Meat Groups Sue USDA Over Labeling Requirements
A group of eight Canadian and U.S. meat trade associations sued the U.S. government over new requirements for the labeling of meat products. The suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said the new country of origin labeling (COOL) requirements that are being implemented by the Agriculture Department's Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) are unduly burdensome and violate First Amendment protections by compelling speech. The suit was prompted after AMS issued a final rule on regulations in May (see 13052317). The suit calls for preliminary injunctive relieve to stop implementation and enforcement of COOL regulations.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The labeling requirements, which call for labeling on where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered, is government compelled speech, a violation of the First Amendment, said the lawsuit. The AMS has no food-safety reasoning behind the regulations and it does not serve any governmental interest, said the meat groups. "The uncertain and speculative consumer benefit from mandating production-step disclosures, whatever that benefit might be, pales in comparison to the burdens on the meat industry as a whole, and in particular on smaller businesses," they said. AMS was tasked with implementing the COOL regulations following the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, though there's been significant delay. Last year, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the U.S. should amend its labeling requirements by May 23 (see Ref:[12070208]).
The statute behind COOL doesn't authorize AMS to restructure the production and packaging systems in the agriculture industry in the name of the labeling requirement, the suit said. Also, Congress previously rejected point-of-processing label requirements and instead said country-of-origin should be based on different standards than where an animal was born and raised, the suit said. The plaintiffs, which include the American Meat Institute, the American Association of Meat Processors, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the National Pork Producers Council, are represented by Catherine Stetson of Hogan Lovells.
The groups also assert that the AMS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing arbitrary and capricious rules, they said. The agency's "inability to identify a benefit from the Final Rule that is consistent with the evidence before the agency demonstrates that serious flaws undermined the agency’s cost-benefit analysis," it said. AMS also "arbitrarily" refused to delay implementation until the WTO reviews the final rule and unreasonably dismissed concerns submitted by commenters that said the agency will have to make costly revisions "in the likely event" that the WTO finds the rules violate U.S. trade obligations.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the complaint.