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

Trade Barrier question

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I've got a question for some of you that I've wrangled with on what does and does not constiture a trade barrier - especially in regards to COOL.

I'd like to know what you think qualifies a government action as a trade barrier? What is the trigger(s) that one can point to that is the deciding factor?
 

Shaft

Well-known member
Be careful what you wish for, SH. You just might get an obscure reply that only makes it worse. Just to give you an idea of how the NAFTA dispute process works, take a look at:

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/nafta20/agtariffs.pdf

Canada won that round, but frankly I cannot see how COOL can be construed to be a NAFTA issue. COOL is simply about product labelling, as I understand it, and has nothing whatsoever to do with import restrictions or quotas.

COOL in the US may well hurt a lot of people, the Manitoba isoweaner producers being one example that immediately springs to mind, but you cannot force someone to buy your product. The Iowa pork producers and others stopped purchasing the Manitoba isoweaners because they felt that there would be no market for the finished product, not because some 'trade barrier' was in place.

Consider this; Canada has had requirements in place for many, many years that canned and packaged food products be labelled in both French and English. Labelling requirements. Just like COOL.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
So canada is bi-lingual :roll: so would it be a trade barrier if canada came up with a more stringent canadian version of M-COOL like we did with the feedban and srms. If canada required a imported meat product to be traceable back to the farm of origin and have paperwork to prove it. No mixing of meat or meat products from different countries or species without the proper paper work proving where it came from birth place to end product and the exact proportions proven by weigh slips And signed aftidavids verifying all data, so incase of foodborne illness everyone in the production chain could be held liable. It isn't meant to be a trade barrier we just want to protect our consumers :p
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Shaft said:
Be careful what you wish for, SH. You just might get an obscure reply that only makes it worse. Just to give you an idea of how the NAFTA dispute process works, take a look at:

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/nafta20/agtariffs.pdf

Canada won that round, but frankly I cannot see how COOL can be construed to be a NAFTA issue. COOL is simply about product labelling, as I understand it, and has nothing whatsoever to do with import restrictions or quotas.

COOL in the US may well hurt a lot of people, the Manitoba isoweaner producers being one example that immediately springs to mind, but you cannot force someone to buy your product. The Iowa pork producers and others stopped purchasing the Manitoba isoweaners because they felt that there would be no market for the finished product, not because some 'trade barrier' was in place.

Consider this; Canada has had requirements in place for many, many years that canned and packaged food products be labelled in both French and English. Labelling requirements. Just like COOL.

Like I've said before, if you're in the mind for it, everything can be a trade barrier. "Trade Barrier" seems to just be a buzzword that has been created by these rediculous Free Trade agreements that put trade above safety, consumer preference, unrelated legislation and even national sovereignity.

I really want to know where the line is drawn by those on this board who consider COOL to be a trade barrier. What the hell does it take to NOT be a trade barrier?
 

PORKER

Well-known member
NAIS and COOL in the USA

http://www.organic-market.info/

There have been many questions about NAIS (National Animal Identification System) and the COOL (Country of Origin Labeling Law).

NAIS is voluntary. The premise has to be registered and name or operation has to be displayed. It provides traceback to the slaughterhouse and is a group ID for livestock. Since it is voluntary, it is not checked upon and enforced. An affidavit is not enough to comply with. No verifiable audit trail is needed with chain of custody nor record storage and archiving is required. It does not cover peanuts, fruit, vegetables or fish.

COOL is mandatory starting September 30, 2008. The premise does not have to be registered, and the name or operation does not have to be displayed. It provides traceback to the retail shelve (field-to-fork). It is an individual traceback, not only for livestock (see ams.usda.gov/cool/records.htm). State officials and AMS-USDA are checking and enforcing the law. An affidavit is not enough to comply with, one needs a unique number, like an ISO RFID number and/or a SSI-EID Code created automatically in the ScoringAG database. Verifiable audit trail is needed with chain of custody, so the retail store can have proper origin labels. Record storage and archiving is required for two years on the farm level up to retailer, and one year for the retailer and all their suppliers. It does also cover peanuts, fruits, vegetables and fish.



As AMS-USDA (Agricultural Marketing Service – United States Department of Agriculture) will start checking the retail stores on October 1, 2008, there are only a few days left to get started with the required recordkeeping for the COOL Law on farm level. Every head of livestock needs to have a form of a unique ID for COOL for easy recordkeeping. The easiest and cheapest way for producers to keep records is with RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags and boluses in the ScoringAg database. Producers need to order enough RFID tags and boluses ahead thru December 2008 as there will be a shortage soon, as the tag companies weren’t prepared for it. This has happened in Europe and Australia when the law forced them to ID animals. A FDX ISO standard RFID Eartag with ScoringAg database record is $ 1.98 for limited time. A RFID bolus with ScoringAg database is $ 2.83.

[email protected]
 

Shaft

Well-known member
You are entitled to protect the health of your people under NAFTA. See:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/51052.pdf

11 August 2005

NAFTA Panel Dismisses Canadian Case Against Gasoline Additive Ban
Finds actions to protect public health, environment consistent with trade law

The United States won a major victory August 9 when a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) arbitration tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by a Canadian methanol producer challenging California's regulations of a gasoline additive.

Based on findings that the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, known as MTBE, contaminates drinking water, California banned the use of MTBE in California gasoline. In its claim, Canada’s Methanex Corp. alleged that California's ban of the use of MTBE in gasoline was a violation of NAFTA's investment protections.

The three-member NAFTA arbitration tribunal unanimously dismissed the claim, both on its merits and jurisdictional grounds, and awarded the United States $4 million to cover legal costs.

In a statement issued August 10, U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said the ruling demonstrates that U.S. trade agreements and investment treaties "do not encroach on governments' legitimate right to regulate in the public interest."

He added: "The decision represents a vindication of the prerogative of states to take action to protect public health and the environment without running afoul of the investment protection provisions of international trade agreements and investment treaties."

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/August/20050811133827ASrelliM0.6663172.html

Note that the MTBE issue is similar to that of the manganese-laden dangerous gasoline additive MMT. Unlike California which fought and won, the Canadian government caved into a NAFTA challenge by Ethyl Corporation of America to continue to allow MMT to be used in Canadian gasoline, and paid Ethyl Corp $20M to boot!

http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/1998/04-Nov-98.html
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Under the US Constitution, that panel has no jurisdiction. The State of California does not have to answer to foreigners.

Just recently, an International court ruled that Texas couldn't execute a Mexican national (Texas v Medellion or something like that) and good 'ol W. told Texas to follow that ruling. The State of Texas told the World Court and W. to kiss off and a Federal Judge then backed Texas and said the World Court had no jurisdiction under US law and Texas could do what they dang well saw fit.

Back to the topic..... Exactly what is it that makes a government action a trade barrier or not?
 

Cinch

Well-known member
It's really is very simple. If the requirement is imposed ONLY on imports and not on domestic goods it would generally be considered a trade barrier.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Cinch said:
It's really is very simple. If the requirement is imposed ONLY on imports and not on domestic goods it would generally be considered a trade barrier.

Then COOL is not a trade barrier.... The Japanese asking for BSE testing would not be a trade barrier. You and I know that, Cinch, but I'm trying to get an explaination from the likes of Kato who keep claiming COOL is a trade barrier.
 

Cinch

Well-known member
Maybe he's not understanding. Translate your question into Canadian and ask it. Do they require things to be bi-lingual in Western Canada?

Surely you have encountered others on this board who don't understand plain English, even Husker English.

You know how politicians are. You ask them a question and they answer a different one instead. Some of these guys are apparently like that too.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Cinch said:
Maybe he's not understanding. Translate your question into Canadian and ask it. Do they require things to be bi-lingual in Western Canada?

Surely you have encountered others on this board who don't understand plain English, even Husker English.

You know how politicians are. You ask them a question and they answer a different one instead. Some of these guys are apparently like that too.

I just imported 10 ton of mineral from Nebraska and it was all printed in English. It was printed in Kgs.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
I just imported 10 ton of mineral from Nebraska and it was all printed in English. It was printed in Kgs.

And if you got it from France , it would have been in French?
 

Kato

Well-known member
My arguement is not so much that COOL is a trade barrier, but that it is a violation of an existing trade agreement. :!:

Call it what you like, the result is the same.

Does this mean that an American government signature on a treaty is not worth the paper it's written on? What I would like our government to do is quit believing everything it's told by the U.S. government and realize that trade with the U.S. always has been and always will be run on American terms. We both sign an agreement, and before the ink is dry, someone south of the border is finding a way to get out of it.

For example, after years and years of arguing against it, by Manitoba as well as Minnesota, the state of North Dakota decided that was above the International Water treaty, and put drains into Devil's Lake so the excess water would run north by the Red River and all the way to Hudson Bay.

Same with NAFTA. The ink was still wet when the challenges began. And they have never quit, no matter how many times the verdict comes out the same. Just keep plugging away and chipping it down.

If America is not going to live up to NAFTA, then scrap it and we'll go back to the old days so we can put up a few barriers ourselves. :wink: Maybe we could start with those cattle that come from a country with in outdated feed ban? :wink: Or a country that processes downers? :shock: No beef from cows that don't speak French! :D :D :D Our own MCOOL? :wink: It wouldn't take much to do that. 8) How about that subsidized American corn that's pouring up here by the trainload because it's still cheaper than ours? And another dollar a gallon or so tariff on fuel might be a good idea, and for good luck a couple of hundred dollars on a ton of fertilizer to boot.

Now just how long does anyone think that we could get away with stuff like that before the hammer fell????? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Not too long. :shock:
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
If the US producer had to do the same things as canadian producers COOL would not be a problem. But COOL doesn't treat everyone the same. :roll:
 

burnt

Well-known member
Kato said:
My arguement is not so much that COOL is a trade barrier, but that it is a violation of an existing trade agreement. :!:

Call it what you like, the result is the same.

Does this mean that an American government signature on a treaty is not worth the paper it's written on? What I would like our government to do is quit believing everything it's told by the U.S. government and realize that trade with the U.S. always has been and always will be run on American terms. We both sign an agreement, and before the ink is dry, someone south of the border is finding a way to get out of it.

For example, after years and years of arguing against it, by Manitoba as well as Minnesota, the state of North Dakota decided that was above the International Water treaty, and put drains into Devil's Lake so the excess water would run north by the Red River and all the way to Hudson Bay.

Same with NAFTA. The ink was still wet when the challenges began. And they have never quit, no matter how many times the verdict comes out the same. Just keep plugging away and chipping it down.

If America is not going to live up to NAFTA, then scrap it and we'll go back to the old days so we can put up a few barriers ourselves. :wink: Maybe we could start with those cattle that come from a country with in outdated feed ban? :wink: Or a country that processes downers? :shock: No beef from cows that don't speak French! :D :D :D Our own MCOOL? :wink: It wouldn't take much to do that. 8) How about that subsidized American corn that's pouring up here by the trainload because it's still cheaper than ours? And another dollar a gallon or so tariff on fuel might be a good idea, and for good luck a couple of hundred dollars on a ton of fertilizer to boot.

Now just how long does anyone think that we could get away with stuff like that before the hammer fell????? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Not too long. :shock:

While you make some good points, it made be a tragic oversight on your part and that of many others that will endlessly belie your thoughts of their significant worth. The part of what you say which is unfortunately correct is the "challenges" issue.

The United States of America sees itself as being entitled to prosperity regardless of what it must do to achieve, accumulate and promulgate wealth. The signing of a document is merely seen as a beginning point for hard-nosed negotiations. If unexpected issues arise, litigation is the perceived solution. If the outcome is unfavorable, litigation is the recourse. If the verdict is still unfriendly. further litigation is the only solution.

But never, ever settle for less than the desired outcome. Because the accumulated wealth on the American side can outspend any legal challenge mounted by any opponent. And anyone who threatens American interests must be seen as an opponent, alien or unfriendly. Fair trade be damned.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Sand give me a break you are playing dumb again? It seems easy for you but let 's start with the obviouse one traceability of every animal so you can prove it is actually for the US. Well it was killed in the US so it must be from the US,everyone trust the US because they say trust me i'm a honest guy :roll: The facts speak for themselves
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Sand give me a break you are playing dumb again? It seems easy for you but let 's start with the obviouse one traceability of every animal so you can prove it is actually for the US. Well it was killed in the US so it must be from the US,everyone trust the US because they say trust me i'm a honest guy :roll: The facts speak for themselves

If it doesn't have a CAN or M brand or come directly from Canada in a sealed truck, how can it be anything other than US? We can trace every animal for the purpose of COOL now without changing a thing.

So what again is the different treatment?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
I can go back and find the post where you claim there are cattle coming into the US illegally. It was all in the Van Dyke threads. So if you wnat to claim they are born, bred ,fed and killed in the US develope and implement a national ID program so you can prove what you are saying. Sorry but the US international reputation is shot the last time people trusted the US we were supposed to find WDM's in saddams house. :roll:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
How is it a violation, Kato?

It violates the "what constitutes a US product" clause of NAFTA, Sandhusker. The new COOL laws attempt to change what was already laid out in the NAFTA agreement years ago.

Rod
 
Top