ARTICLE
25 June 2015

U.S. Fights Canada's Bid For Retaliatory Tariffs In Response To Controversial Meat Labeling Rules

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
During a special session of the World Trade Organization's ("WTO") Dispute Settlement Body, the United States formally opposed Canada's bid for US$2.5 billion in annual retaliatory tariffs.
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences

During a special session of the World Trade Organization's ("WTO") Dispute Settlement Body, the United States formally opposed Canada's bid for US$2.5 billion in annual retaliatory tariffs. Canada is imposing the tariffs in response to USDA's controversial country-of-origin meat labeling ("COOL") requirements, an effort to help consumers make informed choices by requiring producers to label beef, pork, chicken, and other meat products to reveal where the animals were born. The WTO recently found the requirements in the final rule, issued in May 2013, to violate global trade rules, specifically discriminating against Canadian and Mexican producers. Now that the United States has exhausted the appeals process, it must either repeal the COOL rules or face tariffs from Canada and Mexico on various products. During last week's arbitration, the United States told the WTO that Canada's request was excessive when compared to actual costs triggered from the COOL labeling. The arbitration will continue, with Canada reiterating its demand for the United States to bring its meat labeling regime into compliance with WTO rules. This process is already underway in Congress. On June 11, 2015, the House voted 300 to 131 to repeal the COOL labels, but the Senate has instead indicated a preference for altering the rules to remove their discriminatory effects.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More