Court upholds beef-labeling law

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington rejected arguments in a lawsuit seeking to hide the origin of foreign cattle imported from Mexico and Canada that is processed into beef in the United States.

The court order issued Feb. 5 rejects complaints filed in a lawsuit by Easterday Ranches that the U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law violates previous provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement barring U.S. tariffs and other import barriers to cattle imports from Canada and Mexico.

The court order is related to similar World Trade Organization complaints filed by Canada and Mexico.

“We believe this U.S. Court decision will help in the defense of our COOL law against Canada’s and Mexico’s attack at the WTO,” said Mike Schultz, chairman of R-CALF USA’s COOL Committee.

“Much like the Easterday complaint filed in the U.S., both Canada’s and Mexico’s complaints filed at the WTO are seeking the same protection,” Schultz said.

Bill Moore, a Unity rancher and past president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said he’s concerned that when Congress passes laws like COOL, other countries might retaliate, hurting the ability of American cattle producers to export beef.

Historically, Moore said, cattle prices have risen and fallen largely based on the ratio of cattle supply to consumer demand.

Domestic demand dropped after the 2003 case of mad cow disease found in a dairy cow imported from Canada, Moore said, and hasn’t recovered to pre-2003 levels.

Despite such concerns, Schultz contends the United States should not let Canada and Mexico continue hiding the true origins of the beef they export here.

He said American consumers have a right to know if the beef they buy comes from cattle raised in this country, or from herds in Canada, Mexico or other countries where the risk of mad cow disease and other health problems is higher.

Easterday Ranches’ lawsuit, filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, seeks to overturn provisions of the COOL law requiring dual labeling of beef that is processed in the United States but comes from cattle raised in Canada or Mexico.

Easterday Ranches argued that COOL requirements for dual labels — one showing the country where the cattle were raised and another stating the beef was processed in the United States — violates administrative rules from the previously adopted North American Free Trade Agreement.

NAFTA allowed beef derived from the slaughter of cattle imported to the U.S. to be labeled as a product of the USA, which R-CALF contends misled consumers as to the cattle’s origin.

While Congress passed COOL under pressure from American cattle producers and consumer groups to close that labeling loophole, Easterday Ranches argued in its lawsuit that pre-existing NAFTA rules that didn’t require such labeling should supersede the COOL law.

The Court disagreed in its Feb. 5 ruling, which found that the COOL law can coexist with, and does not repeal, NAFTA marking rules.

The court found the COOL law and the NAFTA rules were adopted for different purposes — NAFTA bars imposing unfair tariffs on cross border trade, such as cattle imported from Mexico and Canada, while the COOL law applies to labeling on retail products.

Schultz said the Easterday Ranches lawsuit and WTO complaints filed by Canada and Mexico “truly are repugnant to U.S. consumers who deserve to know the origins of their food.”