Digest

Bryan Cave Digest

USDA

Main Content

The Demise of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

The Demise of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

May 26, 2015

Authored by: Sara Ahmed

Digest has been tracking the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (“COOL”) rules that the WTO decided last year violate international fair trade rules.  It was the third time the WTO found COOL to be unfairly discriminatory.

In response to the threat of retaliation by Canada and Mexico, last week, the House Agricultural Committee voted to repeal a portion of COOL.  Under the bill, beef, pork, and chicken products will likely no longer state where the animals were born, slaughtered, and packaged.  The USDA had previously tried to no avail to revamp the rules upon the WTO’s prior rulings.

The U.S. National Farmers Union’s President, Roger Johnson, has been vocal in his feelings against the move to repeal portions of COOL and stated: “The House Agriculture Committee has succumbed to lobbying and scare tactics from foreign governments and multinational meatpackers and inserted itself prematurely into the WTO process by voting for a bill

USDA Approves Genetically Modified Apples, But Will They See The Shelves?

February 22, 2015

Categories

On  February 13, 2015, the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service approved the Arctic apple, a genetically modified strain of apple developed to resist browning.  A Canadian company, Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc., first filed its petition for deregulation nearly three years ago.  The technology works by “turning off” the production of a certain enzyme that is produced when an apple is cut or bruised.  The Arctic apple is the one of the first deregulated genetically modified products designed to promote consumer-preferred traits, as opposed to traits like herbicide tolerance that promote certain production practices.

Notwithstanding APHIS’s approval, the question still remains of whether and how widely producers and consumers will adopt the technology in today’s environment surrounding GMOs.  Because it will be at least five to seven years before Arctic apple trees can bear fruit that can be marketed, producers will be required to do some significant

USDA Prevails at the D.C. Circuit

USDA Prevails at the D.C. Circuit

July 31, 2014

Authored by: Sara Ahmed

Yesterday, a D.C. Circuit decision came down upholding the country of origin labeling requirements (“COOL”). COOL is the law that requires retailers licensed under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act to, among other things, label certain meat products with information regarding where the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered.

In yesterday’s ruling, the Court took an expansive approach to the Zauderer standard and held that, at least in the context of meat labeling, the government can compel commercial speech for reasons beyond preventing deception.

Included in those reasons the court cited to were: “the context and long history of country-of-origin disclosures to enable consumers to choose American-made products; the demonstrated consumer interest in extending country-of-origin labeling to food products; and the individual health concerns and market impacts that can arise in the event of a food-borne illness outbreak.”

Dissenting Judge Janice Rogers Brown criticized that the ruling means “a business owner no longer has a

Update: Canada Poised to Respond if COOL Requirements Stay As Is in the Farm Bill

A decision has not come down from the U.S. Court of Appeals regarding the USDA’s Country of Origin Labeling “COOL” law , but Canada is positioning itself to launch a trade-war with the United States just in case.

Earlier this week, the Farm Bill was passed by the House of Representatives and made its way to the Senate for approval.  A Senate vote is expected next week, but Canadians are not hopeful for an amicable settlement as the House did not make any substantive changes to the country of original labeling requirements.

Since 2008, when COOL was initially adopted, Canada has dissented, claiming that the it is far too costly and injures the meat industry.  Gerry Ritz and Ed Fast, Canada’s Federal Agriculture Minister and International Trade Minister made the following combined statement:

“By refusing to fix country-of-origin labelling, the U.S. is effectively legislating its own citizens out of

Litigation Heats Up Surrounding the Validity of COOL After Appellate Arguments

January 15, 2014

Categories

The battle continues between key players in the meat industry against USDA’s Country of Origin Labeling “COOL” law, which was finalized in May 2013.  On January 9, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments.

COOL requires retailers licensed under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act to label certain meat products with information regarding where the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered.

On the one hand, Plaintiffs American Meat Institute et al. argue that COOL infringes the meat industry’s First Amendment rights and is wasteful and costly for the meat industry based on USDA estimate that COOL compliance will cost somewhere between $53.1 million and $192.1 million.  On the other hand, USDA’s counter-arguments focus on a consumer’s “right to know” his/her food.

If other labeling laws, which have had mixed results, are any sort of indication, it is fair

FSIS Publishes Final Rule on Generic Labeling

December 5, 2013

Categories

In November, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service published a final rule relating to generic labeling of meat and poultry products regulated by the USDA.  Unlike labeling for food regulated by FDA, labeling for meat and poultry products regulated by the USDA has historically been reviewed and approved by USDA.  This rule, which will be effective on January 6, 2014, was designed to provide generic approval for certain types of labeling. Once effective, only certain types of labeling will need to be submitted to FSIS for evaluation and approval.  These types of labeling are: (1) temporary approvals; (2) labels for export only that bear labeling deviations; (3) religious exemption labeling; and (4) labels bearing special statements and claims.  Special statements and claims that must be reviewed include third party certifications, animal production claims (e.g., relating to use or non-use of certain foods, hormones or antibiotics), breed claims, certified claims, gluten free claims, health or

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.