Posted August 26, 2013
On August 20, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia entered an order granting a motion by several organizations to
intervene in a lawsuit which seeks to stop the implementation of USDA’s country
of origin labeling (COOL) final rule, according to an Agri-Pulse article,
available here.
The motion to intervene was granted to the United
States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), National Farmers Union (NFU), the
American Sheep Industry Association and Consumer Federation of America. These groups support the implementation of
the new COOL rule, which requires labels on certain cuts of meat to provide
information on where it was born, raised, and slaughtered. The final rule, effective on May 23, is available
here.
According to a USCA
press release, Jon Wooster, president of the
organization, said that the court’s decision to permit the groups to intervene
was “good news.” Wooster continued,
“USCA and its fellow intervenors are strong advocates to ensure that consumers
in fact know where their beef is from.
The revised regulations … will surely reduce consumer confusion. For producers, providing consumers with
accurate information on where an animal has been born and raised gives cow-calf
operators, backgrounders and feedlots a chance to differentiate their product
as indeed born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States when the animal is
processed in our country.”
The USCA has filed briefs with the court presenting its
“opposition to the preliminary injunction motion filed by the plaintiffs.” A hearing is set for August 27.
The lawsuit was filed on July 8 by the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), American Meat Institute, North American
Meat Association, National Pork Producers Council, Canadian Cattlemen’s
Association, Canadian Pork Council, American Association of Meat Processors,
Southwest Meat Association, and Mexico’s National Confederation of Livestock
Organizations. A copy of the complaint
is available here. On July 25, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction; the brief in support is available here.
In the injunction request, the groups argue “that the
final COOL rule violates the Constitution, exceeds the US Department of
Agriculture’s authority under the Agricultural Marketing Act,” and violates the
Administrative Procedure Act, according to a MeatPoultry.com article. According to the MeatPoultry.com article,
available here,
the plaintiffs believe they are “very likely to succeed on the merits and the
Final Rule will likely be vacated” and without an injunction the final rule
will “irreparably harm the meat industry.”
Canada recently asked the World Trade Organization to
review the COOL rules in an ongoing trade dispute with the US over the rules. A recent post from this blog on the subject
is available here.
