12/5/2008 3:29:00 PM
Jolley: Five Minutes With Brad Wildeman, CCA, & The Mandatory COOL Issue
COOL is definitely not cool with Brad Wildeman or anyone else in the cattle business north of the border. Ranchers from B.C. to P.E.I. and all points in between are up in arms over what they see as a serious violation of a satchel full of trade agreements. W.T.O.? Absolutely. NAFTA? No doubt. And this week, they’ve brought out the big gun, going to the W.T.O. and filing a formal complaint.
The complaint alleged that COOL will impose a financial burden on U.S. meatpackers that slaughter Canadian animals imported into the United States the law could lead to more extensive and restrictive labeling requirements in other countries.
In an official statement, Stockwell Day, Canadian trade minister, went directly to the heart of the complaint. "We believe that the country-of-origin legislation is creating undue trade restrictions to the detriment of Canadian exporters,” he said.
The WTO filing requires negotiations between the United States and Canada in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If negotiations fail, a WTO dispute-settlement panel will rule on the matter. It’s a long, overly-drawn out process that won’t be finished until well after any permanent damage might be done.
Wildeman doesn’t want to wait. He’s worked too long and too hard to help insure the health of the Canadian Cattle industry to wait politely in the wings while the diplomats on both sides of the border chatter away. There are things that must be done immediately to open export markets for what has become excess supply and things that must be put in motion to support the future of the Canadian cattle industry, whether or not COOL remains the law or is eventually rescinded.
He’s got a plan. A few minutes spent with him tells the tale.
Q. Mr. Wildeman, you’re the president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. Would you give me some background on your qualifications?
A. As President of Pound-Maker Agventures Ltd., I oversee a 28,500 head, one-time capacity cattle finishing operation, plus a 13-million-litre ethanol facility located in Lanigan, Saskatchewan. We pioneered this through the 1980s and into 1990, building the first Canadian plant with the sole purpose of producing ethanol, which was also incorporated into our feeding operation.
Pound-Maker is a ground-breaking company, owned by local shareholders in the community, where the majority of stakeholders produced grain – a key reason for developing the ethanol plant. Our ownership structure is unique and the company is a significant size and has survived the various crises striking the agricultural sector over the years. It served as a model for others, which helped other communities and feedlots get started.
I believe it’s critical to ensure the long-term sustainability of agriculture and rural development, and recognize that if I want to see that happen not only for today, but for future generations, I need to step up to the plate. I’ve worked and served in many aspects, at the provincial and national levels. I served on a provincial action committee to revitalize the rural economy in Saskatchewan, plus worked with the livestock sector in many capacities, including chairing the Saskatchewan Cattle Feeders Association, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, and of course have served in various capacities with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association throughout the years.
In March, I was elected President the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. I served the CCA in many other capacities including Vice-President, plus chair of the Foreign Trade Committee, CanFax Research, plus the Value Creation and Competitiveness Committee.
I currently serve as an advisor to the Canadian Federal Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, in his capacity as a member of the Federal Beef Roundtable and have been recently appointed as co-chair of the Beef and Cattle Trade Advisory Committee, a multi-sectoral advisory group advising two federal government ministers on trade issues – namely, our Minister of International Trade, Stockwell Day, and again our Minister of Agriculture – Gerry Ritz. I also serve as a director of the Canadian Cattle Market Development Council – which oversees an $80-million domestic and international market development fund.
I’ve been very privileged, and humbled, over the past years to receive several honours for my work in agriculture. I became a proud recipient of one of Canada’s highest civilian honours, the Governor General of Canada’s award, in recognition of my work with our country’s agriculture industry. Provincially, I inducted into the Saskatchewan Agricultural Hall of Fame and also received the Saskatchewan Centennial Medal for growing and diversifying agriculture in the province.
Q. In a recent news story, you were quoted as saying, "The return of Minister Ritz and several new appointments indicates the federal government's plans to renew focus on improving the long-term health of Canada's agriculture sector." The statement was seen in most circles as a comment on the damage to the Canadian Ag industry done by the U.S. C.O.O.L. law.
You underlined that statement in a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that said, "The industry is now being directly attacked by the new, onerous mandatory country of origin labelling law."
Travis Toews, C.C.A.'s foreign trade committee chair, quite specifically said he hopes Ritz's return will expedite a challenge at the World Trade Organization against the U.S. Country-of-Origin Labeling law.
Ritz had already bluntly informed the U.S. government that Canada will initiate a World Trade Organization panel when the law came into effect. The gauntlet has definitely been tossed and the issue has just been taken to the W.T.O. Let’s start with an overview of the effects of the law which was part of the complaint. Can you put some numbers to the losses it has caused?
A. The long anticipated concerns about the impact of COOL as a trade barrier are certainly living up to expectations and each week there seems to be a new impact come to light, making the law more restrictive and costly for the Canadian cattle industry.
To sum this up, most US packing companies that previously accepted Canadian-born cattle have had to implement coping strategies that have either restricted Canadian cattle to certain facilities or restricting processing to certain days of the week, or in some cases - both, and some have directly discounted Canadian cattle. Their rationale is that they prefer to deal with only one origin label at each facility, but in some cases they are willing to deal with a second label at certain facilities as long as they recoup the associated costs by paying less for the Canadian-born cattle.
I am not aware of any packing facility in the United States that is currently accepting cattle that would cause them to have to manage 3 origin labels. On average, the combined impact of lower revenue and increased cost is about $90 per head. Canadian packers have factored this into their domestic bids as well, so we must experience the roughly $90 loss on all cattle regardless of whether they are exported or not.
Q. COOL., as it now stands, is an interim final rule and U.S. government officials have said it won’t be enforced until April 1 to give everyone involved a chance to get ready for the expected changes. Politically, it’s a time span that allows for a lot of substitutions in the way the law is worded. Based on comments made by president-elect Obama, we’ll assume that it will survive in substantially the same form as it exists today. What will be the long-term effect to the Canadian cattle industry?
A. Assuming COOL doesn’t get anymore restrictive than it already is, we hope that the former US buyers of Canadian cattle will modify both their facilities and marketing channels to provide Canadian beef to markets that don’t require the restrictive labelling practices, or to customers that are willing to make store shelf space available for Canadian product.
Our research data confirms that there are customers that will look for the attributes that our product can supply. Once we have fully integrated age, production, and source verification into our production system, tied to our mandatory identification system, that many customers may prefer to buy a verifiable product. Ultimately, their choice will be to either loosen the restrictions on purchasing Canadian cattle or downsize their operations. Additionally, we are telling out trade negotiators that we need to open up more international markets and to go out and cut some deals to make that happen, even if they are contrary to what the US is proposing. We have no choice.
Q. What would be the key points C.C.A. would like to see when COOL is challenged in front of the W.T.O. or N.A.F.T.A.?
A. With respect to the trade arguments, I am certainly no lawyer, but there are fundamental principles established in these agreements that governments cannot discriminate, or create obstacles, against imported products – this is known as ‘National Treatment’. It is also a long-established principle enshrined in these agreements that the transformation of a live animal into meat is a substantial transformation that confers the origin-of-the-country onto the meat where the transformation occurred.
In other words, if a Canadian-born animal becomes meat in the US, it is US meat. It is obvious that this law has no regard for either the letter, or spirit, of the trade agreements that have been of great benefit to both the US and Canadian industries.
Secondly, we fail to understand the need to label separately Canadian cattle that are fed and slaughtered in the US from the cattle that enter the US from Canada directly for slaughter. We can only view this as a blatant protectionist move to limit finished cattle exports to the US in violation of trade agreements. This is causing immediate and substantial economic harm to our cattle producers
Q. With the change in administration in Washington, a W.T.O. challenge might be a lengthy process. What measures will the C.C.A. consider to help bolster the Canadian cattle business in the interim?
A. I believe the change in Administration and the length of a WTO challenge are two separate issues. WTO challenges are lengthy ordeals, at the best of time, and we are aware that this could drag on for some years, but it is also the foundation of fair and legal trade agreements, and therefore is fundamental to our future viability.
We also know that President-elect Obama was one of several US Senators who wrote to Secretary Schafer, last September, asking him to remove some of the flexibility that might have made COOL somewhat less onerous for Canadian cattle producers. So this leaves us with little hope of expecting any administrative relaxation of the rules in the absence of a WTO decision against this law, convincing us that there is little alternative to a trade challenge.
In the meantime, we will focus on restoring our other global markets. If that means pursuing new and flexible trade arrangements with Japan and other markets, and these trade arrangements could be somewhat different from the trade conditions that the US is seeking. This may cause both our countries to have to accept lesser trade deals than we once desired, but we are now in a position where because of COOL we are forced to make deals that are less than what we wanted, and likely the US will need to match them to get equivalent access.
Our Canadian cattle and beef have other advantages that receive great respect worldwide, such as a national cattle identification system, plus we are two years into implementing a full and comprehensive feed ban.
In short, if we are no longer able to work as an integrated Canadian/US market, we must exploit our own Canadian Beef Advantage. We feel that this is a less preferable alternative to working together with the US, to compete jointly against other nations’ beef industries, but it seems we have little choice.
Q. You have a friend in Washington feed lot operator Cody Easterday who said the labeling program offers “no additional guarantees that beef products are any safer. . . it just allows retailers to discount non-U. S. products, which are just as high in quality.” He’s filed suit against the U.S.D.A., asking that COOL be overturned.
On the other hand, groups like R-CALF and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association claim it isn’t a quality issue and staunchly defend it as necessary to protect the safety of the food supply. Several weeks ago, I asked your friend Glenn Brand, president of the Beef Information Centre, what he would say if he could sit down with R-Calf’s Bill Bullard or USCA’s John Wooster. Let me ask you that same question.
A. Firstly, I would tell them that asking consumers to make food safety decisions based solely on the country of origin of the product is misleading, irresponsible, and dangerous. We expect our food safety agencies within government to ensure that the products we eat are safe; and if that isn’t working then we need to do whatever it takes to fix it. It is the foundation of consumer confidence.
Secondly, remember the implications of another food safety scare in the US from E.Coli, Salmonella, Listeriosis, etc. Now imagine if that product is from the US! Are U.S. ranchers and farmers willing to pay the price for someone else’s mistakes? Remember that most of the problems come in processing, shipping and handling not from the base product. Therefore, making safety claims based on origin alone will only serve to discredit the beef industry; no matter where the beef comes from because in the critical moment of a disease outbreak the system will fail to protect consumers.
In Canada, we believe that we have a very strong system of safety inspectors, oversight and processes, just as many Americans believe in there system of safety controls. But we are dealing with natural food products, and from time to time it is inevitable that we will experience food safety outbreaks. It is about our ability to quickly control them through tracking and tracing the product, then eliminating the source. Unless US cattlemen are prepared to adopt a comprehensive tracking and tracing system, like we have in Canada, the promise of food safety assurance is a hollow one that will betray producers in the critical moment. COOL must be about quality attributes or nationalistic pride not food safety
Finally, remember the US is the largest beef importer in the world, and will continue to get beef imported from somewhere else. Would it be best for consumers to have access to high quality grain fed beef produces in a highly regulated North American system, or from somewhere else? Because what increases long term demand for any product is consistent satisfaction with the products they buy; and not all the product consumed in the US will have a label on it. So who do you trust to provide that consumer confidence that will sustain your market long term?
_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Cattlemen To Provide Vigorous Defense For COOL At WTO
USCA (December 9, 2008) - Cattle producers from nine states gathered at the Orleans Hotel in Las Vegas, NV on December 5 for the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association’s (USCA) annual membership meeting. The event was held in conjunction with the PRCA National Finals Rodeo.
Attendees received an in-depth Capitol Hill update from Jess Peterson, USCA Executive Vice-President. Peterson’s presentation included a review of ongoing issues like country of origin labeling, Argentina’s push for beef and cattle import expansion, beef checkoff reform, marketplace competition, international trade agreements and animal health issues. Peterson also provided an overview of the new administration and the issues that will come before the 111th session of Congress.
"Tremendous policy opportunities lie ahead for U.S. cattle producers," noted Peterson. "A friendly Congress and a new administration mean we must be engaged in the policy process at every level. USCA has remarkable respect and access on Capitol Hill. As President-Elect Obama puts his Cabinet in place and new agency heads are appointed, USCA will be on the cutting edge of policy discussions."
USCA members in Las Vegas also heard from U.S. Department of Agriculture officials on the Canadian filings before the World Trade Organization on country of origin labeling.
"Information shows that the Canadian government has filed documents with the WTO requesting consultations with the United States over country of origin labeling," noted Peterson. "The time period to complete the consultations under the WTO is short. A response from the U.S. to the Canadian complaint is due by mid-December and we expect the consultations to commence shortly thereafter.. USCA members made clear their intent to provide a vigorous defense of the labeling law throughout the process. We are exploring the options available to us and producers can rest assured that USCA will be taking the lead on this issue."
USCA was founded on a one-member, one vote policy with a provision that allows all members to vote on policy resolutions by mail-in ballot.
Members at the annual meeting affirmed several policy resolutions passed by the USCA board of directors earlier this year, including a resolution on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Doug Zalesky, USCA Region IV Director and Trade Committee Chairman presented a resolution opposing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. "This trade agreement fails to provide phytosanitary safeguards to protect the U.S. cattle herd, and it also fails to contain rules for perishable and cyclical agriculture products," explained Zalesky. "There is no snap back provision that would curtail imports of cattle and beef if or when U.S. feeder cattle drop below the cost of production, and it fails to prohibit the transshipment of cattle. From cattle producers’ perspective, this is a very poor trade agreement that fails every litmus test."
The resolution opposing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement passed unanimously and will now be sent as a ballot issue to USCA members.
A resolution calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to immediately reject the pending regionalized beef trade plan with Argentina also passed unanimously.
"There is no question that the economic consequences of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the U.S. would be catastrophic," stated Zalesky. "Argentina has a documented problem with foot and mouth disease. The infectious animal disease risks associated with expanding beef and cattle trade with Argentina under USDA’s regionalized plan are unacceptable to U.S. producers. Foot and mouth disease is highly infectious, particularly through airborne vectors. An outbreak in the U.S. would bring livestock commerce to an immediate halt and would more than likely result in the depopulation of thousands of head of livestock. If USDA fails to withdraw this flawed proposal, then USCA will call on Congress to block the rule."
Argentina has defaulted on millions of dollars in loans made by U.S. companies, which is, in effect, an indirect subsidy for Argentine cattle producers. Argentina has opposed U.S. producers in international trade issues under the WTO.
Jolley: Five Minutes With Brad Wildeman, CCA, & The Mandatory COOL Issue
COOL is definitely not cool with Brad Wildeman or anyone else in the cattle business north of the border. Ranchers from B.C. to P.E.I. and all points in between are up in arms over what they see as a serious violation of a satchel full of trade agreements. W.T.O.? Absolutely. NAFTA? No doubt. And this week, they’ve brought out the big gun, going to the W.T.O. and filing a formal complaint.
The complaint alleged that COOL will impose a financial burden on U.S. meatpackers that slaughter Canadian animals imported into the United States the law could lead to more extensive and restrictive labeling requirements in other countries.
In an official statement, Stockwell Day, Canadian trade minister, went directly to the heart of the complaint. "We believe that the country-of-origin legislation is creating undue trade restrictions to the detriment of Canadian exporters,” he said.
The WTO filing requires negotiations between the United States and Canada in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If negotiations fail, a WTO dispute-settlement panel will rule on the matter. It’s a long, overly-drawn out process that won’t be finished until well after any permanent damage might be done.
Wildeman doesn’t want to wait. He’s worked too long and too hard to help insure the health of the Canadian Cattle industry to wait politely in the wings while the diplomats on both sides of the border chatter away. There are things that must be done immediately to open export markets for what has become excess supply and things that must be put in motion to support the future of the Canadian cattle industry, whether or not COOL remains the law or is eventually rescinded.
He’s got a plan. A few minutes spent with him tells the tale.
Q. Mr. Wildeman, you’re the president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. Would you give me some background on your qualifications?
A. As President of Pound-Maker Agventures Ltd., I oversee a 28,500 head, one-time capacity cattle finishing operation, plus a 13-million-litre ethanol facility located in Lanigan, Saskatchewan. We pioneered this through the 1980s and into 1990, building the first Canadian plant with the sole purpose of producing ethanol, which was also incorporated into our feeding operation.
Pound-Maker is a ground-breaking company, owned by local shareholders in the community, where the majority of stakeholders produced grain – a key reason for developing the ethanol plant. Our ownership structure is unique and the company is a significant size and has survived the various crises striking the agricultural sector over the years. It served as a model for others, which helped other communities and feedlots get started.
I believe it’s critical to ensure the long-term sustainability of agriculture and rural development, and recognize that if I want to see that happen not only for today, but for future generations, I need to step up to the plate. I’ve worked and served in many aspects, at the provincial and national levels. I served on a provincial action committee to revitalize the rural economy in Saskatchewan, plus worked with the livestock sector in many capacities, including chairing the Saskatchewan Cattle Feeders Association, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, and of course have served in various capacities with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association throughout the years.
In March, I was elected President the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. I served the CCA in many other capacities including Vice-President, plus chair of the Foreign Trade Committee, CanFax Research, plus the Value Creation and Competitiveness Committee.
I currently serve as an advisor to the Canadian Federal Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, in his capacity as a member of the Federal Beef Roundtable and have been recently appointed as co-chair of the Beef and Cattle Trade Advisory Committee, a multi-sectoral advisory group advising two federal government ministers on trade issues – namely, our Minister of International Trade, Stockwell Day, and again our Minister of Agriculture – Gerry Ritz. I also serve as a director of the Canadian Cattle Market Development Council – which oversees an $80-million domestic and international market development fund.
I’ve been very privileged, and humbled, over the past years to receive several honours for my work in agriculture. I became a proud recipient of one of Canada’s highest civilian honours, the Governor General of Canada’s award, in recognition of my work with our country’s agriculture industry. Provincially, I inducted into the Saskatchewan Agricultural Hall of Fame and also received the Saskatchewan Centennial Medal for growing and diversifying agriculture in the province.
Q. In a recent news story, you were quoted as saying, "The return of Minister Ritz and several new appointments indicates the federal government's plans to renew focus on improving the long-term health of Canada's agriculture sector." The statement was seen in most circles as a comment on the damage to the Canadian Ag industry done by the U.S. C.O.O.L. law.
You underlined that statement in a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that said, "The industry is now being directly attacked by the new, onerous mandatory country of origin labelling law."
Travis Toews, C.C.A.'s foreign trade committee chair, quite specifically said he hopes Ritz's return will expedite a challenge at the World Trade Organization against the U.S. Country-of-Origin Labeling law.
Ritz had already bluntly informed the U.S. government that Canada will initiate a World Trade Organization panel when the law came into effect. The gauntlet has definitely been tossed and the issue has just been taken to the W.T.O. Let’s start with an overview of the effects of the law which was part of the complaint. Can you put some numbers to the losses it has caused?
A. The long anticipated concerns about the impact of COOL as a trade barrier are certainly living up to expectations and each week there seems to be a new impact come to light, making the law more restrictive and costly for the Canadian cattle industry.
To sum this up, most US packing companies that previously accepted Canadian-born cattle have had to implement coping strategies that have either restricted Canadian cattle to certain facilities or restricting processing to certain days of the week, or in some cases - both, and some have directly discounted Canadian cattle. Their rationale is that they prefer to deal with only one origin label at each facility, but in some cases they are willing to deal with a second label at certain facilities as long as they recoup the associated costs by paying less for the Canadian-born cattle.
I am not aware of any packing facility in the United States that is currently accepting cattle that would cause them to have to manage 3 origin labels. On average, the combined impact of lower revenue and increased cost is about $90 per head. Canadian packers have factored this into their domestic bids as well, so we must experience the roughly $90 loss on all cattle regardless of whether they are exported or not.
Q. COOL., as it now stands, is an interim final rule and U.S. government officials have said it won’t be enforced until April 1 to give everyone involved a chance to get ready for the expected changes. Politically, it’s a time span that allows for a lot of substitutions in the way the law is worded. Based on comments made by president-elect Obama, we’ll assume that it will survive in substantially the same form as it exists today. What will be the long-term effect to the Canadian cattle industry?
A. Assuming COOL doesn’t get anymore restrictive than it already is, we hope that the former US buyers of Canadian cattle will modify both their facilities and marketing channels to provide Canadian beef to markets that don’t require the restrictive labelling practices, or to customers that are willing to make store shelf space available for Canadian product.
Our research data confirms that there are customers that will look for the attributes that our product can supply. Once we have fully integrated age, production, and source verification into our production system, tied to our mandatory identification system, that many customers may prefer to buy a verifiable product. Ultimately, their choice will be to either loosen the restrictions on purchasing Canadian cattle or downsize their operations. Additionally, we are telling out trade negotiators that we need to open up more international markets and to go out and cut some deals to make that happen, even if they are contrary to what the US is proposing. We have no choice.
Q. What would be the key points C.C.A. would like to see when COOL is challenged in front of the W.T.O. or N.A.F.T.A.?
A. With respect to the trade arguments, I am certainly no lawyer, but there are fundamental principles established in these agreements that governments cannot discriminate, or create obstacles, against imported products – this is known as ‘National Treatment’. It is also a long-established principle enshrined in these agreements that the transformation of a live animal into meat is a substantial transformation that confers the origin-of-the-country onto the meat where the transformation occurred.
In other words, if a Canadian-born animal becomes meat in the US, it is US meat. It is obvious that this law has no regard for either the letter, or spirit, of the trade agreements that have been of great benefit to both the US and Canadian industries.
Secondly, we fail to understand the need to label separately Canadian cattle that are fed and slaughtered in the US from the cattle that enter the US from Canada directly for slaughter. We can only view this as a blatant protectionist move to limit finished cattle exports to the US in violation of trade agreements. This is causing immediate and substantial economic harm to our cattle producers
Q. With the change in administration in Washington, a W.T.O. challenge might be a lengthy process. What measures will the C.C.A. consider to help bolster the Canadian cattle business in the interim?
A. I believe the change in Administration and the length of a WTO challenge are two separate issues. WTO challenges are lengthy ordeals, at the best of time, and we are aware that this could drag on for some years, but it is also the foundation of fair and legal trade agreements, and therefore is fundamental to our future viability.
We also know that President-elect Obama was one of several US Senators who wrote to Secretary Schafer, last September, asking him to remove some of the flexibility that might have made COOL somewhat less onerous for Canadian cattle producers. So this leaves us with little hope of expecting any administrative relaxation of the rules in the absence of a WTO decision against this law, convincing us that there is little alternative to a trade challenge.
In the meantime, we will focus on restoring our other global markets. If that means pursuing new and flexible trade arrangements with Japan and other markets, and these trade arrangements could be somewhat different from the trade conditions that the US is seeking. This may cause both our countries to have to accept lesser trade deals than we once desired, but we are now in a position where because of COOL we are forced to make deals that are less than what we wanted, and likely the US will need to match them to get equivalent access.
Our Canadian cattle and beef have other advantages that receive great respect worldwide, such as a national cattle identification system, plus we are two years into implementing a full and comprehensive feed ban.
In short, if we are no longer able to work as an integrated Canadian/US market, we must exploit our own Canadian Beef Advantage. We feel that this is a less preferable alternative to working together with the US, to compete jointly against other nations’ beef industries, but it seems we have little choice.
Q. You have a friend in Washington feed lot operator Cody Easterday who said the labeling program offers “no additional guarantees that beef products are any safer. . . it just allows retailers to discount non-U. S. products, which are just as high in quality.” He’s filed suit against the U.S.D.A., asking that COOL be overturned.
On the other hand, groups like R-CALF and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association claim it isn’t a quality issue and staunchly defend it as necessary to protect the safety of the food supply. Several weeks ago, I asked your friend Glenn Brand, president of the Beef Information Centre, what he would say if he could sit down with R-Calf’s Bill Bullard or USCA’s John Wooster. Let me ask you that same question.
A. Firstly, I would tell them that asking consumers to make food safety decisions based solely on the country of origin of the product is misleading, irresponsible, and dangerous. We expect our food safety agencies within government to ensure that the products we eat are safe; and if that isn’t working then we need to do whatever it takes to fix it. It is the foundation of consumer confidence.
Secondly, remember the implications of another food safety scare in the US from E.Coli, Salmonella, Listeriosis, etc. Now imagine if that product is from the US! Are U.S. ranchers and farmers willing to pay the price for someone else’s mistakes? Remember that most of the problems come in processing, shipping and handling not from the base product. Therefore, making safety claims based on origin alone will only serve to discredit the beef industry; no matter where the beef comes from because in the critical moment of a disease outbreak the system will fail to protect consumers.
In Canada, we believe that we have a very strong system of safety inspectors, oversight and processes, just as many Americans believe in there system of safety controls. But we are dealing with natural food products, and from time to time it is inevitable that we will experience food safety outbreaks. It is about our ability to quickly control them through tracking and tracing the product, then eliminating the source. Unless US cattlemen are prepared to adopt a comprehensive tracking and tracing system, like we have in Canada, the promise of food safety assurance is a hollow one that will betray producers in the critical moment. COOL must be about quality attributes or nationalistic pride not food safety
Finally, remember the US is the largest beef importer in the world, and will continue to get beef imported from somewhere else. Would it be best for consumers to have access to high quality grain fed beef produces in a highly regulated North American system, or from somewhere else? Because what increases long term demand for any product is consistent satisfaction with the products they buy; and not all the product consumed in the US will have a label on it. So who do you trust to provide that consumer confidence that will sustain your market long term?
_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Cattlemen To Provide Vigorous Defense For COOL At WTO
USCA (December 9, 2008) - Cattle producers from nine states gathered at the Orleans Hotel in Las Vegas, NV on December 5 for the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association’s (USCA) annual membership meeting. The event was held in conjunction with the PRCA National Finals Rodeo.
Attendees received an in-depth Capitol Hill update from Jess Peterson, USCA Executive Vice-President. Peterson’s presentation included a review of ongoing issues like country of origin labeling, Argentina’s push for beef and cattle import expansion, beef checkoff reform, marketplace competition, international trade agreements and animal health issues. Peterson also provided an overview of the new administration and the issues that will come before the 111th session of Congress.
"Tremendous policy opportunities lie ahead for U.S. cattle producers," noted Peterson. "A friendly Congress and a new administration mean we must be engaged in the policy process at every level. USCA has remarkable respect and access on Capitol Hill. As President-Elect Obama puts his Cabinet in place and new agency heads are appointed, USCA will be on the cutting edge of policy discussions."
USCA members in Las Vegas also heard from U.S. Department of Agriculture officials on the Canadian filings before the World Trade Organization on country of origin labeling.
"Information shows that the Canadian government has filed documents with the WTO requesting consultations with the United States over country of origin labeling," noted Peterson. "The time period to complete the consultations under the WTO is short. A response from the U.S. to the Canadian complaint is due by mid-December and we expect the consultations to commence shortly thereafter.. USCA members made clear their intent to provide a vigorous defense of the labeling law throughout the process. We are exploring the options available to us and producers can rest assured that USCA will be taking the lead on this issue."
USCA was founded on a one-member, one vote policy with a provision that allows all members to vote on policy resolutions by mail-in ballot.
Members at the annual meeting affirmed several policy resolutions passed by the USCA board of directors earlier this year, including a resolution on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Doug Zalesky, USCA Region IV Director and Trade Committee Chairman presented a resolution opposing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. "This trade agreement fails to provide phytosanitary safeguards to protect the U.S. cattle herd, and it also fails to contain rules for perishable and cyclical agriculture products," explained Zalesky. "There is no snap back provision that would curtail imports of cattle and beef if or when U.S. feeder cattle drop below the cost of production, and it fails to prohibit the transshipment of cattle. From cattle producers’ perspective, this is a very poor trade agreement that fails every litmus test."
The resolution opposing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement passed unanimously and will now be sent as a ballot issue to USCA members.
A resolution calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to immediately reject the pending regionalized beef trade plan with Argentina also passed unanimously.
"There is no question that the economic consequences of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the U.S. would be catastrophic," stated Zalesky. "Argentina has a documented problem with foot and mouth disease. The infectious animal disease risks associated with expanding beef and cattle trade with Argentina under USDA’s regionalized plan are unacceptable to U.S. producers. Foot and mouth disease is highly infectious, particularly through airborne vectors. An outbreak in the U.S. would bring livestock commerce to an immediate halt and would more than likely result in the depopulation of thousands of head of livestock. If USDA fails to withdraw this flawed proposal, then USCA will call on Congress to block the rule."
Argentina has defaulted on millions of dollars in loans made by U.S. companies, which is, in effect, an indirect subsidy for Argentine cattle producers. Argentina has opposed U.S. producers in international trade issues under the WTO.