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

MCOOL

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Kato

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

(Reuters) - The United States lost the bulk of its appeal against a World Trade Organization ruling on meat labeling rules on Friday, meaning it may have to stop forcing retailers to display the country of origin on meat they are selling.

The Appellate Body found said the U.S. country-of-origin labeling rules, commonly known as COOL, were wrong because they gave less favorable treatment to imported beef and pork from Mexico and Canada, which brought the case, than to U.S. meat.



:wink:

Discuss.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Unbelievably stupid. When you're in a group that makes moronic rules such as this, it's time to bail.
 

burnt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,617
Reaction score
0
Location
Mid-western Ontario
Well you can bail or you can start a labeling program that increases demand for what you grow!

Like this -

http://www.agri-media.ca/2012/06/29/midwestern-ontario-tour-celebrates-corn-fed-beef-expansion/

The limiting factor to the program has been supply. But I understand that Ontario producers are stepping up to the plate to meet the criterion and the demand. And why not? :)
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
from Canadian Cattleman magazine online


WTO appeal body upholds ruling against COOL

By: Staff
Livestock, Markets

A U.S. law that requires labelling of certain foods by country of origin, and adds hassles for U.S. processors who import meat or livestock from Canada, has again been ruled out of bounds by a world trade body, this time on appeal.

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Friday upheld the ruling by a panel of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which in November last year found that the U.S. government's mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) law violates parts of the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).

The U.S. government in March filed an appeal, seeking to overturn the DSB's ruling that COOL violates Washington's WTO obligations and "does not fulfil its legitimate objective" of consumer education.

However, the Appellate Body has upheld the DSB's finding that COOL "has a detrimental impact on imported livestock."

COOL's recordkeeping and verification requirements "create an incentive for processors to use exclusively domestic livestock, and a disincentive against using like imported livestock," the Appellate Body said.

The Appellate Body went further, however, and ruled COOL "lacks even-handedness" by imposing "a disproportionate burden on upstream producers and processors of livestock, as compared to the information conveyed to consumers through the mandatory labelling requirements for meat sold at the retail level."

COOL, the Appellate Body said, requires a "large amount of information must be tracked and transmitted by upstream producers for purposes of providing consumers with information on origin" but "only a small amount of this information is actually communicated to consumers in an understandable or accurate manner."

On top of that, the Appellate Body ruled, "a considerable proportion of meat sold in the United States is not subject to the COOL measure's labelling requirements at all."

COOL's impact on imported livestock thus "cannot be said to stem exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction" and instead amounts to discrimination against Canadian products, violating the TBT agreement.

The Appellate Body's decision is the latest step in Canada's 2008 challenge of COOL at the WTO.

COOL was conceived in Washington's 2002 Farm Bill and launched in September 2008. It orders U.S. retailers to notify their customers, by way of labeling, on the sources of foods such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, goat, fish, fruits, vegetables, peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts.

Canada's Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz has scheduled a press conference for later this morning at a farm at Dundurn, Sask., about 35 km south of Saskatoon, with representatives from Canada's cattle, hog and meat processing industry groups, to discuss the Appellate Body's decision.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Looks like we had just as well disband Congress and let the WTO and United Nations make our laws for us. National Soverignity is so 1776.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,154
Reaction score
30
Location
BC
Sandhusker said:
Looks like we had just as well disband Congress and let the WTO and United Nations make our laws for us. National Soverignity is so 1776.

Imagine that: Being held accountable for your actions and being required to live up to your agreements....
I guess that's your version of un-American? I suppose it's better to just have the freedom to run rough shod over whomever you choose with no ramifications :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
U.S. Cattlemen's Association Calls WTO COOL Final Ruling 'Good News'
Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:49:12 CDT


The World Trade Organization (WTO) has issued its final decision in the U.S. appeal of a case brought by Canada, and separately by Mexico, against the U.S. mandatory country of origin labeling law (COOL) for beef and pork. The decision affirms the legitimacy of COOL and the guiding principles behind the rule; one inconsistency remains in the implementation of the rule and action with the Obama Administration, not through Congress, can be taken to remedy the issues. In a split ruling, the WTO appellate body upheld the lower panel's affirmation of the United States' right to require country of origin labeling for meat and reversed the lower panel's finding that COOL violates Article 2.2 of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement. The appellate panel also found that COOL achieves a legitimate policy objective by providing consumers with information about the food they eat, reversing the lower panel's finding. The WTO appellate panel agreed with the lower panel that the methods by which meat packers segregate cattle for harvest imposes a burden on Canadian cattle.

"Much of this ruling is good news for U.S. cattle producers," said Jon Wooster, USCA President, San Lucas, California. "The WTO has affirmed the right of the U.S. to require country of origin labeling for meat and has reversed the dispute panel's findings that COOL violates Article 2.2 of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement. The appellate panel took issue with specific implementation measures regarding how Canadian cattle are segregated and the burden this may impose. The findings relate only to technical details of the COOL implementation details. We are very pleased that these issues can be reasonably resolved through the regulatory process and will not require congressional action. USCA will be working closely with the Obama Administration to ensure that any steps taken to implement the WTO findings conform to the requirements of the COOL law and will continue to maximize the benefits of the law for consumers and producers."

Leo McDonnell, USCA Director Emeritus, Columbus, MT said, "There can be no question now, given this final decision by the WTO, about whether the U.S. has the right to require labeling for meat and the higher panel has also ruled that COOL achieves a legitimate policy objective. Fortunately, the remaining issues can be addressed through the regulatory process and not the legislative arena. This decision narrows the regulatory remedies needed to answer the one finding of inconsistency under Article 2.1 of the TBT and bring the U.S. into full compliance with international trade obligations as they relate to COOL. This inconsistency is based primarily on how packers segregate animals in plants to meet labeling requirements. According to the panel this imposes an unfair burden on Canadian cattle but I am not sure why it costs more to segregate Canadian cattle than U.S. cattle. If the U.S. determines that changes to our regulations may be needed to address these findings, we encourage them to ensure sufficient time to allow all domestic stakeholders to participate meaningfully in that process. Producers can remain confident that USCA will be working with the appropriate agencies as this process unfolds."

Background

In December of 2008 the Canadian government, and separately the Mexican government, requested WTO consultations with the U.S. regarding implementation of the COOL law, which requires retailers to use of four types of labels based on the animal's country of origin, where it was raised and the country where it was harvested and processed. Canada and Mexico argued that U.S. COOL requirements were designed to achieve a protectionist objective and breached WTO obligations by discriminating against Canadian and Mexican livestock exports to the U.S.

Consultations did not resolve the dispute and in October 2009 Canada requested that a WTO dispute settlement panel be appointed to handle the case. In November 2011, the dispute settlement panel found that COOL, as implemented, violated provisions of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement by providing less favorable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs than for U.S. domestic products and that the law did not meet its objective of providing consumers with information on the origins of meat. In April 2012 the U.S. government appealed the decision. On Friday, June 29 the WTO appellate panel's findings were released.

Current Label Categories

Under COOL, there are four categories of COOL labels to be applied to muscle cuts and a fifth label is reserved for ground meat. Label "A" is reserved for "U.S. Origin" meat and is applied to meat derived only from animals born, raised and harvested in the U.S.

Label "B", or the "Multiple Countries of Origin" label, is used on meat derived from animals not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. Label "C" is used for meat derived from animals imported into the U.S. just prior to harvest. Label "D" is used for foreign country of origin meat. The ground meat labels list all "reasonably possible" countries of origin of the animals from which the meat is derived. Canada and Mexico alleged in their WTO complaint that their respective livestock industries were at a competitive disadvantage because of higher segregation costs at the point of harvest for foreign cattle.

"As noted by the WTO, the mixed origin label does not fulfill the obligations of COOL," noted Leo McDonnell, USCA Director Emeritus, Columbus, MT. "We believe that disallowing such nonsense is a great starting point in meeting U.S. international trade obligations. It is crystal clear now that the WTO affirms the right of the United States to require COOL and that the WTO takes no issue with the statute itself. USCA will be working with stakeholders and the Obama Administration to address the technical implementation details and find proper and reasonable resolutions so that consumers can continue to receive the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions and so that U.S. cattle producers can continue to differentiate their product in retail cases."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
Looks like we had just as well disband Congress and let the WTO and United Nations make our laws for us. National Soverignity is so 1776.

Imagine that: Being held accountable for your actions and being required to live up to your agreements....
I guess that's your version of un-American? I suppose it's better to just have the freedom to run rough shod over whomever you choose with no ramifications :roll:

No, my version of un-American is giving away sovereignity of your nation for any reason, but especially so that big money can make more big money at the expense of the little guy.

We're in an agreement where nonelected foreigners are making decisions on how we go about our business. That violates the Constitution. Maybe you're comfortable with crap like that, but I am not.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,154
Reaction score
30
Location
BC
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
Looks like we had just as well disband Congress and let the WTO and United Nations make our laws for us. National Soverignity is so 1776.

Imagine that: Being held accountable for your actions and being required to live up to your agreements....
I guess that's your version of un-American? I suppose it's better to just have the freedom to run rough shod over whomever you choose with no ramifications :roll:

No, my version of un-American is giving away sovereignity of your nation for any reason, but especially so that big money can make more big money at the expense of the little guy.

We're in an agreement where nonelected foreigners are making decisions on how we go about our business. That violates the Constitution. Maybe you're comfortable with crap like that, but I am not.

No, you are in an agreement where non elected officials task you with living up to your agreement.
I believe those founding fathers you hold in such high esteem believed in the sanctity of a signed document.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Imagine that: Being held accountable for your actions and being required to live up to your agreements....
I guess that's your version of un-American? I suppose it's better to just have the freedom to run rough shod over whomever you choose with no ramifications :roll:

No, my version of un-American is giving away sovereignity of your nation for any reason, but especially so that big money can make more big money at the expense of the little guy.

We're in an agreement where nonelected foreigners are making decisions on how we go about our business. That violates the Constitution. Maybe you're comfortable with crap like that, but I am not.

No, you are in an agreement where non elected officials task you with living up to your agreement.
I believe those founding fathers you hold in such high esteem believed in the sanctity of a signed document.

They never would of signed an agreement like that.
 

Latest posts

Top