Image

 

It's a major victory for Canadian livestock producers.

The World Trade Organization dispute panel on U.S. country-of-origin labeling has unanimously ruled in Canada's favour, saying the American policy discriminates against Canadian livestock.

The panel's long-awaited final report was made public Friday.

"This marks a clear win for Canadian livestock producers," says Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. "While our work does not end here, this is a vital first step on the road to recovery."

"Of course the American government now has 60 days to appeal it....the good news is this was a unanimous decision by the judges. We won on all points that were put forward. This is the beginning of getting back to normalcy," says Ritz.

International Trade Minister Ed Fast says he's optimistic Canada will not need to take retaliatory measures.

"Say their is an appeal, and we win on that appeal, at the end of the day the United States will be a given a period of time in which to come into compliance. If they don't, there are remedies beyond that that Canada can apply for," he says. "We're confident that working together with our American cousins we'll be able to resolve this."

COOL came into effect in the fall of 2008, and since then has cost the livestock sector hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council. Weanling exporters in Manitoba were among the producers most severely affected.


Summary of key findings (source: WTO)

* This dispute concerns: (i) the US statutory provisions and implementing regulations setting out the United States' mandatory country of origin labelling regime for beef and pork (“COOL measure”); as well as (ii) a letter issued by the US Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack on the implementation of the COOL measure (“Vilsack letter”).

* The Panel determined that the COOL measure is a technical regulation under the TBT Agreement, and that it is inconsistent with the United States' WTO obligations. In particular, the Panel found that the COOL measure violates Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by according less favourable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs than to like domestic products. The Panel also found that the COOL measure does not fulfil its legitimate objective of providing consumers with information on origin, and therefore violates Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.

* As regards the Vilsack letter, the Panel found that the letter's “suggestions for voluntary action” went beyond certain obligations under the COOL measure, and that the letter therefore constitutes unreasonable administration of the COOL measure in violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. The Panel refrained from reviewing the Vilsack letter under the TBT Agreement, as it found that this letter is not a technical regulation under that agreement.