COOL advocates call for WTO decision appeal
October 23, 2014 | 12:45 PM
Leaders of four groups that have campaigned for country-of-origin labeling for red meat said today that the U.S. government should appeal the World Trade Organization decision this week that the current U.S. labeling regime discriminates against Canada and Mexico and causes damages to their producers.
In a call to reporters, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson, U.S Cattlemen’s Association President Danni Beer, Patrick Woodall of Food & Water Watch and Lori Wallach of Public Citizen all called on U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to appeal the case.
“The first thing we must do is appeal this decision,” Johnson said. “Undoubtedly the result of that appeal is going to be somewhat different.”
Efforts to repeal the COOL statute are “premature” and “foolish,” Johnson said, “when there is strong legal standing to resolve the dispute.”
Johnson went so far as to say the United States “may win on appeal,” which would negate the abilities of Canada and Mexico to retaliate against U.S. products.
“The only thing to do is to appeal,” added Wallach.
The legal merits depend on “contestable facts,” she said, noting that the appeals panel is allowed to look at the facts as well as the law. The appeals process could also create a timeline in which regulatory adjustments could be made she said.
“There is a lot of hysteria right now about preemptively altering the policy rather than appeal,” Wallach said, adding if the entire process goes against the United States, and if the WTO stuck to its timeline, “which it never has,” the soonest sanctions could be authorized would be the end of summer 2015.
Johnson emphasized that he opposes congressional action because the WTO has said that the United States has the right to label.
Wallach said opponents of labeling may end up dealing with multiple rulings that labeling per se is legal under WTO rules and offending the public because consumers want to be able to tell their children where their meat comes from.
Beer said she believes the cost of segregating cattle is not as high as the meatpacking industry has told the WTO, and Woodall backed her up on that point. Woodall maintained that most of the extra cost comes from record keeping rather than segregation itself.
Although critics of labeling have emphasized that the WTO said the latest COOL implementation system caused Canada and Mexico more problems in their attempts to export beef and pork to the United States than an earlier version did, Woodall noted that the WTO said the second system of labeling provided consumers with more information and accuracy.
Johnson also said that requiring labels for more value-added meats would increase the benefit to consumers and diminish the argument that the costs to producers outweigh the benefits to consumers. He said that opponents and some aspects of the decision indicate that “an animal is a globetrotter” and “in practice, that is not the case.”
There may be a way to define “born, raised and slaughtered so that you undercut the confusion,” Johnson said.
Wallach suggested that the United States could make changes that would require another compliance or that the case could be resolved in the way that the United States and Indonesia settled a number of issues over cloves.
Johnson said, “COOL is about more than promoting U.S. beef. It is about giving information to a consuming public that as the years go by wants more and more information not less.”
Asked whether the original COOL law was passed because U.S. producers believed the slaughterhouse industry was using Canadian cattle to lower prices in times of lower supplies in the United States, Johnson said the issue was that slaughterhouses were blending U.S. beef with other beef and passing it off as American.
Johnson also said he views the decisions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to call for appeal to be “an extension” of the meatpackers’ campaign to get rid of the law.
In a call to reporters, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson, U.S Cattlemen’s Association President Danni Beer, Patrick Woodall of Food & Water Watch and Lori Wallach of Public Citizen all called on U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to appeal the case.
“The first thing we must do is appeal this decision,” Johnson said. “Undoubtedly the result of that appeal is going to be somewhat different.”
Efforts to repeal the COOL statute are “premature” and “foolish,” Johnson said, “when there is strong legal standing to resolve the dispute.”
Johnson went so far as to say the United States “may win on appeal,” which would negate the abilities of Canada and Mexico to retaliate against U.S. products.
“The only thing to do is to appeal,” added Wallach.
The legal merits depend on “contestable facts,” she said, noting that the appeals panel is allowed to look at the facts as well as the law. The appeals process could also create a timeline in which regulatory adjustments could be made she said.
“There is a lot of hysteria right now about preemptively altering the policy rather than appeal,” Wallach said, adding if the entire process goes against the United States, and if the WTO stuck to its timeline, “which it never has,” the soonest sanctions could be authorized would be the end of summer 2015.
Johnson emphasized that he opposes congressional action because the WTO has said that the United States has the right to label.
Wallach said opponents of labeling may end up dealing with multiple rulings that labeling per se is legal under WTO rules and offending the public because consumers want to be able to tell their children where their meat comes from.
Beer said she believes the cost of segregating cattle is not as high as the meatpacking industry has told the WTO, and Woodall backed her up on that point. Woodall maintained that most of the extra cost comes from record keeping rather than segregation itself.
Although critics of labeling have emphasized that the WTO said the latest COOL implementation system caused Canada and Mexico more problems in their attempts to export beef and pork to the United States than an earlier version did, Woodall noted that the WTO said the second system of labeling provided consumers with more information and accuracy.
Johnson also said that requiring labels for more value-added meats would increase the benefit to consumers and diminish the argument that the costs to producers outweigh the benefits to consumers. He said that opponents and some aspects of the decision indicate that “an animal is a globetrotter” and “in practice, that is not the case.”
There may be a way to define “born, raised and slaughtered so that you undercut the confusion,” Johnson said.
Wallach suggested that the United States could make changes that would require another compliance or that the case could be resolved in the way that the United States and Indonesia settled a number of issues over cloves.
Johnson said, “COOL is about more than promoting U.S. beef. It is about giving information to a consuming public that as the years go by wants more and more information not less.”
Asked whether the original COOL law was passed because U.S. producers believed the slaughterhouse industry was using Canadian cattle to lower prices in times of lower supplies in the United States, Johnson said the issue was that slaughterhouses were blending U.S. beef with other beef and passing it off as American.
Johnson also said he views the decisions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to call for appeal to be “an extension” of the meatpackers’ campaign to get rid of the law.
