Animal Policy International’s two new reports on the United Kingdom and New Zealand, with independent legal advice, find that import restrictions are compatible with World Trade Organisation rules.
For quite some time, it has been recognised that import bans and market access requirements are prevalent regulatory practices among members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). These measures are often implemented in response to various public policy objectives, including protecting public health, safeguarding the environment, and upholding public morals. GATT Article XX explicitly allows for such restrictions, acknowledging the need for members to prioritise important societal values.
Despite this provision, officials have sometimes expressed concerns about the potential for proposed new measures to restrict imports of animal products, to contradict WTO rules. This apprehension stems from the complex interplay between national regulations aimed at protecting public interests and the WTO’s overarching principles of free trade and non-discrimination. The fear is that implementing stringent import measures could lead to disputes or challenges within the WTO framework, potentially resulting in sanctions or trade penalties.
WTO case law shows that countries can justify import or sales restrictions on animal products that do not meet domestic animal welfare standards under the public morals exemption.
Animal Policy International’s two new reports on the United Kingdom and New Zealand, with independent legal advice, find that scrutiny of existing WTO case law does not uphold this concern, and if challenged, it is likely a measure on imports would be found compliant.
Key points include:
International trade law permits import restrictions: World Trade Organisation case law shows that countries can apply import or sales restrictions on animal products that do not meet domestic animal welfare standards under the public morals exemption provided for in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XX.
Public support for closing the loopholes is high: There is ample evidence to support that animal welfare is a proven ethical concern in the UK and New Zealand. Surveys consistently show that New Zealanders and British people agree that imported products from outside of their shores should respect the same animal welfare standards as those applied locally.
Legal precedent supports closing the loopholes: There are examples where countries and states have limited imports due to concerns over animal welfare, for example Proposition 12 in California and the EU Slaughter Regulation.
It is also important to note that in practice the risks of an actual WTO dispute occurring are relatively remote in view of the generally historic low rate of disputes and bearing in mind that similar legislative measures restricting animal products based on welfare concerns have rarely been challenged by WTO Members.
A number of international measures address specific situations, practices or species and were never challenged through the WTO dispute settlement process. These are for example:
EU Slaughter Regulation requires equivalent standard for slaughter procedures, stunning, and qualification of the personnel to be met from imported meat products
California’s Proposition 12 is a California state law that was passed in 2018 to protect cows, pigs and chickens by banning some types of confinement and is also applied to imported products.
EU Cosmetics Regulation banning marketing of cosmetics containing ingredients tested on animals
Bans on the importation of foie gras, including California and India
Bans on the importation of fur products, including Switzerland, India, Israel, Taiwan
The WTO Dispute Settlement Body has stated on several occasions that Members of the WTO have the right to determine the level of protection that they consider appropriate to achieve a given policy aim.
Extending a country’s standards to imports via legislation would close the “imports loophole” by stopping cruel imports, consistently meet national expectations and public morals, and ensure consumption does not support inhumane production overseas.
Read the New Zealand overview report and full legal opinion.
Read the UK overview report and full legal opinion.