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

Simple COOL by R-CALF

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Ok so let me get this right you do not want to control who can own cattle but sometimes you do. Typical for you. :roll:
 
QUESTION said:
Ok so let me get this right you do not want to control who can own cattle but sometimes you do. Typical for you. :roll:
Click to expand...

Where have I said anything about controlling who can own cattle?
Please cut and paste a quote of mine. Have fun looking.
 
So even you can't keep track of what you said but you posts speak for themselves. Are you denying that you support legislation limiting packer ownership for more than 14 days ? You sure like loopphole and playing somantic games :oops: :p :roll:
 
QUESTION said:
So even you can't keep track of what you said but you posts speak for themselves. Are you denying that you support legislation limiting packer ownership for more than 14 days ? You sure like loopphole and playing somantic games :oops: :p :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that a bit, I think it is legislation that is needed to counter market power of the near monopolies. That is a far cry from saying packers CAN'T own cattle.
 
The absolute hypocrisy of the "M"COOL law has been nothing short of hilarious to watch. So typical of R-CALF to paint themselves into a corner and blame everyone else in the industry (NCBA) for their own ignorance.

First, due to their "supposed" distrust of packers to label beef accurately, claiming packers were hiding foreign beef behind the USDA grade stamp (an R-CALF rally cry), they insisted on their law proving where cattle were "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED" to qualify for the "US BEEF" country of origin label. Well duh, anyone with half a brain can tell you that you can't prove where an animal was born without a traceback system. This isn't rocket science.

R-CALF's simplistic solution was "just mark the imports". GEE, WHY DIDN'T USDA THINK OF THAT??? As if a "C" or "M" brand on the hide tracks the 300 individual packages of beef that a beef carcass becomes. Is it any wonder why packers and retailers of all shapes and sizes opposed this emotionally based flawed law during "M"COOL listening sessions held by USDA??

The R-CALF followers claimed the "Born, raised, and processed in the U.S." wording as a significant victory in their blind charge to make "M"COOL law. Then when it became obvious to anyone who knows anything about beef fabrication and processing that this wording would require a traceback system, the same proponents of this "born, raised, and processed designation" are running scared trying to water down the enforcement aspects of their flawed law. Haha! Then when they accomplished watering down the enforcement aspects of the law, they claimed that as a victory because they didn't want a traceback system. Then the next minute they are claiming they already have a traceback system in the form of brand inspection so one can only conclude that the R-CALFers are opposed to something they already have. Haha! I'm sorry but it's so funny when you connect all the dots. On minute the R-CALF followers are claiming they don't trust the packers to label beef accurately, the next minute they are scrambling to water down the enforcement aspects of the same flawed law. Hahaha! What a circus to watch. The only thing worse than looking like a fool is not have the common sense to realize it. The most recent ploy is to blame the packers and retailers for tying "M"COOL and Mandatory ID together when it was none other than R-CALF and their short sighted wisdom that insisted on the "BORN, RAISED, AND PROCESSED" designation. Yes, the law of "unintended consequences".

If I was USDA, I would insist on making R-CALF's leaders enforce their flawed law and document the process. That would make for good reading.

All of this so packers and retailers can label 5% of our domestic beef consumption as foreign beef creating a novelty item. Oh, and BTW, I see where the deceptive "CHIEF" recently claimed that I had stated that only 5% of our domestic beef consumption was imported. Amazing what some people think they can get away with when nobody is there to correct the spin job. What I have always stated and what the facts are is that historically, we imported 20% of our domestic beef consumption. Of that 20%, 75% or more ends up in food service. Food service is exempt from country of origin labeling. I suppose the blamers blame NCBA for that too. For those who didn't attend Chief's elementary math class, that leaves 5% of our domestic US beef consumption labeled as imported under the "M"COOL law. Read that as segregated as a novelty item much like when New Zealand lamb sales outsold US lamb.

Those who claim to be in the cattle industry and not the beef industry telling those in the beef industry how to market beef. The epitomy of cattle industry arrogance.

What is R-CALF's court record now? Last count I think it was 0 and 9? Oh, I'm sure all those judges, jury members and circuit court judges are all wrong and R-CALF's salebarn manager leaders are right. R-CALF's originator, Leo McDonnell left his own ship and then the R-CALF leaders sued some of their own members due to an internal implosion. Why anyone would support this organization without knowing what they were supporting is beyond my level of comprehension.

Oh, and let's not forget Johnny and Herman telling everyone that opening the Canadian border was going to lead to depressive cattle prices but the facts showed 2005 had the highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded with an opened Canadian border, same packer concentration, and the same level of captive supplies but hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story guys. Depressed cattle prices now are related to corn values, not packer concentration but again, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

As far as the communist packer ban, it absolutely says packers can't own cattle for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. Sandy tries to spin it taht it doesn't say packers can't own cattle. Typical spin job. Once again, those who claim to be in the cattle industry telling the cattle feeding industry how they should market cattle. Once again the epitomy of cattle industry arrogance.

Only R-CALF!

You go Sandhusker! What's R-CALF's next court loss going to be?

Judge to R-CALF lawyers: "Are you saying that the US should have a zero tolerance level for BSE"

R-CALF Lawyer: "Yes your honor"

Judge to R-CALF lawyer: "You realize that the US has had a domestic case of BSE"

R-CALF Lawyer: "babadah babadah babadah"


Heck, R-CALF's lawyers don't care, looking like a fool pays the same as knowing what you're talking about.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Only R-CALF!

~SH~
Click to expand...


From NCBA's Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns April 24, 2008 talking about what they want on the Farm Bill

"-- Maintain the COOL compromise language."

I believe this is also the AMI position. Based on what you have said regarding COOL, YOU ARE STANDING ALONE, and your arguments are about five years out of date.
 
Cinch: "From NCBA's Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns April 24, 2008 talking about what they want on the Farm Bill

"-- Maintain the COOL compromise language."

I believe this is also the AMI position. Based on what you have said regarding COOL, YOU ARE STANDING ALONE, and your arguments are about five years out of date."
Click to expand...

You think that is an NCBA or an AMI endorsement for this shortsighted law? Haha! That is a position to minimize the damage for R-CALF & Companies shortsightedness. The old "WE KNOW MORE ABOUT MARKETING BEEF THAN THOSE WHO MARKET BEEF" arrogance.

If you want to debate on the merits of this flawed law Cinch, bring it.

You can't prove "BORN" origination without a traceback system. You R-CALFers pushed for that "Born, Raised, and Processed" designation. Don't blame anyone but yourselves for the inevitable tracking system that will need to accompany your ridiculous law.

"M" COOL, is a joke. If consumers wanted origination they can buy numerous branded beef products with full source verification which offers a lot more than Country of Origin.

What do you think is the value to US BEEF in segregating 5% of our domestic beef consumption as a novelty item (foreign beef) that consumers are willing to pay more for due to the rarity of the product?

How is it that R-CALF thinks they know more about marketing beef than those who actually market beef?

Worse yet, you R-CALFers previously made the argument that the packers benefit from beef promotion but yet you think producers will benefit from "M"COOL?? You can't have it both ways. This isn't the first R-CALF contradiction and it won't be the last.

It's unfortunate that you R-CALFers are never introduced to your own shortsightedness by being responsible for the implementation and enforcement of your flawed laws. BWAME USDA! If Canadian beef is labeled seperately from US, keep track of the sales. If I was a Canadian producer I would support "M"COOL to make their product a novelty item.

You have two choices at this point. Either water down the enforcement aspect of this law further to reduce the enforcement aspects of this law to worthless or pony up to the bar and have a traceback system to make your flawed law enforceable.

Sandy, I see you still can't bring anything to the table to support your positions.


Gooooo R-CALF.....

Dumping case against Canada - LOST!
Injunction against USDA to stop the importation of UTM Canadian cattle - LOST!
Injunction against USDA to stop the importation of UTM Canadian cattle on appeal - LOST!
Pickett vs. IBP - LOST!
Pickett vs. IBP on appeal - LOST!
Pickett vs. IBP appealed to Supreme Court - Decision Upheld - LOST!
Lawsuit against packers for faulty price reporting - LOST!
Constitutionality of the Beef Check Off - LOST!

What a track record? You folks still think every word that comes out of Johnny's market report is gospel after that many court losses?

I know a lot of producers that are finally wising up. A lot more would have if they would have read Swifthorses.com. The epitomy of arrogance is to sue your own members because they dared to expose R-CALF's internal takeover. Incredible!

I'll gladly stand alone cinch. No problem! We have a lot more important issues to deal with in this industry than trying to regulate the other segments of the beef industry into non existance.

Every major issue R-CALF supports would result in lower cattle prices.

1. "M"COOL will result in more added expense for NO GAIN due to only 5% of the domestic beef consumption being labeled as imported under this law.

2. Breaking up packers would result in less efficient packers that would pay less for cattle due because they can't compete with larger more efficient packers.

There's another R-CALF contradiction....

Today: "There's no competition in the packing industry"
Tomorrow: "Smaller packers can't compete"

DUH!

3. Limiting marketing options takes bargaining power away from the feeders.

Once again, R-CALF thinks they know more about marketing fat cattle than those who market fat cattle.

Voluntary source verification will drive this industry toward voluntary ID whether you like it or not. Angus Gene Net and USPB are paying $35 - $40 per head for source verification. Try stopping that.

Let me add that I am opposed to "M"ID but totally in favor of voluntary CONSUMER DRIVEN source verification.

Most R-CALF legislation is based on those wild market manipulation conspiracies that have no validity. How many investigations have been conducted to determine price fixing and market manipulation that have come up empty handed? Yet the conspiracy theories abound. What a waste of limited producer funds just to make a handful of lawyers rich. Pathetic! Talk about being led around by a nose ring.

~SH~
 
SH, "You can't prove "BORN" origination without a traceback system. You R-CALFers pushed for that "Born, Raised, and Processed" designation. Don't blame anyone but yourselves for the inevitable tracking system that will need to accompany your ridiculous law."

We can prove if the animal was born and raised in the US or not TODAY without any traceback system. The live cattle in this country were born in one of three countries; the US, Mexico, or Canada. If they cross into this country from Mexico, they have a "M" branded on their cheek. If they are feeders from Canada, they have a "CAN" brand. If they are slaughter cattle from Canada, they come in sealed trucks straight from the border accompanied with papers. If they don't have the "M" on their cheek, a "CAN" brand or arrive straight from Canada to the packer, they are US. What is so hard about that?
 
~SH~ said:
Cinch: "From NCBA's Cattlemen's Capitol Concerns April 24, 2008 talking about what they want on the Farm Bill

"-- Maintain the COOL compromise language."

I believe this is also the AMI position. Based on what you have said regarding COOL, YOU ARE STANDING ALONE, and your arguments are about five years out of date."
Click to expand...

You think that is an NCBA or an AMI endorsement for this shortsighted law? Haha! That is a position to minimize the damage for R-CALF & Companies shortsightedness. The old "WE KNOW MORE ABOUT MARKETING BEEF THAN THOSE WHO MARKET BEEF" arrogance.

~SH~
Click to expand...
You are alone. You are SO alone on this issue. YELL all you want. It's like you are in a padded room. Your yelling is going to convince noone and it will harm noone.
Rant your five year old speel all you wnat, it no longer applies. The rules have been changed. You are attacking the 2002 COOL which isn't what it is now. Even AMI has left you behind.

As for R-CALF always "losing". What is their score on COOL?
 
To quote Cinch about SH:
Even AMI has left you behind.

Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are!

You would think the AMI would keep their correspondents up to date, wouldn't you? :wink:
 
We can prove if the animal was born and raised in the US or not TODAY without any traceback system. The live cattle in this country were born in one of three countries; the US, Mexico, or Canada. If they cross into this country from Mexico, they have a "M" branded on their cheek. If they are feeders from Canada, they have a "CAN" brand. If they are slaughter cattle from Canada, they come in sealed trucks straight from the border accompanied with papers. If they don't have the "M" on their cheek, a "CAN" brand or arrive straight from Canada to the packer, they are US. What is so hard about that?
Click to expand...

Here's the next issue.

Since all the live cattle that are slaughtered in the United States come from these countries, who coincidentally make up the three parties to NAFTA, the arguement can be made that this legislation not only violates the Free Trade Agreement, but discriminates against the only other two parties to that agreement.

That being said, here are some excerpts from a letter I received from our Agriculture Minister, Gerry Ritz.

With respect to the concerns that you have expressed concerning U.S. country-of-origin labelling (COOL), the Government of Canada has discussed its concerns with the U.S. mandatory COOL legislation at the highest levels of the U.S. Congress and Administration on a variety of occasions. The Canadian position is that the 2002 statute is fundamentally flawed and needs to be repealed. Officials have engaged Canadian industry through various means, most notably an industry-government forum, to ensure that the needs of all Canadian industry will be addressed in the advocacy undertaken by the Government of Canada to ensure that this legislation will not unduly harm the trade between our two countries (mmmm........oil???? )

In addition to Canada's continued, targeted advocacy engagement in the U.S., Canada has raised these concerns at the World Trade Organization, most recently at the November 2007 meeting of the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee. Canada has consistently and emphatically made the point in all available fora that the legitimacy of these provisions is questionable and their utility is unsubstantiated

Congress is considering a legislative "fix" for the 2002 COOL statute through the 2007 Farm Bill process. However, we are of the view that the amendment will still result in a negative economic impact to the North American industry and discrimination against Canadian products. As Minister, I have raised my concerns with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer and Deputy Secretary Chuck Connor in the conversations I have had with these gentlemen. As well, the Government of Canada will continue to raise these concerns at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

To me, this sounds like America has not heard the last of this from the Great White North. :shock: :shock:

The Government of Canada made a submission to the U.S. government's formal rule- making process on mandatory COOL on August 14, 2007, to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A copy of these comments has been attached for your reference.
Click to expand...

And here's the comment

Government of Canada

Comments on Proposed Final Rule

Introduction

The Government of Canada appreciates the opportunity to comment again on the October 30, 2003 Federal Register notice of the proposed final rule on the mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRI Act) of 2002.

Without prejudice to our view that the COOL provision of the FSRI Act will have a negative impact on bilateral trade and should be repealed, the following points highlight additional concerns the Government of Canada has regarding the proposed final rule.

The current COOL law is clearly discriminatory, costly and backwards.

a.) COOL will cost at least $3.9 billion with no benefits: The analysis by the Food Marketing Institute of the implementation costs for fish and seafood indicated that the costs to industry of implementation were more than ten times higher than estimated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), with no increased sales of U.S. seafood. The complexities added at all levels of the U.S. food distribution system to implement the proposed final rule with no off-setting benefits make it clear that the rule should be withdrawn. The USDA's estimate of a $3.9 B implementation cost to U.S. industry also does not include costs it will incur in other markets such as the Canadian one, where the first year impact of COOL would bring the total cost of the COOL legislation much higher, through lost exports and added costs to industry to comply with the tracking requirements. It remains unclear whether these statistics take on board all impacts of this law including funding for increased enforcement and surveillance requirements by USDA under the proposed legislation. Most importantly, USDA's own cost-benefit analysis indicates that for all covered commodities, the volume of U.S. exports will decline. If neither U.S. consumers, nor U.S. industry as a whole, are expected to gain from mandatory COOL, then who is?

b.) One step forward, two steps back: Industries in both the U.S. and Canada have worked hard in the 18 years since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was signed to make national origin irrelevant in business and consumer decisions. The recent recommendations by the North American Competitiveness Council as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership only underscore the importance of building on these efforts rather than dismantling them. Implementing the current law undoes the benefits that have been achieved over nearly twenty years and moves North America backwards, decreasing its competitiveness on the world stage. Mandatory COOL is not in the best interests of the U.S. nor of its closest trading partners.

The alleged purpose of COOL is clearly not substantiated.

a.) Product Coverage is Arbitrary. The proposed final rule states that the intent of this law is to provide consumers with additional information on which to base their purchasing decisions. If so, we remain at a loss to understand why only certain foods are covered and why only certain retail outlets that sell food are covered. The only retailers who must label are those who sell fruits and vegetables with an annual value of more that $230,000. Those who don't sell fruits or vegetables, or who sell less than that dollar amount, are exempt.

The effective logic of this law is that only consumers that shop at supermarkets, warehouse clubs and superstores want to know where their food comes from. On the other hand, consumers that shop at butcher shops, fish markets or smaller retail stores are apparently not interested in this same information, nor are consumers eating at retail or institutional food service establishments.

These contradictions and inconsistencies deflate the alleged objective of providing information to consumers. Rather, they only underscore that the program is by nature discriminatory and that support for the program remains primarily driven by anticompetitive interests.

b.) COOL Will Not Make Food Safer. There are no food safety standards or guidelines in the mandatory COOL requirements. Moreover, the USDA's cost-benefit analysis identifies that consumer desires for country-of-origin labelling stem primarily from their concerns about the safety of the food they eat. However, the proposed rule states that mandatory COOL "is not a health safety or animal health measure. COOL is a retail labelling program and as such does not address food safety or animal health concerns."

Given that USDA has acknowledged that mandatory COOL is not an appropriate means of enhancing or enforcing food safety, the Government of Canada is alarmed by the U.S. Government's recent characterization of mandatory COOL as a food safety measure. Its most recent notification to the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee at the World Trade Organization, dated June 26, 2007, indicated that the justification for the COOL measure was, in fact, "protection of consumers and human health." (G/TBT/N/USA/281).

Canada underscores the cooperative work of food safety officials on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border who, together, protect the health and safety of North American consumers. Canada underlines that inspectors currently receive the necessary food safety information to make a safety determination based on sound science and internationallyaccepted standards. The North American food safety system is among the best in the world, and mandatory COOL will neither complement nor enhance this science-based regulatory oversight.

Canada and the U.S. have worked cooperatively to encourage our international trading partners to base their food safety regimes on science and on international standards. The apparent departure of the U.S. Government from this position sets an international precedent which could place at risk Canadian and U.S. exporters' access to international markets.

c.) Informed or Confused? Although the proposed rule supersedes state-administered country-of-origin labelling schemes for covered commodities, the "consumer information" objective is still undermined by COOL's inconsistency with other U.S. country of origin policies. For example, it is conceivable that various products from a single animal would have two or three different labels, each with a distinct meaning. In a case where a Canadian-born steer is raised and slaughtered in the U.S., there may be portions of the animal destined for export which would bear a "Product of USA" label, in conformity with international standards. Cuts destined for the domestic retail market would be labelled "From Canadian cattle raised and processed in the United States."

Trimmings from this same animal that are made into ground beef would likely be mingled with product from a number of different countries, requiring yet a third interpretation of these country-of-origin labelling requirements. Consumers will be confused by the number of different meanings assigned to country of origin.

d.) Definitions of Processing are Problematic. USDA's most recent Federal Register notice states that the USDA's Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) is seeking comments on whether "the major components of the definition of a processed food item set forth in the interim final rule for fish and shellfish (i.e. change in character and/or combined with other substantive components) [are] also applicable to beef, lamb, pork, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts." Canada maintains that there exists an adequate and rational definition of processed products under the international country of origin labelling standard that is currently applied in the U.S., Canada, and throughout the international community. The Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Food states that "when a food undergoes processing in a second country that changes its nature, the country in which the processing is performed shall be considered to be the country-of-origin for the purposes of labelling." This definition remains the most practical, and also the most adapted to evolving commercial practice and growing international trade.

Discussions surrounding the various possible definitions of processed products under the mandatory COOL requirements, therefore, are shaped more by specific producer interests than by the goal of providing consumer information. More specifically, the definition of "processed" has become the focus of efforts to either broaden or contract the scope of the law, rather than ensuring consumers receive accurate and consistent information. As in the guidelines, AMS's preferred definition of "processed" in the proposed final rule remains inconsistent across product groupings. The Government of Canada is of the position that the exclusion of canned fish from mandatory requirements in the Interim Rule for fish and shellfish represents an improvement over the Proposed Rule. However, in changes to the Proposed Rule, the Government of Canada encourages the U.S. to maintain a definition of processed based on international standards, whereby any process that changes the nature of a product is considered under the definition of "Processed."

COOL will restructure the entire food distribution system.

a.) Segregation and Sourcing Requirements are Burdensome. In order to provide consumers with year-round availability, and to keep U.S. processing plants running at capacity, products are imported from multiple countries with sources fluctuating constantly. The proposed rule requires that a supplier must document that the origin of a product was separately tracked, while in their control, during any production or packaging processing to demonstrate that the identity of the product was maintained. Recent releases by both the Food Marketing Institute and the American Meat Institute have indicated what the marketplace will expect following implementation of the law, and while a transitional period will ease the pain somewhat, it does not address the real concern, which is that primary producers will face higher costs and tighter margins, and higher costs through the production process will likely be passed onto the consumer. Whether in 2008 or 2009, retail food prices for covered commodities will likely increase to take account of these added costs. Everyone loses.

b.) COOL will Upset the Competitive Balance. The exclusion of poultry under the COOL legislation will upset the already-tenuous competitive balance in the consumer protein market by adding cost disadvantages to other proteins such as, pork and beef, in addition to the existing disadvantage to fish and shellfish, given the mandatory COOL bureaucratic merchandising efforts, resulting in discounting of other proteins, given the limits on consumer expenditures on such products. This will force additional downward price pressure on fish and seafood, pork and beef products.

c.) Cost to Consumers Higher than Necessary. The cost-benefit analysis released by the AMS dismissed the conjecture that most consumers are willing to pay more for countryof-origin information. This has been confirmed in studies of consumer trends. In their 2007 Food and Health Survey, a trended survey examining consumer attitudes toward food, nutrition and health, the International Food Information Council found that of all the information consumers looked for when deciding to purchase or eat a food or beverage, consumers were most interested in the expiration date, nutrition facts panel and the ingredients. Consumers should be treated as they are, not as an ideal of what protectionist interests would like them to be.

d.) Innovation for Growth. The North American meat industry has exploited cost advantages at each stage of production to become an efficient, cost-effective exporter.

The climate of business uncertainty created by this legislation is detrimental to the entire industry. Further, adding unnecessary costs to this process will only make it more difficult to get into competitive markets that are about to re-open to U.S. red meat exports after the events of the past few years.

The continued success of the U.S. and Canadian industries depends on the ability to innovate. Competition drives innovation, which, in turn, drives growth and productivity; competition is what will preserve and enhance these industries' ability to compete in 2007 and beyond, not protectionist policy.

e.) Unnecessary Obstacle to International Trade. Canada has raised its concerns regarding mandatory COOL under the 2002 FSRI Act at several WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee meetings, including June 2002, March and July 2003, and March and June 2005. At the most recent TBT Committee meeting, in July 2007, Canada expressed the view that the COOL requirements as prescribed in the 2002 FSRI Act would create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade and be inconsistent with the United States' international trade obligations, in particular where less trade restrictive voluntary labelling programs exist. The U.S. has yet to respond to the concerns raised by Canada at TBT Committee meetings.

Product of Canada belongs to Canadians.

The Government of Canada, in partnership with provincial governments, is investing in a strategy designed to build familiarity and distinguish Canadian product in the United States, European Union, Mexico and Japan. While remaining consistent with our international obligations, the Brand Canada strategy is designed to showcase the high quality of Canadian goods and agricultural products, and show that Canada is more than adequately equipped to deliver what consumers need and want.

Canada underlines the fact that the mandatory COOL provisions are clearly not based on the relevant international standards, in particular, the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Food.

The Government of Canada is opposed to the term "Product of Canada" appearing on the label of products that undergo substantial transformation in the U.S. beyond the control of Canadian processors and Canadian regulatory oversight. Likewise, Canada remains opposed to any U.S. exports into any market bearing a "Product of Canada" statement on the label where the product has been transformed and is clearly no longer Canadian. We would expect the United States Government and U.S. producers to share such concerns in the event other countries adopt similar COOL legislation.

Conclusion

The legitimacy of the basis for these provisions is questionable, and their utility remains unsubstantiated. The USDA has acknowledged that mandatory COOL does not address food safety or animal health concerns, and has yet to provide evidence that mandatory COOL would benefit consumers as a retail labelling program.

As stated by Canada at the July, 2007 meeting of the WTO TBT Committee, in Canada's view, the COOL requirements as prescribed in the 2002 FSRI Act would create an unnecessary

obstacle to international trade and be inconsistent with the United States' international trade obligations, particularly where less trade restrictive voluntary labelling programs exist. In conclusion, we ask that the current requirements for fish and shellfish be repealed, and that plans for mandatory COOL for remaining commodities be abandoned.
Click to expand...




When asked why they haven't challenged this under NAFT already, our government has said that they can't challenge it until it is passed. Not that they aren't going to challenge it. I can hear the sound of lawyer's engines revving in the distance. :!: :!: :!:
 
Do it. Take it to the Supreme Court and lets see of Congress or the NAFTA Kangaroo Court makes the laws in this country.
 
Thanks for the article Kato, this is the most intelligent and unbiased piece I have seen on COOL.

Sandhusker, did the congress not pass NAFTA into law?
 
hypocritexposer said:
Thanks for the article Kato, this is the most intelligent and unbiased piece I have seen on COOL.

Sandhusker, did the congress not pass NAFTA into law?
Click to expand...

Who does the Constitution say has the power to challenge laws passed by Congress?
 
hypocritexposer said:
Thanks for the article Kato, this is the most intelligent and unbiased piece I have seen on COOL.

Sandhusker, did the congress not pass NAFTA into law?
Click to expand...

It was never ratified by 2/3 of the Senate- as required by the Constitution...

Now would be the perfect time for Canada/and foreign countries to file a sovereignty issue against the US- especially since this sell out of our sovereignty and ability to make our own laws is a key issue in an election- where anymore over 1/2 the public oppose the FTA's and their resulting effects..... :wink:
 
I heard an interesting soundbite a couple of weeks ago on the news regarding this whole issue of reopening NAFTA and renegotiating it. It came from our Prime Minister at a meeting between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

He said he didn't see it being reopened, especially since a significant portion of the U.S. energy needs are being met by Canada. This is not just oil, it also includes a substantial amount of electricity, coal, and natural gas.

To a lot of people, that comment was a polite way of saying "Be careful what you ask for". :shock:

History has shown again and again, that when a choice between priorities must be made, energy will always come first. If our government decides to walk the walk, the time just may be here that they have the leverage to do it.
 
Kato said:
I heard an interesting soundbite a couple of weeks ago on the news regarding this whole issue of reopening NAFTA and renegotiating it. It came from our Prime Minister at a meeting between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

He said he didn't see it being reopened, especially since a significant portion of the U.S. energy needs are being met by Canada. This is not just oil, it also includes a substantial amount of electricity, coal, and natural gas.

To a lot of people, that comment was a polite way of saying "Be careful what you ask for". :shock:

History has shown again and again, that when a choice between priorities must be made, energy will always come first. If our government decides to walk the walk, the time just may be here that they have the leverage to do it.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell us that NAFTA is needed for the energy trade?
 

Latest posts

Top