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…
Tag Archives COOL
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…
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has appealed a ruling made by a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel against the United States in a dispute with Mexico and Canada over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws for beef and pork products. Responding to complaints filed by Canada and Mexico, WTO’s Dispute Settlement Panel ruled in November 2011 that although the United States has the right to require COOL regulations, specific requirements enacted in 2008 such as those calling for segregation of imported livestock before processing provide less favorable treatment to Canadian and Mexican livestock. The ruling was covered in Issue 419 of this Update. According to the appeal, USTR found several errors in the panel’s ruling and contends, among other issues, that its COOL labeling 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…
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.”
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 World Trade Organization (WTO) has reportedly issued a preliminary ruling that U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws violate the organization’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. According to Feedstuffs, a WTO panel found that COOL “constitutes an illegal, non-tariff trade barrier that treats U.S. livestock and perishable commodities more favorably than livestock, fruits and vegetables and other covered commodities from Canada and Mexico.” The preliminary ruling will remain confidential for 30 days with a final version slated for release in September 2011, when the United States will have two months to appeal. See Feedstuffs, May 25, 2011. News of the preliminary ruling has since elicited a favorable reaction from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), which described the decision as “unfortunate for the U.S. government” but a positive development for industry. As NCBA President Bill Donald explained, “Proponents of COOL have always believed that restricting imports of Mexican and/or Canadian…
A bill (S. 831) spearheaded by Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) would require country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on dairy products such as milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, and butter. Franken was quoted as saying that the legislation “isn’t a silver bullet, but it does give family farms another tool that will help them compete in a crowded marketplace. And it gives consumers the option to purchase milk and cheese from our own family farms.” See Product Liability Law 360, April 15, 2011.
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…
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) officials recently solicited public and industry feedback on a proposal to loosen country-of-origin labeling guidelines by exempting specific ingredients difficult to obtain in Canada. The amendment would reportedly exclude imported salt, sugar and other spices from provisions that require processed products labeled “Product of Canada” or “Made in Canada” to obtain 98.5 percent of their ingredients from domestic sources. Speaking to food and beverage company representatives at an April 19, 2010, conference in Ottawa, Ontario, Minister of State (Agriculture) Jean-Pierre Blackburn apparently reaffirmed his commitment to working on the labeling issue to secure a competitive future for the Canadian food processing industry. According to Blackburn, public consultations are slated to begin this month with a consensus on the proposed changes expected by the end of June 2010. See AAFC Press Release and Parliamentary Bureau, April 19, 2010; Farmscape, April 20, 2010.
The European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) has apparently issued a legislative report that recommends several changes to EU food labeling laws, but stops short of proposing a uniform “traffic light” system. After considering more than 800 amendments to draft legislation, ENVI approved “minor changes to existing rules on information that is compulsory on all labels, such as name, list of ingredients, ‘best before’ or ‘use by’ date, [and] specific conditions of use.” The committee agreed that all EU foodstuffs should list “key nutritional information” pertaining to energy and fat content, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugar, salt, protein, fiber, and natural and artificial trans fats. It also favored country-of-origin labeling for “meat, poultry, dairy products, fresh fruit, vegetables, and other single-ingredient products as well as for meat, poultry and fish when used as an ingredient in processed food.” Other provisions backed by ENVI would require (i)…
