Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:30 PM

Judi Lynn (77,575 posts)

UPDATE 1-WTO rules against U.S. in meat labelling case

Source: Reuters

UPDATE 1-WTO rules against U.S. in meat labelling case
Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:25pm BST

(Reuters) - The United States lost the bulk of its appeal against a World Trade Organization ruling on meat labelling rules on Friday, meaning it may have to stop forcing retailers to display the country of origin on meat they sell.

The WTO Appellate Body said the U.S. country-of-origin labelling rules, commonly known as COOL, were wrong because they gave less favourable treatment to beef and pork imported from Mexico and Canada, which brought the case, than to U.S. meat.

The decision gives the United States time to comply and does not immediately alter the labelling rules.

The meat labels became mandatory in March 2009 after years of debate. U.S. consumer and mainline farm groups supported the requirement, saying consumers should have information to distinguish between U.S. and foreign products.

Big meat processors opposed the provision, which they said would unnecessarily boost costs and disrupt trade.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/trade-usa-canada-mexico-idUKL6E8HTIJP20120629?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=governmentFilingsNews

8 replies, 1788 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

8 replies	Author	Time	Post
UPDATE 1-WTO rules against U.S. in meat labelling case (Original post)	Judi Lynn	Jun 2012	OP
New World Order -eom	Huey P. Long	Jun 2012	#1
Looks like the WTO is calling the shots at the expense of Americans. Is that acceptable?	Poll_Blind	Jun 2012	#2
good example of how a multinational agreement can supersede a nation's own rules.	freedom fighter jh	Jun 2012	#3
Thank you. Read NAFTA and you will, like me, oppose "free" trade.	JDPriestly	Jun 2012	#6
Buy local meat. Buy very little meat.	JDPriestly	Jun 2012	#4
Nothing stops retailers from voluntarily labeling	Incitatus	Jun 2012	#5
Actually, that's not true	PSPS	Jun 2012	#7
"U.S. officials hailed other parts of the decision, which they said affirmed the right to adopt	pampango	Jun 2012	#8

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:55 PM

Huey P. Long (1,932 posts)

1. New World Order -eom

Reply to this post

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 01:06 PM

Poll_Blind (23,185 posts)

2. Looks like the WTO is calling the shots at the expense of Americans. Is that acceptable?

I don't think it is. I would like to know where the meat I eat comes from.

PB

Reply to this post

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:11 PM

freedom fighter jh (886 posts)

3. good example of how a multinational agreement can supersede a nation's own rules.

Signing an agreement means giving up the right to disagree later -- which means limiting Congress's power.

Folks should pay attention. Be careful about what powers and rights the U.S. gives away in the TPP.

Reply to this post

Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:17 PM

JDPriestly (37,738 posts)

6. Thank you. Read NAFTA and you will, like me, oppose "free" trade.

Other countries may or may not control pollution. So when you eat meat from an animal that was fed in one of those countries, you may be eating all kinds of stuff you don't want.

It's bad enough here. We should not be hiding country of origin labels.

Reply to this post

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:15 PM

JDPriestly (37,738 posts)

4. Buy local meat. Buy very little meat.

Reply to this post

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:15 PM

Incitatus (4,189 posts)

5. Nothing stops retailers from voluntarily labeling

The origin. I expect some to continue carrying US products while others like Walmart to have the origin label disappear.

Reply to this post

Response to Incitatus (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:40 PM

PSPS (4,193 posts)

7. Actually, that's not true

Retailers used to "voluntarily" label BGH-free milk but were forced to stop doing so.

In 'murika, we're not allowed to know what we're eating.

Reply to this post

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 04:19 PM

pampango (13,986 posts)

8. "U.S. officials hailed other parts of the decision, which they said affirmed the right to adopt

country-of-origin labels, even though the United States will have to change how it operates the program."

"We are pleased with today's ruling, which affirmed the United States' right to adopt labeling requirements that provide information to American consumers about the meat they buy," U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in a statement on his blog. "The Appellate Body's ruling confirms that families can still receive information on the origin of their meat and other food products when they shop for groceries."

"U.S. officials said the ruling allows the U.S. to continue to require country-of-origin labels, but Washington will have to change the way it runs the program to ensure it is not an impermissible trade barrier.

To be listed as U.S. origin, meat must come from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. Meat from livestock raised in Mexico or Canada for slaughter in the United States must be labeled as a product of mixed origin. Canada and Mexico have sizeable cattle and hog trade with the United States."

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)