COOL Ruling & Repeal Effort is Another Reminder How TPP Could Undermine U.S. Laws

Supporters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) like to claim that "No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws." But recent World Trade Organization (WTO) rulings against the U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules for beef and pork demonstrate that this claim is wrong.

With the TPP already facing a difficult road ahead in Congress, its potential to threaten democratically-enacted U.S. laws is another reminder why the TPP is a bad deal for American workers and priorities.

"Our trade policy should advance American values and strengthen democratic governance. Unfortunately, the TPP would do the opposite," CWA Legislative Director Shane Larson said.

As mandated by Congress, COOL requires beef and pork sold domestically to tell consumers its country of origin. In May, the WTO issued a ruling against COOL and last week weighed in again to rule that Canada and Mexico may impose "retaliatory tariffs" against the U.S. totaling approximately $1 billion on imported American products. In response to the WTO rulings, the House of Representatives has passed legislation repealing COOL and the Senate may soon do the same – Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Pat Roberts recently stated, "I will continue to look for all legislative opportunities to repeal COOL."

The WTO rulings against COOL – and the subsequent repeal effort in Congress – are directly relevant to the ongoing debate over the TPP. The controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision of the TPP could provide a new mechanism to challenge U.S. laws and regulations.

As Lori Wallach recently assessed at Huffington Post: "The TPP would make the situation much worse. It includes constraints on food safety that extend beyond the WTO, roll back the environmental standards included even in George W. Bush's trade pacts and would empower individual foreign corporations to directly launch attacks on public interest policies."

This is not how it should be.

"International tribunals and trade pacts should not be able to undercut and overturn U.S. laws and protections," Larson said. "As the COOL example shows, there is a real and well-founded worry that corporations could use the ISDS provision of the TPP to challenge democratically-enacted labor, consumer, and environmental laws. Our trade policy should advance American values and strengthen democratic governance. Unfortunately, the TPP would do the opposite."