Latest Breaking News

Judi Lynn

(160,707 posts) Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:30 PM Jun 2012

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

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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

Huey P. Long

(1,932 posts)

1. New World Order -eom

Reply to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:55 PM

Jun 2012

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)

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

Reply to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 01:06 PM

Jun 2012

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

PB

freedom fighter jh

(1,782 posts)

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

Reply to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:11 PM

Jun 2012

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.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

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

Reply to freedom fighter jh (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:17 PM

Jun 2012

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.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

4. Buy local meat. Buy very little meat.

Reply to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:15 PM

Jun 2012

Incitatus

(5,317 posts)

5. Nothing stops retailers from voluntarily labeling

Reply to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:15 PM

Jun 2012

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

PSPS

(13,645 posts)

7. Actually, that's not true

Reply to Incitatus (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:40 PM

Jun 2012

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.

pampango

(24,692 posts)

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

Reply to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 04:19 PM

Jun 2012

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 discussion