A Canadian Federal Court ruled Monday that wines produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, cannot be marked with “Product of Israel” but must be clearly labeled as a product of an Israeli settlement.
David Kattenburg brought a complaint against the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Complaints and Appeals Office (CAO) for how they handled his prior complaint proceeding. Kattenburg argues that the CAO failed to keep him informed of their decision, and that the CAO had erred in reaching the conclusion that “Product of Isreal” labels on the settlement wines complied with Canadian law.
The government argued that the Food and Drug Regulation (FDR) requirement of “a clear indication of the country of origin” was met by the label “Product of Israel” based on the fact that the Government of Canada has not recognized Palestine as a country. Therefore, the government argued that “Israel was the only country that could be identified on labels as the source of the Settlement Wines.”
However, the court found that the requirements of the FDR are based on providing clear and accurate information to consumers about the origin of the products they are purchasing, and that both parties agree that the wines in question do not originate from the State of Israel.
Additionally, the court acknowledged that consumers utilize their purchasing power to express their political views in a peaceful way. In order to be able to accomplish this, however, “customers have to be provided with accurate information as to the source of the products in question.” And the Canadian legislation requires that country of origin labels on products sold in Canada be “truthful, non-deceptive and non-misleading.”
The court completed the full analysis without addressing any of the political issues surrounding the Israeli settlements and the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Rather, the court focused on the language of the legislative requirements for labeling and providing clear information to consumers.
The application for judicial review was granted, and the court remitted the matter to the CAO for re-determination.