Does country-of-origin labelling amount to an unfair restriction on trade and, if so, is there scope to challenge it either at an EU level or to the World Trade Organisation (WTO)?
Beef labelling is a legal requirement under the EU Parliament and Council Regulation 1760/2000 and SI No 435 of 2000. Operators and organisations involved in the marketing of beef must label beef so as to provide consumers with the following information:
A reference number or reference code permitting the identification of the animal or group of animals from which the beef was derived.The approval number and country of the slaughterhouse. The indication should read: ‘‘Slaughtered in (name of the member state or third country) (approval number)’’.The approval number and country of the de-boning hall. The indication should read: ‘‘Cutting in; (name of the member state or third country) (approval number).’’The member state or third country where the animal was born, fattened and slaughtered (origin).If the beef is derived from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the same country, the indication on the label may be given as “Origin: (name of country)”; for example ‘‘Origin: Ireland’’.
If the beef is derived from animals from different countries the label must indicate:
Country of birth.Country (or countries) of fattening.Country of slaughter. For example: ‘‘Born in Italy, Reared in France, Slaughtered in Ireland,’’Therefore, to be of Irish origin, an animal must be born, reared and slaughtered in Ireland or in the UK context to be born, reared and slaughtered in Britain or Northern Ireland. So, for instance, if an animal born in Co Mayo but sold in a mart to a Northern Irish finisher, the beef from that animal must be labelled as “born in Ireland, raised in Ireland/UK and slaughtered in UK”.
It finishes up with this description on the pack, but has neither British nor Irish origin. Known as mixed-origin and ‘‘nomad’’ beef, it is penalised in the UK market, in particular.
WTO technical barriers
to trade
What are technical barriers to trade? The term “technical barriers to trade” (TBT) refers to mandatory technical regulations and voluntary standards that define specific characteristics that a product should have, such as its size, shape, design, labelling, marking, packaging, functionality or performance.
TBTs often have an effect on trade and the competitiveness of exporters and, in particular, small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
WTO TBT Agreement
The TBT Agreement is an international treaty administered by the WTO and binding on all WTO members. The TBT Agreement exists to ensure that technical regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.
Labelling in the US
Canada and Mexico made a complaint to the WTO claiming that the United States country-of-origin labelling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork contained in USDA legislation referred to as “the COOL measure” and the letter to “industry representatives” from the US Secretary of Agriculture infringed certain articles of the WTO TBT Agreement.
The WTO found that the COOL measure was inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement because it accorded less favourable treatment to imported livestock than to like domestic livestock.
Article 2.1 provides that members must ensure that technical regulations and standards do not accord treatments less favourable to imported products compared with the ones granted to like products of national origin or creating in any other country.
The WTO concluded that the least costly way of complying with the COOL measure was to rely exclusively on domestic livestock, creating an incentive for US producers to use exclusively domestic livestock, causing a detrimental impact on the competitive opportunities of imported livestock.
The WTO further found that the recordkeeping and verification requirements imposed a disproportionate burden on upstream producers and processors compared with origin information conveyed to consumers.
The regulatory distinction drawn by COOL measure was therefore not legitimate within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. The WTO found on appeal that the COOL measure did not violate Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement in that it was not more trade-restrictive than necessary. Neither was it found to violate Article 2.4, which relates to international standards. However, it did find that the US failed to administer the COOL measure in a “reasonable” manner by sending the Vilsack letter, which contained additional voluntary suggestions to the industry which was inconsistent with Article X:3(a) of the GAAT.
Next week, we will look at how complaints are resolved at an EU and WTO level and the chances of success of a complaint made about EU country-of-origin labelling requirements
Does country-of-origin labelling amount to an unfair restriction on trade and, if so, is there scope to challenge it either at an EU level or to the World Trade Organisation (WTO)?
Beef labelling is a legal requirement under the EU Parliament and Council Regulation 1760/2000 and SI No 435 of 2000. Operators and organisations involved in the marketing of beef must label beef so as to provide consumers with the following information:
A reference number or reference code permitting the identification of the animal or group of animals from which the beef was derived.The approval number and country of the slaughterhouse. The indication should read: ‘‘Slaughtered in (name of the member state or third country) (approval number)’’.The approval number and country of the de-boning hall. The indication should read: ‘‘Cutting in; (name of the member state or third country) (approval number).’’The member state or third country where the animal was born, fattened and slaughtered (origin).If the beef is derived from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the same country, the indication on the label may be given as “Origin: (name of country)”; for example ‘‘Origin: Ireland’’.
If the beef is derived from animals from different countries the label must indicate:
Country of birth.Country (or countries) of fattening.Country of slaughter. For example: ‘‘Born in Italy, Reared in France, Slaughtered in Ireland,’’Therefore, to be of Irish origin, an animal must be born, reared and slaughtered in Ireland or in the UK context to be born, reared and slaughtered in Britain or Northern Ireland. So, for instance, if an animal born in Co Mayo but sold in a mart to a Northern Irish finisher, the beef from that animal must be labelled as “born in Ireland, raised in Ireland/UK and slaughtered in UK”.
It finishes up with this description on the pack, but has neither British nor Irish origin. Known as mixed-origin and ‘‘nomad’’ beef, it is penalised in the UK market, in particular.
WTO technical barriers
to trade
What are technical barriers to trade? The term “technical barriers to trade” (TBT) refers to mandatory technical regulations and voluntary standards that define specific characteristics that a product should have, such as its size, shape, design, labelling, marking, packaging, functionality or performance.
TBTs often have an effect on trade and the competitiveness of exporters and, in particular, small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
WTO TBT Agreement
The TBT Agreement is an international treaty administered by the WTO and binding on all WTO members. The TBT Agreement exists to ensure that technical regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.
Labelling in the US
Canada and Mexico made a complaint to the WTO claiming that the United States country-of-origin labelling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork contained in USDA legislation referred to as “the COOL measure” and the letter to “industry representatives” from the US Secretary of Agriculture infringed certain articles of the WTO TBT Agreement.
The WTO found that the COOL measure was inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement because it accorded less favourable treatment to imported livestock than to like domestic livestock.
Article 2.1 provides that members must ensure that technical regulations and standards do not accord treatments less favourable to imported products compared with the ones granted to like products of national origin or creating in any other country.
The WTO concluded that the least costly way of complying with the COOL measure was to rely exclusively on domestic livestock, creating an incentive for US producers to use exclusively domestic livestock, causing a detrimental impact on the competitive opportunities of imported livestock.
The WTO further found that the recordkeeping and verification requirements imposed a disproportionate burden on upstream producers and processors compared with origin information conveyed to consumers.
The regulatory distinction drawn by COOL measure was therefore not legitimate within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. The WTO found on appeal that the COOL measure did not violate Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement in that it was not more trade-restrictive than necessary. Neither was it found to violate Article 2.4, which relates to international standards. However, it did find that the US failed to administer the COOL measure in a “reasonable” manner by sending the Vilsack letter, which contained additional voluntary suggestions to the industry which was inconsistent with Article X:3(a) of the GAAT.
Next week, we will look at how complaints are resolved at an EU and WTO level and the chances of success of a complaint made about EU country-of-origin labelling requirements 
SHARING OPTIONS