Court rules against AMI in COOL challenge
March 28, 2014 | 03:00 PM
In a blow to the meat industry’s campaign against country-of-origin labeling for red meat, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today upheld a lower court ruling that denied a request from the American Meat Institute for a preliminary injunction on the Agricultural Marketing Service’s enforcement of the rule implementing the labeling program.
After a World Trade Organization panel found fault with the original labeling program, AMS modified the rule to require statements of production steps — born, raised or slaughtered — in each country and eliminating an allowance of commingling cuts from animals of different origins, but processed on the same day.
AMI and allied groups challenged the 2013 rule in district court as a violation of the COOL statute and the First Amendment.
The appeals court agreed with the district that “AMI is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims.”
In the ruling, the court wrote, “What then are the government interests here? AMI argues that the rule merely satisfies consumers’ curiosity. But we can see non-frivolous values advanced by the information. Obviously it enables a consumer to apply patriotic or protectionist criteria in the choice of meat. And it enables one who believes that United States practices and regulation are better at assuring food safety than those of other countries, or indeed the reverse, to act on that premise.”
Noting that members of Congress had asserted possible interests in food safety and in favoring American producers, the court added, “We cannot declare these goals so trivial or misguided as to fall below the threshold needed to justify the ‘minimal’ intrusion on AMI’s First Amendment interests. Thus AMI has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.”
The district court also said, “There is, moreover, a public interest factor that we did not consider in our constitutional analysis, that of allowing the United States’s effort to comply with the WTO ruling to take effect. We are clearly in a poor position to assess the effects of any noncompliance.”
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson, who was attending the World Farmers’ Organization meeting in Buenos Aires when the ruling was announced, said he was “extremely pleased.”
“Today’s decision notes that COOL advances legitimate values, including consumer information and consumer choice,” Johnson said.
“The Court of Appeals also explained that COOL labels can be seen as a sign that retailers ‘take pride in identifying the source of their products.’ NFU’s family farmer- and rancher-members certainly take pride in the products they produce, and I am glad that consumers will be able to continue to identify their products at retail as a result of today’s decision.”
AMI and its allies were disappointed.
“We disagree strongly with the court’s decision and believe that the rule will continue to harm livestock producers and the industry with little benefit to consumers,” said AMI Interim President and CEO James H. Hodges. “At this point we are evaluating our options moving forward.”
AMI noted that it had been joined in the suit by the American Association of Meat Processors, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Canadian Pork Council, Confedaracion Nacional de Organizaciones Ganaderas, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, North American Meat Association and the Southwest Meat Association.
After a World Trade Organization panel found fault with the original labeling program, AMS modified the rule to require statements of production steps — born, raised or slaughtered — in each country and eliminating an allowance of commingling cuts from animals of different origins, but processed on the same day.
AMI and allied groups challenged the 2013 rule in district court as a violation of the COOL statute and the First Amendment.
The appeals court agreed with the district that “AMI is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims.”
In the ruling, the court wrote, “What then are the government interests here? AMI argues that the rule merely satisfies consumers’ curiosity. But we can see non-frivolous values advanced by the information. Obviously it enables a consumer to apply patriotic or protectionist criteria in the choice of meat. And it enables one who believes that United States practices and regulation are better at assuring food safety than those of other countries, or indeed the reverse, to act on that premise.”
Noting that members of Congress had asserted possible interests in food safety and in favoring American producers, the court added, “We cannot declare these goals so trivial or misguided as to fall below the threshold needed to justify the ‘minimal’ intrusion on AMI’s First Amendment interests. Thus AMI has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.”
The district court also said, “There is, moreover, a public interest factor that we did not consider in our constitutional analysis, that of allowing the United States’s effort to comply with the WTO ruling to take effect. We are clearly in a poor position to assess the effects of any noncompliance.”
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson, who was attending the World Farmers’ Organization meeting in Buenos Aires when the ruling was announced, said he was “extremely pleased.”
“Today’s decision notes that COOL advances legitimate values, including consumer information and consumer choice,” Johnson said.
“The Court of Appeals also explained that COOL labels can be seen as a sign that retailers ‘take pride in identifying the source of their products.’ NFU’s family farmer- and rancher-members certainly take pride in the products they produce, and I am glad that consumers will be able to continue to identify their products at retail as a result of today’s decision.”
AMI and its allies were disappointed.
“We disagree strongly with the court’s decision and believe that the rule will continue to harm livestock producers and the industry with little benefit to consumers,” said AMI Interim President and CEO James H. Hodges. “At this point we are evaluating our options moving forward.”
AMI noted that it had been joined in the suit by the American Association of Meat Processors, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Canadian Pork Council, Confedaracion Nacional de Organizaciones Ganaderas, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, North American Meat Association and the Southwest Meat Association.
