• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

COOL dispute

Help Support Ranchers.net:

VB RANCH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
765
Reaction score
0
Location
leader minnesota
Last Friday, the U.S. Trade representative (USTR) announced it will appeal the World Trade Organization’s ruling claiming our mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) rules violate trade agreements. Early in the day, AgriTalk Radio’s Mike Adams discussed the decision with Tim Reif, general counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative office.

Reif stressed the administration’s commitment to protecting consumers by providing country-of-origin information on beef and pork products. The appeal, he says, dispute’s the WTO’s contention that COOL provides “less favorable treatment to Mexican and Canadian Livestock producers,” and that “the COOL statute is more trade restrictive than necessary to provide information to consumers.”

Reif explained that the WTO decision did not dispute the United States’ right to require country-of-origin labels, but objects to the ways the COOL statute was implemented.

Reif says he expects a decision from WTO on the appeal within two to three months.

NCBA quickly issued a statement expressing concern the appeal will do more harm than good.

"We are very disappointed in this decision. Instead of working diligently to bring the United States into WTO compliance, our government has opted to engage in an appeal process, which jeopardizes our strong trade relationship with Canada and Mexico, the two largest importers of U.S. beef,” says NCBA vice president Bob McCann. “An appeal is the wrong answer and a waste of valuable resources. This appeal will do nothing but escalate tension with our valuable trade partners and will prolong an issue that could be resolved quickly. We should be working toward a solution instead of creating a bigger problem.

"NCBA will engage with Canada and Mexico in order to prevent any retaliatory action that could occur from this unfortunate decision made by the U.S. government.

"Cattlemen deserve a government that fights for and protects our opportunities. We need a government that not only demands WTO compliance of our trade partners but one that ensures the United States is abiding by these same guidelines."

R-CALF USA, which has long supported mandatory COOL, reacted differently.

“We’re extremely thankful that our U.S. Trade Representative has chosen to defend our constitutionally-passed COOL law,” said R-CALF USA Region VI Director and COOL Committee Chair Mike Schultz. “But, we’re in a no-win situation regarding this frontal attack on our COOL law because our nation should not tolerate for an instant a foreign entity’s efforts to undermine our constitutionally-passed domestic laws in the first place.” Schultz explained that it is a sad state of affairs when our U.S. government kowtows to a One-World Government tribunal by playing within that foreign tribunal’s pseudo judicial process.

“Several powerful corporate industry groups are actually supporting the WTO’s efforts to undermine our U.S. COOL law, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Meat Institute (AMI),” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard adding, “These groups don’t want U.S. consumers to know if they are buying beef produced exclusively in the United States or if their beef was produced in Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, or any one of the more than a dozen countries where U.S. corporations source their beef.”

Bullard said those corporate industry groups that support the WTO’s anti-COOL ruling do not want U.S. consumers to support U.S. farmers and ranchers by choosing to buy U.S. beef for their families.

Bullard added that other groups have tried to sugar-coat the WTO’s anti-COOL ruling by claiming the ruling reinforced the United States’ right to implement a COOL program and only attacked the manner by which the United States’ COOL law was implemented.

“This is nothing more than semantics and the WTO is far too coy to have attacked our domestic law in any other way than it did. The fact is that the WTO accomplished its objective by ruling on the one hand that COOL was too rigid and treated foreign product less favorably than domestic product, but on the other hand, it ruled that COOL was too flexible and therefore nullified the COOL law’s objective.”

“The WTO’s anti-COOL ruling is nonsensical and baseless and we are confident the United States will prevail in this unenviable appeal,” concluded Schultz.
 

PATB

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
571
Reaction score
0
Location
Turner, Maine
The Canadians should be looking as cool as an opportunity to differenate their product from others. I remember the western cornfed beef adds when I was a kid. Everytime you see US beef on shelves in asia the country of origin is proudly displayed as a badge of quality.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
PATB said:
The Canadians should be looking as cool as an opportunity to differenate their product from others. I remember the western cornfed beef adds when I was a kid. Everytime you see US beef on shelves in asia the country of origin is proudly displayed as a badge of quality.

If it were only that simple.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
coyote said:
Which steak do you prefer, corn fed or barley fed?

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? :???:
 

coyote

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Location
Hole in the ground SW Sk
Pabt was talking about cornfed beef ads, I don't know what the content of the ad was but I prefer beef that was fed barley over corn fed. Maybe if people in the states also prefered Canadian barley fed beef, the Cool labeling would have a negative effect on the US beef industry.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
Canadian beef that is processed in Canada and shipped to the US in it's final form should no doubt be labelled as a product of Canada. I have no doubt it will sell every bit as well or better than it's "product of USA" competition.
The problem in my mind comes with cattle and beef that spend time in both countries, be it in feed lots or in the process chain. The people who support COOL know that the processors and feeders will face enough expenses to segregate Canadian beef that they will cease to buy it.
I can understand why some American producers would support this agenda. Most of these folks also likely supported the BSE border closure. Joe Public likely doesn't understand the system as good as he should, and it seems to me this COOL deal is designed specifically by the protectionists to prey on the ignorance of the general consumer.
 

PATB

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
571
Reaction score
0
Location
Turner, Maine
coyote said:
Which steak do you prefer, corn fed or barley fed?

The western cornfed ads were use to sell western cornfed beef by implying it was better than local beef. I prefer my beef to by grassfed but will eat a good steak that is grainfed with out much problem. :D Has the Canadian cattle associations tried advertizing canadian beef as something special? This practice may not work well for the mexican cattle. A good advertizement spinner should be able to turn a product of canada into something special. The other alternative is to merge the two countries and let a group of loggers/fisherman/farmers/ranchers decide which laws to keep for both countries. :D Might have to accept higher unemployment rates when unneeded government employees are layed off. :twisted:
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Well said, Silver. :agree:

I'm not surprised they're appealing it though. This is how the game is played. They bring in a rule knowing full well that it's outside the trade agreement, then drag it on and on and on through appeal after appeal for as long as they can.

It doesn't have to be legal, because it can be dragged it out in court and while that's happening there's money to be made.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PATB said:
coyote said:
Which steak do you prefer, corn fed or barley fed?

The western cornfed ads were use to sell western cornfed beef by implying it was better than local beef. I prefer my beef to by grassfed but will eat a good steak that is grainfed with out much problem. :D Has the Canadian cattle associations tried advertizing canadian beef as something special? This practice may not work well for the mexican cattle. A good advertizement spinner should be able to turn a product of canada into something special. The other alternative is to merge the two countries and let a group of loggers/fisherman/farmers/ranchers decide which laws to keep for both countries. :D Might have to accept higher unemployment rates when unneeded government employees are layed off. :twisted:

Yep PATB- much of the issue anymore is over national sovereignty- and whether laws supported by a majority of the country, passed by Congress/signed by the President can be overruled and thrown out by the ruling of an International organization...
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
Oldtimer said:
PATB said:
coyote said:
Which steak do you prefer, corn fed or barley fed?

The western cornfed ads were use to sell western cornfed beef by implying it was better than local beef. I prefer my beef to by grassfed but will eat a good steak that is grainfed with out much problem. :D Has the Canadian cattle associations tried advertizing canadian beef as something special? This practice may not work well for the mexican cattle. A good advertizement spinner should be able to turn a product of canada into something special. The other alternative is to merge the two countries and let a group of loggers/fisherman/farmers/ranchers decide which laws to keep for both countries. :D Might have to accept higher unemployment rates when unneeded government employees are layed off. :twisted:

Yep PATB- much of the issue anymore is over national sovereignty- and whether laws supported by a majority of the country, passed by Congress/signed by the President can be overruled and thrown out by the ruling of an International organization...

Yep, some folks will disguise an issue like this as sovereignty- but really it's about nations being held accountable for agreements signed. Sad how some countries let their special interest groups be the tail that wags the dog....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Silver said:
Oldtimer said:
PATB said:
The western cornfed ads were use to sell western cornfed beef by implying it was better than local beef. I prefer my beef to by grassfed but will eat a good steak that is grainfed with out much problem. :D Has the Canadian cattle associations tried advertizing canadian beef as something special? This practice may not work well for the mexican cattle. A good advertizement spinner should be able to turn a product of canada into something special. The other alternative is to merge the two countries and let a group of loggers/fisherman/farmers/ranchers decide which laws to keep for both countries. :D Might have to accept higher unemployment rates when unneeded government employees are layed off. :twisted:

Yep PATB- much of the issue anymore is over national sovereignty- and whether laws supported by a majority of the country, passed by Congress/signed by the President can be overruled and thrown out by the ruling of an International organization...

Yep, some folks will disguise an issue like this as sovereignty- but really it's about nations being held accountable for agreements signed. Sad how some countries let their special interest groups be the tail that wags the dog....

You mean special interest groups like the majority of the consumers of the United States who have asked for and believe they should be honestly furnished with the country of origin of the foods so they can make informed choices on what they buy and feed to their families !!!! :???:
 

C Thompson

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Location
150 mile house b.c.
Is this thread even on the right forum or would it be better on the political bull one where those that wanted to debate this type of topic could do so without souring this more positive one. Just thinking I clicked the wrong one?
 

burnt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,621
Reaction score
0
Location
Mid-western Ontario
Oldtimer said:
Silver said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep PATB- much of the issue anymore is over national sovereignty- and whether laws supported by a majority of the country, passed by Congress/signed by the President can be overruled and thrown out by the ruling of an International organization...

Yep, some folks will disguise an issue like this as sovereignty- but really it's about nations being held accountable for agreements signed. Sad how some countries let their special interest groups be the tail that wags the dog....

You mean special interest groups like the majority of the consumers of the United States who have asked for and believe they should be honestly furnished with the country of origin of the foods so they can make informed choices on what they buy and feed to their families !!!! :???:

Hey here's a novel thought for you protectionist types - why not label US beef as "Product of the USA"? Huh? Is that not clear and simple enough?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,152
Reaction score
27
Location
BC
Oldtimer said:
Silver said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep PATB- much of the issue anymore is over national sovereignty- and whether laws supported by a majority of the country, passed by Congress/signed by the President can be overruled and thrown out by the ruling of an International organization...

Yep, some folks will disguise an issue like this as sovereignty- but really it's about nations being held accountable for agreements signed. Sad how some countries let their special interest groups be the tail that wags the dog....

You mean special interest groups like the majority of the consumers of the United States who have asked for and believe they should be honestly furnished with the country of origin of the foods so they can make informed choices on what they buy and feed to their families !!!! :???:

Now that's funny. If you pose any question the right way you'll get the answer you want to hear.
If the majority of folks actually cared about country of origin labeling do you really think Walmart would be selling cheap foreign goods at the rate they currently are?
Do you really think this is about people worried about where their food comes from?
Do you really believe that if the market for this was as good as you say it is, that the great American capitalist system wouldn't fill this void with niche market labels?
Don't you believe if the packers thought the market was there they'd be all over it? To prove this point, packers are quite willing to label their beef as Can/Mex/Usa rather than segregate all the meat in the chain, even though there is all likliehood that the product is in fact soley a product of the USA. They know the consumer doesn't care.

The bottom line is that as the rules go, a 'good' is a product of the country in which it last underwent signifigant change. That's how you folks make pickups down there full of Canadian parts and call them Made In USA. That's how we buy oranges from Fl. , turn them into juice or candy, and call them Made in Canada.

If beef only crossed the border in frozen boxes (which I believe it should, the American cattle industry has been riding Canada's shirt tails for too long...) then I would say this problem would be black and white, and I would expect all Canadian beef in the US would proudly carry our label.
 

burnt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,621
Reaction score
0
Location
Mid-western Ontario
Silver said:
Oldtimer said:
Silver said:
Yep, some folks will disguise an issue like this as sovereignty- but really it's about nations being held accountable for agreements signed. Sad how some countries let their special interest groups be the tail that wags the dog....

You mean special interest groups like the majority of the consumers of the United States who have asked for and believe they should be honestly furnished with the country of origin of the foods so they can make informed choices on what they buy and feed to their families !!!! :???:

Now that's funny. If you pose any question the right way you'll get the answer you want to hear.
If the majority of folks actually cared about country of origin labeling do you really think Walmart would be selling cheap foreign goods at the rate they currently are?
Do you really think this is about people worried about where their food comes from?
Do you really believe that if the market for this was as good as you say it is, that the great American capitalist system wouldn't fill this void with niche market labels?
Don't you believe if the packers thought the market was there they'd be all over it? To prove this point, packers are quite willing to label their beef as Can/Mex/Usa rather than segregate all the meat in the chain, even though there is all likliehood that the product is in fact soley a product of the USA. They know the consumer doesn't care.

The bottom line is that as the rules go, a 'good' is a product of the country in which it last underwent signifigant change. That's how you folks make pickups down there full of Canadian parts and call them Made In USA. That's how we buy oranges from Fl. , turn them into juice or candy, and call them Made in Canada.

If beef only crossed the border in frozen boxes (which I believe it should, the American cattle industry has been riding Canada's shirt tails for too long...) then I would say this problem would be black and white, and I would expect all Canadian beef in the US would proudly carry our label.

Oh, HO! And right here, folks, we have the "Silver" bullet for this dispute!

(Except that it's not PC to use the terms "black" or "white" - that's racist! Now move it over to Political Bull MOD!) :lol:
 

Neil Waugh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
Old Strathcona
The Alberta Beef Producers and Canadian Cattle Commission have a long and contorted record of speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
On my side of the Medicine Line they conduct saturation advertising campaigns stressing "If it Ain't Alberta it Ain't Beef". Implying our foothills raised, barley-fed beef is tastier, tender and more chemical-free than that Nebraska, yellow-fat, corn-cr^p.
Which I totally agree with.
Then they turn around and try to convince you Amerks that COOL is the devil's work and there should be no border when it comes to beef. Even though they are practicing a kind of COOL of their own.
Go figure. Because I sure can't.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Neil Waugh said:
The Alberta Beef Producers and Canadian Cattle Commission have a long and contorted record of speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
On my side of the Medicine Line they conduct saturation advertising campaigns stressing "If it Ain't Alberta it Ain't Beef". Implying our foothills raised, barley-fed beef is tastier, tender and more chemical-free than that Nebraska, yellow-fat, corn-cr^p.
Which I totally agree with.
Then they turn around and try to convince you Amerks that COOL is the devil's work and there should be no border when it comes to beef. Even though they are practicing a kind of COOL of their own.
Go figure. Because I sure can't
.

Yep- and while some Canadians are convinced this is the way American ranchers want to do them in---the COOL law got no legs until the Vietnamese fish, Chinese melamine, Mexican lettuce/peppers/tomatos, etc. etc issues came to light-- and consumers nationwide demanded that they have transparent honest tracking of what country their food products they feed their family come from....

Currently the biggest share of US food products are required to be identified to original country of origin (same as numerous WTO countries require) besides being require to be labeled for nutritional values-- and only because of the Packers lobbyiest efforts wanting to keep their availability open to purchase cheap foreign imported beef and pass it off as US product with the USDA stamp if economic situations again arise-supported by their puppets (NCBA)- has beef/meat products turned into such a controversy- and not been able to get truthful labeling for the consumers...

I too think that Canadians would want to have their product identified as a Product of Canada- or Product of Canada/USA- rather than being tied into the fiasco of health, butchering/questionable meat products coming out of Mexico-- or any of the other 50 some countries we import beef products from.. :???:

Why is just asking for HONEST transparent labeling- so negative to some folks :???:
 

burnt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,621
Reaction score
0
Location
Mid-western Ontario
Oldtimer said:
Neil Waugh said:
The Alberta Beef Producers and Canadian Cattle Commission have a long and contorted record of speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
On my side of the Medicine Line they conduct saturation advertising campaigns stressing "If it Ain't Alberta it Ain't Beef". Implying our foothills raised, barley-fed beef is tastier, tender and more chemical-free than that Nebraska, yellow-fat, corn-cr^p.
Which I totally agree with.
Then they turn around and try to convince you Amerks that COOL is the devil's work and there should be no border when it comes to beef. Even though they are practicing a kind of COOL of their own.
Go figure. Because I sure can't
.

Yep- and while some Canadians are convinced this is the way American ranchers want to do them in---the COOL law got no legs until the Vietnamese fish, Chinese melamine, Mexican lettuce/peppers/tomatos, etc. etc issues came to light-- and consumers nationwide demanded that they have transparent honest tracking of what country their food products they feed their family come from....

Currently the biggest share of US food products are required to be identified to original country of origin (same as numerous WTO countries require) besides being require to be labeled for nutritional values-- and only because of the Packers lobbyiest efforts wanting to keep their availability open to purchase cheap foreign imported beef and pass it off as US product with the USDA stamp if economic situations again arise-supported by their puppets (NCBA)- has beef/meat products turned into such a controversy- and not been able to get truthful labeling for the consumers...

I too think that Canadians would want to have their product identified as a Product of Canada- or Product of Canada/USA- rather than being tied into the fiasco of health, butchering/questionable meat products coming out of Mexico-- or any of the other 50 some countries we import beef products from.. :???:

Why is just asking for HONEST transparent labeling- so negative to some folks :???:

Why are US packers reluctant to put a "Product of USA" label on their home-grown beef and thereby avoid any and all charges of protectionism?
 
Top