The American Meat Institute (AMI) and seven other
meat and livestock organisations – the American Association of Meat
Processors, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, the Canadian Pork
Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork
Producers' Council, the North American Meat Association, and the
Southwest Meat Association – filed a suit in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia to block the implementation of a
mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) rule finalised by the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) in May 2013.
The plaintiffs explained that the final rule violates the United States Constitution by compelling speech in the form of costly and detailed labels on meat products that do not directly advance a government interest. In addition, they explained that the 2013 regulation exceeds the scope of the statutory mandate, because the statute does not permit the kind of detailed and onerous labelling requirements the final rule puts in place, and that the rule is arbitrary and capricious, because it imposes vast burdens on the industry with little or no countervailing benefit.
The organisations added that the new and complex country-of-origin labels required for meat and poultry sold at retail constitute compelled speech. Under the US Constitution, commercial speech may be compelled only where it serves a substantial government interest (for example, if the compelled speech is aimed at preventing the spread of a contagious disease). Because these labels offer no food safety or public health benefit, but impose costs the government modestly estimates at $192 million, the government cannot require them.
“Congress mandated the country-of-origin labelling rule for meat and poultry and not lifetime itinerary labelling,” AMI executive Mark Dopp said. He added, “Segregating and tracking animals according to the countries where production steps occurred and detailing that information on a label may be a bureaucrat’s paperwork fantasy, but the labels that result will serve only to confuse consumers, raise the prices they pay, and put some producers and meat and poultry companies out of business in the process. Everyone loses under this rule.”
The plaintiffs explained that the final rule violates the United States Constitution by compelling speech in the form of costly and detailed labels on meat products that do not directly advance a government interest. In addition, they explained that the 2013 regulation exceeds the scope of the statutory mandate, because the statute does not permit the kind of detailed and onerous labelling requirements the final rule puts in place, and that the rule is arbitrary and capricious, because it imposes vast burdens on the industry with little or no countervailing benefit.
The organisations added that the new and complex country-of-origin labels required for meat and poultry sold at retail constitute compelled speech. Under the US Constitution, commercial speech may be compelled only where it serves a substantial government interest (for example, if the compelled speech is aimed at preventing the spread of a contagious disease). Because these labels offer no food safety or public health benefit, but impose costs the government modestly estimates at $192 million, the government cannot require them.
“Congress mandated the country-of-origin labelling rule for meat and poultry and not lifetime itinerary labelling,” AMI executive Mark Dopp said. He added, “Segregating and tracking animals according to the countries where production steps occurred and detailing that information on a label may be a bureaucrat’s paperwork fantasy, but the labels that result will serve only to confuse consumers, raise the prices they pay, and put some producers and meat and poultry companies out of business in the process. Everyone loses under this rule.”
No comments:
Post a Comment