This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
See also:
> The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO
> Computer based training on dispute settlement
> Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
|
Current status back to top
Key facts back to top
| Short title: |
|
| Complainant: |
|
| Respondent: |
|
| Third Parties: |
|
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations) |
|
| Request for Consultations received: |
|
| Panel Report circulated: |
18 November 2011 |
Summary of the dispute to date back to top
The summary below was up-to-date at
Consultations
Complaint by Canada. (See also DS386)
On 1 December 2008, Canada requested consultations with the United States concerning certain mandatory country of origin labelling (COOL) provisions in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill and as implemented through an Interim Final Rule of 28 July 2008. These include the obligation to inform consumers at the retail level of the country of origin in respect of covered commodities, including beef and pork. The eligibility for a designation of a covered commodity as exclusively having a US origin can only be derived from an animal that was exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. This would exclude such a designation in respect of beef or pork derived from livestock that is exported to the United States for feed or immediate slaughter. Canada alleges that the mandatory COOL provisions appear to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the WTO Agreement, including:
- Articles III:4, IX:4 and X:3 of the GATT 1994;
- Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, or, in the alternative, Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the SPS Agreement; and
- Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.
On 12 December 2008, Mexico and Nicaragua requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, the United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Mexico to join the consultations.
On 7 May 2009, Canada requested further consultations concerning related amendments and measures adopted by the United States after Canada's initial request for consultations. It also includes any modifications or amendments to the COOL measures, including any further implementing guidance or other documents that may be published in relation to such measures.
Canada considers that the cited measures appear to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the WTO Agreement, including:
- Articles III:4, IX:2, IX:4 and X:3 of GATT 1994;
- Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, or, in the alternative, Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the SPS Agreement; and
- Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.
On 15 May 2009, Mexico requested to join the further consultations. On 22 May 2009, Peru requested to join the further consultations. Subsequently, the United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Mexico and Peru to join the consultations.
On 7 October 2009, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 October 2009, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
At its meeting on 19 November 2009, the DSB established a single panel pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, to examine this dispute and dispute DS386. Argentina, Australia, China, Colombia, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Peru and New Zealand reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, Brazil, the European Communities, Guatemala and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On 30 April 2010, Canada requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 10 May 2010, the Director-General composed the panel. On 21 December 2010, the Chairman of the panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to issue its report within six months. The timetable adopted by the Panel after consultations with the parties to the dispute envisaged that the final report shall be issued to the parties by the middle of 2011. The panel expects to conclude its work within that timeframe.
On 18 November 2011, the panel report was circulated to Members.
| | |
| Summary of key findings
- This dispute concerns: (i) the US statutory provisions and implementing regulations setting out the United States' mandatory country of origin labelling regime for beef and pork (“COOL measure”); as well as (ii) a letter issued by the US Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack on the implementation of the COOL measure (“Vilsack letter”).
- The Panel determined that the COOL measure is a technical regulation under the TBT Agreement, and that it is inconsistent with the United States' WTO obligations. In particular, the Panel found that the COOL measure violates Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by according less favourable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs than to like domestic products. The Panel also found that the COOL measure does not fulfil its legitimate objective of providing consumers with information on origin, and therefore violates Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
- As regards the Vilsack letter, the Panel found that the letter's “suggestions for voluntary action” went beyond certain obligations under the COOL measure, and that the letter therefore constitutes unreasonable administration of the COOL measure in violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. The Panel refrained from reviewing the Vilsack letter under the TBT Agreement, as it found that this letter is not a technical regulation under that agreement.
- In light of the above findings of violation, the Panel did not consider it necessary to rule on the claims under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 (national treatment) or on the non‑violation claims under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
| |
| | |
On 21 December 2011, Canada and the United States requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60-day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU, to 23 March 2012. At its meeting on 5 January 2012, the DSB agreed that, upon a request by Canada or the United States, the DSB, shall no later than 23 March 2012, adopt the panel report, unless the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or Canada or the United States notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU.
|
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using. |
