “conspicuous” marking “as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article." After a World Trade Organization ruling against a U.S. requirement to include country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on imports of livestock from Canada and Mexico, USDA…
Italian food producers reportedly disagree on how to define whether a food product is "made in Italy" in accordance with the country's attempt to distinguish food produced in Italy, such as parmesan cheese or prosecco, from similar foods produced outside of the country. The dispute centers on whether foods manufactured in Italy using foreign ingredients may be labeled as "Made in Italy." According to Reuters, Parmesan and prosecco producers argue against such foods receiving the rights to use the label, while pastamaker Barilla asserts that its foods are just as Italian because the company is Italian despite manufacturing about half of its pasta in plants outside of Italy. See Reuters, June 2, 2017. Issue 637
Italy has reportedly proposed new legislation that would require food manufacturers to include country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on all pre-packaged food labels or face fines of up to €18,000. Under the proposal, food-product labels must list an Italian address for the food’s production facility or indicate that the food is made outside of the country. Italy’s COOL initiative for dairy products takes effect April 18, 2017, and a similar initiative for pasta products is pending. See Food Navigator, April 10, 2017. Issue 631
Challengers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules requiring meat products to indicate where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered reportedly will not continue to pursue their claims, according to a stipulation of dismissal. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (D.C., stipulation filed February 9, 2015). The meat and poultry groups lost their First Amendment challenge to the mandatory labeling rules in the D.C. Circuit Court and were later denied a rehearing. The stipulation comes after a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against the United States in favor of Canada and Mexico, which argue that the rules discriminated against their livestock producers. “While we remain disappointed with the court’s ruling on country of origin labeling (COOL), we agree with the World Trade Organization’s assessment that the U.S. rule is out of compliance with its trade obligations to Canada and Mexico,” North American Meat Institute CEO…
The United States has appealed the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) ruling in favor of Canada and Mexico in a dispute over U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations requiring pork and beef products originating outside the United States to carry labels specifying their sources. The appeal notification circulated to WTO members indicated that the United States has challenged several of the panel’s findings, including that the detrimental impact does not stem exclusively from legitimate regulatory distinctions because “the amended COOL measure entails an increased recordkeeping burden and increased segregation,” “the current labels provided by the amended COOL measure have a potential for label inaccuracy,” and “the amended COOL measure continues to exempt a large proportion of muscle cuts.” Appeals are heard by three members of a permanent seven-member appellate body unaffiliated with any government, and the appellate body generally has three months to conclude its report. Additional information on the WTO panel’s…
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the requests of meat-producer interests to rehear arguments in a case challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules as a violation of First Amendment rights. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-5281 (D.C. Cir., order entered October 31, 2014). Under the regulations, amended in May 2013, retailers of “muscle cuts” are required to list on product labels the countries of origin and production as to each step of production—born, raised or slaughtered. Additional details about the en banc ruling upholding the regulations appear in Issue 532 of this Update. USDA amended the rules to address an adverse World Trade Organization (WTO) determination that they discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock producers. The effort was unsuccessful, as WTO again ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico. Information about that decision appears in Issue 542 of this Update. Issue 544
Confirming early reports discussed in Issue 536 of this Update, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has again ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico regarding U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations requiring pork and beef products originating outside of the United States to bear labels indicating where each step in the production process occurred. The compliance panel found that the measure “accords to Canadian and Mexican livestock less favorable treatment than that accorded to like US livestock.” The panel also found that the rule’s 2013 amendment “increases the original COOL measure’s detrimental impact on the competitive opportunities of important livestock in the US market, because it necessitates increased segregation of meat and livestock according to origin; entails a higher recordkeeping burden; and increases the original COOL measure’s incentive to choose domestic over imported livestock.” Following the decision’s release, Mexican and Canadian trade officials issued a joint statement calling the COOL rule “a…
