

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The World Trade Organization ruled Monday that U.S. rules requiring labels on packaged steaks, ribs and other cuts of meat identifying where the animals were born, raised, and slaughtered are in violation of trade rules that require imports to be treated no less favorably than domestic products.
In its decision, the WTO said the country-of-origin labels (also referred to as 'COOL') forced meatpackers to segregate and keep detailed records on imported livestock, giving them an incentive to favor U.S. livestock. The WTO ruling was seen as a victory for Canada and Mexico, who had said the meat-labeling rules were protectionist, overly burdensome, and discriminated against livestock exports from their countries. Canada, for example, claims that its cattle and hog industries have lost more than $911.5 million because of COOL.
But watchdog groups said the WTO's decision wasn't in the public's best interest.
"The WTO's continued assault against commonsense food labels is just another example of how corporate-controlled trade policy undermines the basic protections that U.S. consumers deserve," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter in response to the news. "The United States should appeal the ruling and continue to fight for sensible consumer safeguards at the supermarket."
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said the ruling speaks to how international trade deals weaken U.S. consumer, environmental and other protections: "Today's ruling spotlights how these so called 'trade' deals are packed with non-trade provisions that threaten our most basic rights, such as even knowing the source and safety of what's on our dinner plate."
What's more, Hauter added, the dispute illustrates how corporate special interests can use the WTO to evade democratic governance. According to Food & Water Watch, the U.S. meatpacking industry has unsuccessfully opposed COOL rules in Congress, the executive branch, and the courts for the last 15 years.
"The meatpacking lobby has lost the COOL debate from the court of public opinion to the Court of Appeals to the halls of Congress so they are taking their complaint to the faceless unelected bureaucrats in Geneva," she said. "When the meat cannot get its way here in America, it is trying to use the WTO to overturn the will of the American people."
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said it was "considering all options," including an appeal, the Associated Press reports. The U.S. has one chance to appeal before the WTO issues a final, binding ruling. Under WTO rules, if the U.S. appeal fails, Canada and Mexico would be authorized to impose indefinite trade sanctions against the U.S. unless or until the U.S. government changes or eliminates the COOL policy.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The World Trade Organization ruled Monday that U.S. rules requiring labels on packaged steaks, ribs and other cuts of meat identifying where the animals were born, raised, and slaughtered are in violation of trade rules that require imports to be treated no less favorably than domestic products.
In its decision, the WTO said the country-of-origin labels (also referred to as 'COOL') forced meatpackers to segregate and keep detailed records on imported livestock, giving them an incentive to favor U.S. livestock. The WTO ruling was seen as a victory for Canada and Mexico, who had said the meat-labeling rules were protectionist, overly burdensome, and discriminated against livestock exports from their countries. Canada, for example, claims that its cattle and hog industries have lost more than $911.5 million because of COOL.
But watchdog groups said the WTO's decision wasn't in the public's best interest.
"The WTO's continued assault against commonsense food labels is just another example of how corporate-controlled trade policy undermines the basic protections that U.S. consumers deserve," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter in response to the news. "The United States should appeal the ruling and continue to fight for sensible consumer safeguards at the supermarket."
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said the ruling speaks to how international trade deals weaken U.S. consumer, environmental and other protections: "Today's ruling spotlights how these so called 'trade' deals are packed with non-trade provisions that threaten our most basic rights, such as even knowing the source and safety of what's on our dinner plate."
What's more, Hauter added, the dispute illustrates how corporate special interests can use the WTO to evade democratic governance. According to Food & Water Watch, the U.S. meatpacking industry has unsuccessfully opposed COOL rules in Congress, the executive branch, and the courts for the last 15 years.
"The meatpacking lobby has lost the COOL debate from the court of public opinion to the Court of Appeals to the halls of Congress so they are taking their complaint to the faceless unelected bureaucrats in Geneva," she said. "When the meat cannot get its way here in America, it is trying to use the WTO to overturn the will of the American people."
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said it was "considering all options," including an appeal, the Associated Press reports. The U.S. has one chance to appeal before the WTO issues a final, binding ruling. Under WTO rules, if the U.S. appeal fails, Canada and Mexico would be authorized to impose indefinite trade sanctions against the U.S. unless or until the U.S. government changes or eliminates the COOL policy.
The World Trade Organization ruled Monday that U.S. rules requiring labels on packaged steaks, ribs and other cuts of meat identifying where the animals were born, raised, and slaughtered are in violation of trade rules that require imports to be treated no less favorably than domestic products.
In its decision, the WTO said the country-of-origin labels (also referred to as 'COOL') forced meatpackers to segregate and keep detailed records on imported livestock, giving them an incentive to favor U.S. livestock. The WTO ruling was seen as a victory for Canada and Mexico, who had said the meat-labeling rules were protectionist, overly burdensome, and discriminated against livestock exports from their countries. Canada, for example, claims that its cattle and hog industries have lost more than $911.5 million because of COOL.
But watchdog groups said the WTO's decision wasn't in the public's best interest.
"The WTO's continued assault against commonsense food labels is just another example of how corporate-controlled trade policy undermines the basic protections that U.S. consumers deserve," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter in response to the news. "The United States should appeal the ruling and continue to fight for sensible consumer safeguards at the supermarket."
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, said the ruling speaks to how international trade deals weaken U.S. consumer, environmental and other protections: "Today's ruling spotlights how these so called 'trade' deals are packed with non-trade provisions that threaten our most basic rights, such as even knowing the source and safety of what's on our dinner plate."
What's more, Hauter added, the dispute illustrates how corporate special interests can use the WTO to evade democratic governance. According to Food & Water Watch, the U.S. meatpacking industry has unsuccessfully opposed COOL rules in Congress, the executive branch, and the courts for the last 15 years.
"The meatpacking lobby has lost the COOL debate from the court of public opinion to the Court of Appeals to the halls of Congress so they are taking their complaint to the faceless unelected bureaucrats in Geneva," she said. "When the meat cannot get its way here in America, it is trying to use the WTO to overturn the will of the American people."
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said it was "considering all options," including an appeal, the Associated Press reports. The U.S. has one chance to appeal before the WTO issues a final, binding ruling. Under WTO rules, if the U.S. appeal fails, Canada and Mexico would be authorized to impose indefinite trade sanctions against the U.S. unless or until the U.S. government changes or eliminates the COOL policy.