The U.S. decision to appeal a World Trade Organization ruling against its country-of-origin labelling law was no surprise, but disappointing for those who want the issue concluded.
The office of the U.S. trade representative released the decision March 23.
The first oral arguments are expected in April or May.
The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and Canadian Pork Council have collaborated with the federal government in opposing the mandatory rule since it was implemented in September 2008.
“We were expecting this thing, but disappointed when it happened, also. We have to look at some of the details of the appeal,” said Martin Unrau, a Manitoba rancher and president of the cattlemen’s association.
Read Also
Alberta eases water access for riparian restoration
Alberta government removes requirement for temporary diversion licence to water plants up to 100 cubic metres per day for smaller riparian restoration projects
“We are going to be in contact with government to ensure we play a part in moving forward,” he said.
They want legislative change that does not leave the Canadian industry at a competitive disadvantage. Mexico was also involved in the complaint.
“We are not opposed to country-of-origin labeling,” Unrau said.
“It is the mandatory things where they have to have segregation in the killing plant. That is what is knocking us down.”
The processing sector is now forced to sort and separate animals based on nationality, creating four different categories of born, raised, slaughtered and mixed origin. That adds costs and many U.S. processors have decided it is cheaper to procure only domestic animals.
The law requires all grocery stores to label food by country of origin, but the WTO ruling applies only to meat.
“COOL increased cost and created inefficiencies without improving consumer information,” pork council chair Jean-Guy Vincent said in a statement.
The WTO said the U.S. has the right to label products by country of origin but agreed the rule discriminated against live cattle and hogs exported to the United States, resulting in lower prices and less demand.
Exports for both commodities fell sharply after the rule went into effect.
Analyst and agricultural economist Glynn Tonor said the decision to appeal could be a mistake.
“Most people expected WTO to rule in favour of Canada and Mexico against the U.S.,” he said.
“I would submit the U.S. appealing it may not be the best response. It is debatable whether it will change the outcome.”
Based at Kansas State University, Tonor is leading a consumer awareness study on COOL funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Preliminary results show two-thirds of those interviewed did not know the rule existed. The study started in June 2010 with conclusions expected this summer.
“The average consumer doesn’t even know COOL exists and the average consumer does not look at origin when they make a purchasing visit,” he said.
Opinions have been split.
The American Meat Institute, which represents packers and processors, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association do not favour a mandatory labelling law.
R-CALF and the National Farmer’s Union want the rule to protect the U.S. food system.
During its annual meeting earlier this month, the NFU decided that it wants the U.S. trade representative to negotiate with Canada and Mexico to resolve the dispute and preserve the law.
If that fails, then the WTO ruling must be appealed to protect domestic markets and differentiate U.S. products for consumers.
The law requires that retail outlets provide country-of-origin information on muscle cuts and ground meat from beef, veal, pork, lamb, goat, and chicken as well as wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts and ginseng.
