The representative of Canada provided the following statement. California's Farm Animal Confinement measure was initially notified to the WTO TBT committee on 7 June 2021, followed by several addenda and a notification of the final measure on 12 September 2022. Massachusetts' Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals measure was notified as a proposed measure on 29 June 2021 and we understand it is currently in effect. Canada would like to thank California, Massachusetts and the US federal government for their bilateral engagements on California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3. Unfortunately, our core concerns remain unaddressed. Canada is a strong proponent of animal welfare, as evidenced by our comprehensive Codes of Practice for the care and handling of farm animals. We also support the right of governments to develop requirements for food production within their own jurisdictions. Nevertheless, Canada is concerned about the emerging patchwork of subnational regulations across the US, which mandate prescriptive agricultural production practices for food to be sold within a state, including imported products. California and Massachusetts' measures prohibit the sale of specified food products, such as types and cuts of meat, where animals were not housed in the exact manner prescribed in their respective regulations.

Overall, Canada has five main concerns. 1. These measures are not based on evidence or international standards and do not consider the entire welfare needs of animals. 2. These measures are not outcome-based and do not provide an opportunity for the recognition of equivalence. 3. A patchwork of diverging subnational regulations, mandating highly-prescriptive production practices, has the potential to severely restrict trade in agriculture and agri-food products in the US. 4. These measures set a concerning precedent: they signal the ability of each state to restrict the sale of any product that is not produced in an exact manner, irrespective of evidence, outcomes or international standards. If this continues to be replicated in other states or other regulatory areas, participating in the US market will become unmanageable. 5. Less trade-restrictive alternatives do not seem to be taken into consideration. To reiterate, Canada strongly supports the proper care and handling of farm animals in agriculture production. However, Canada feels that these measures do not achieve that objective and establish a concerning precedent of a patchwork of subnational regulations that restrict trade. We urge the US to consider mechanisms to address the growing patchwork of regulations and ensure trade is not unduly restricted.

The representative of New Zealand provided the following statement. New Zealand wishes to associate itself with the concerns which Canada has expressed about the Farm Animal Confinement measures implemented by some states of the US. Like Canada, New Zealand is a strong proponent of animal welfare, as evidenced by our comprehensive regulations and detailed legislation for the care and handling of farm animals, as well as the inclusion of animal welfare chapters in our recent FTAs. Animal welfare measures need to be designed to fit the specific context in which they are implemented. It is not appropriate to apply a set of animal welfare measures designed for one specific context or set of circumstances to all others. We share Canada's concern about the emerging patchwork of subnational regulations across the US, which mandate prescriptive agricultural production practices for food to be sold within a state, including imported products. Like Canada, our specific concerns relate to the facts that these measures are not based on evidence or international standards, nor do they provide an opportunity for the recognition of equivalence. In addition, less trade-restrictive alternatives do not seem to be taken into consideration. We urge the US to consider mechanisms to address the growing patchwork of regulations and ensure trade is not unduly restricted.

The representative of Australia provided the following statement. Australia thanks Canada for raising this trade concern. Australia is a strong supporter of animal welfare, and we prioritize animal welfare through agreed principles and practices and industry guidelines in Australian states and territories. Australia's national and subnational approach does not apply extraterritorially nor unduly restrict trade. Australia considers it is important to minimize the regulatory fragmentation through the proliferation of state-based regulations impacting on food production, trade in goods, and sale of food, including imported products. Australia encourages an outcomes-based approach that allows for local conditions to be taken into account and the recognition of equivalence that is underpinned by science and evidence-based principles.

In response, the representative of the United States provided the following statement. The United States has a federalist system, in which power to regulate is distributed, and at times shared concurrently, between the federal and state governments. This federalist system is described in the US Constitution. The governments of many other Members have systems that operate under similar principles. The United States recognizes Canada's interest in California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (Prop 12), and Massachusetts' requirements to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals, also known as Massachusetts Question 3 (Q3). The United States has notified those measures to the WTO TBT Committee, accepted Canada's comments through the US Enquiry Point, and has conveyed those comments to the States of California and Massachusetts. We appreciate Canada's recognition that the United States has made significant efforts to ensure transparency throughout the development and implementation of each measure including arranging a meeting for Canada to discuss Prop 12 implementation with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) on 6 September 2023. We have also been in direct contact with the governor's offices of the States of Massachusetts and California when these measures have been discussed bilaterally to explain the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

As Canada is aware, both measures are administered by local government bodies in the US states of California and Massachusetts. In both cases, the US State authorities provided multiple opportunities for Canada review and comment on draft measures prior to finalization. The United States notified California Prop 12 to the WTO TBT Committee on 10 June 2022 as G/TBT/N/USA/1737 and notified five addenda. The United States notified Q3 to the WTO TBT Committee on 29 June 2021 as G/TBT/N/USA/1741 and received Canada's comments on this measure on 30 July 2021, which were shared with the US State of Massachusetts for further consideration. The United States would like to remind Canada that California CFDA and Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources are local government bodies. And pursuant to Article 3 of the TBT Agreement, US government has taken reasonable measures to ensure compliance, including the cooperation measures described above and explaining the provisions of Article 2 of the WTO TBT Agreement to our sub-federal authorities.