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

WTO Challenge.........

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
GENEVA - Canada filed a World Trade Organization complaint on Tuesday over a new U.S. law that requires retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef and pork, officials said.
The Canadian government said it was concerned the U.S. rules were discriminating against Canadian agricultural exporters, who have lobbied hard for a legal challenge at the WTO.
"We believe that the country-of-origin legislation is creating undue trade restrictions to the detriment of Canadian exporters," Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day said in a statement.
The WTO confirmed receipt of Canada's complaint.
Canadian farm groups say a growing number of meat plants in the U.S. are refusing to accept Canadian cattle and hogs for processing since the Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) law went into effect on Oct. 1.
Under country of origin labelling, Canadian cattle and pigs must be segregated in U.S. feedlots and packing plants, prompting some firms to only deal with American livestock. Canadian animals are also required to have more documentation about where they come from, and in the case of cattle, the animals must have tags that indicate they are free of mad cow disease.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Washington could not immediately comment.
Ottawa's filing at the Geneva-based trade referee initiates a two-month consultation period between the North American neighbours. If they fail to reach a settlement, Canada can ask the WTO for a formal investigation. Such trade disputes can result in punitive sanctions, but usually after years of litigation.
Canada and the U.S. are the world's biggest commercial partners, but have battled for years over trade issues involving beef, corn, dairy and wheat. In 2006, the two countries signed an accord on softwood lumber, a key component in home-building, ending a decades-long dispute that once fueled talk of an outright trade war.
"We are committed to a respectful working relationship with our American neighbors,"; Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said, "but have always made it clear that these new regulations must not discriminate against Canadian producers."

I guess now the bureaucrats can get in on the argument. It's about time.
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Kato, where does Cool say you have to tag to show it is BSE free? Merry Christmas to you all.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rancher said:
Kato, where does Cool say you have to tag to show it is BSE free? Merry Christmas to you all.

Hey rancher-- how you been? Glad you spotted that. I hadn't even read it over that close....Too me its a stupid move by Canada- and a farce...

This could be the best recruitment issue R-CALF has had in years....Nothing will upset a bunch of farmers/ranchers and consumers than to have a foreign country/organization tell them that because of an unratified treaty signed 15 years ago that they have lost their sovereignty of what laws they can or cannot pass and their ability to choose how food products must be labeled in their own country....Especially something that by USDA's own surveying was supported by a such huge majority of producers and consumers and was fought for for years.....

And especially now when the anti import feelings and the believed negative effects they have had on the economy are running so high in the country..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
US challenges to the WTO.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/gmo_wto.cfm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1ef9d3d6-c02d-11da-939f-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/US_Requests_WTO_Panel_In_Challenge_To_EU_HighTechnology_Tariffs_xxxx32243.html
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
The WTO has no jurisdiction in this country. They can't overturn laws enacted by Congress.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
The WTO has no jurisdiction in this country. They can't overturn laws enacted by Congress.

And most of the civilized world has COOL and has had it for years...

Heres from 1999 testimony by HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO:

And America is sort of behind the 8-ball when it comes to country-of-origin meat labeling, because there are exactly 32 other countries that already require country-of-origin meat labeling, including Argentina, Brazil, Bosnia, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, the Arab countries, Venezuela, and I could go on and on,

Since then many other countries we trade with such as Taiwan and Japan have added COOL labeling requirements...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
The WTO has no jurisdiction in this country. They can't overturn laws enacted by Congress.

And most of the civilized world has COOL and has had it for years...

Heres from 1999 testimony by HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO:

And America is sort of behind the 8-ball when it comes to country-of-origin meat labeling, because there are exactly 32 other countries that already require country-of-origin meat labeling, including Argentina, Brazil, Bosnia, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, the Arab countries, Venezuela, and I could go on and on,

Since then many other countries we trade with such as Taiwan and Japan have added COOL labeling requirements...

UPDATE:

Actually the GAO reported that of the 57 (EU counted as one entity) trading partners the US deals with most in trade- 48 require Country of Origin Labeling on one or more of the commodities covered in the law - including the US's three largest trading partners- Canada, Mexico, and Japan....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Why Canadians want to empower the ones that have a chokehold on the Canadian industry is beyond me. I would think that you would be trying to loosen their grip.
 

Shaft

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
Location
The Big Smoke
Now Sandy, don't be putting all canuckleheads into the same pot. Generalizations like that are the foundation of bigotry.

FYI the National Farmers Union (Canada) supports and embraces COOL. In their recently released report entitled 'The Farm Crisis and the Cattle Sector: Towards a New Analysis and New Solutions' the NFU's recommendation number 11 is:

"Embrace country-of-origin labelling. Citizens have the right to know where their food comes from; to know if their dinner roast is from Canada or New Zealand or Uruguay. Most people would prefer to know even more: i.e. whether their Canadian roast is from Southern Alberta, Central Manitoba, or Eastern Ontario. Canada can use country-of-origin labelling to meet the information needs of consumers, help build diversified local markets, reduce food miles, and move our own meat system towards increased social, economic, and environmental sustainability."

Sounds right to me.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
Thought this would stir things up. :wink: :wink:

The U.S. has been quick to use the WTO when it benefits "U.S. Interests". But as usual, no one else had better use it, because we wouldn't want to get in the way of "U.S. Interests", would we? :roll: :roll:

COOL is fine with us as long as you guys realize that when beef is processed in the U.S. that makes it U.S. BEEF. It's as simple as that. Just live up to your word as written into NAFTA, and we're happy with it. Otherwise, open up NAFTA, then we can renegotiate it without the oil and water rights you've been given, and everyone will be happy. When it comes to a decision between oil, and disgruntled cattlemen, we all know who wins, don't we?

If you think that what the Canadian government is doing is only going to empower the packers, that's just not true. It's not doing something that empowers them. Does anyone really think that the bonus profit they make on our discounted cattle actually gets to the American cattleman? If so, they are living in a dream world. They are more likely going into a fund to build new state of the art plants in South America or Australia. :roll: :roll: :roll:

As for the tagged for BSE, that's what happens when a city reporter writes an agricultural story. Jumping on that one is kind of grasping at straws eh?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Kato, "COOL is fine with us as long as you guys realize that when beef is processed in the U.S. that makes it U.S. BEEF. It's as simple as that."

A half of beef from Canada crosses the bridge to Detroit to a butcher shop where somebody cuts a steak off that half. The other half is in Windsor where somebody cuts a steak as well. You put both steaks in a bag and shake them up, and not even a DNA test can tell them apart, but one is US and one is Canadian. That makes sense to you? Not to me.

That's the totally rediculous concept where "Canadian orange juice" comes from. Not a flipping orange tree within a thousand miles of Canada, but there is Canadian orange juice? :roll: :lol:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,037
Reaction score
255
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Kato, "COOL is fine with us as long as you guys realize that when beef is processed in the U.S. that makes it U.S. BEEF. It's as simple as that."

A half of beef from Canada crosses the bridge to Detroit to a butcher shop where somebody cuts a steak off that half. The other half is in Windsor where somebody cuts a steak as well. You put both steaks in a bag and shake them up, and not even a DNA test can tell them apart, but one is US and one is Canadian. That makes sense to you? Not to me.

That's the totally rediculous concept where "Canadian orange juice" comes from. Not a flipping orange tree within a thousand miles of Canada, but there is Canadian orange juice? :roll: :lol:

Sandhusker what about the beef that went to the USA at 400 pounds was fed in the USA until 1,400 pounds and is not a Product of the USA. Can you tell it from a calf that was born in the USA?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Kato, "COOL is fine with us as long as you guys realize that when beef is processed in the U.S. that makes it U.S. BEEF. It's as simple as that."

A half of beef from Canada crosses the bridge to Detroit to a butcher shop where somebody cuts a steak off that half. The other half is in Windsor where somebody cuts a steak as well. You put both steaks in a bag and shake them up, and not even a DNA test can tell them apart, but one is US and one is Canadian. That makes sense to you? Not to me.

That's the totally rediculous concept where "Canadian orange juice" comes from. Not a flipping orange tree within a thousand miles of Canada, but there is Canadian orange juice? :roll: :lol:

Sandhusker what about the beef that went to the USA at 400 pounds was fed in the USA until 1,400 pounds and is not a Product of the USA. Can you tell it from a calf that was born in the USA?

Thats the reason its labeled Product of Canada and USA...

How can the truth hurt Canadians :???: If telling the truth is wrong- then you folks better find a different line of work... Run for Parliament :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
The idea behind COOL is so that consumers can make their purchasing decisions based on the source. Many countries that we currently trade with (CAFTA countries come to mind right away) are allowed to use drugs that are deemed unsafe here. In those cases, the proper test could tell beef from those cattle.

If people can't avoid product from certain countries, when bad news comes out about product from those countries, consumers will shy away from all products out of a concern for safety. The whole industry takes a hit because of one player. Thus, the US cattle industry is on the hook for the actions of other countries, and we have no control over them. It's a deal that we can only lose in, so why be in it? Why not a little common sense legislation?

How's that good 'ol Canadian orange juice?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ag commissioner: Canadian complaint groundless



The Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota

Dec 03, 2008 - 04:05:28 CST



North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson says he doesn't expect much to come of a complaint Canada has filed over country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef and pork.



Johnson says many countries, including Canada, routinely require country-of-origin labeling on many products.



Canada filed the complaint with the World Trade Organization, saying the new U.S. rules were discriminating against Canadian agricultural exporters. Johnson says he thinks it might be an attempt by the Canadian government to appease industry officials north of the border who have lobbied for a legal challenge.



- Associated Press

bismarcktribune.com
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
What's actually happening is that they will go to the WTO first, because until the rules are final, and being impelmented, they can't really launch a direct NAFTA challenge. Once you guys actually get your act together and implement anything, then the NAFTA challenge will go ahead. The WTO challenge is probably being used to indicate what the next step will be if the rules aren't changed to follow the NAFTA guidelines. There's a lot of damage documentation going on up here right now, and if it's necessary to launch a NAFTA challenge, it'll happen.

DUH..........Of course the North Dakota Ag Commissioner will say he doesn't expect much to come of the complaint. North Dakota only takes money from Canadian shoppers, not imports from Canada. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Why would we expect him to say anything else? :roll:
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
4,341
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Kato said:
What's actually happening is that they will go to the WTO first, because until the rules are final, and being impelmented, they can't really launch a direct NAFTA challenge. Once you guys actually get your act together and implement anything, then the NAFTA challenge will go ahead. The WTO challenge is probably being used to indicate what the next step will be if the rules aren't changed to follow the NAFTA guidelines. There's a lot of damage documentation going on up here right now, and if it's necessary to launch a NAFTA challenge, it'll happen.

DUH..........Of course the North Dakota Ag Commissioner will say he doesn't expect much to come of the complaint. North Dakota only takes money from Canadian shoppers, not imports from Canada. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Why would we expect him to say anything else? :roll:



In 2007, Canada–North Dakota trade climbed to $2.7 billion, up nearly 23% from the previous year. North Dakota sent $895 million in goods to its northern neighbor and imported $1.8 billion worth. Canada was the state’s most valuable foreign partner, purchasing almost 50% of North Dakota’s worldwide goods.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Oldtimer said:
Ag commissioner: Canadian complaint groundless



The Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota

Dec 03, 2008 - 04:05:28 CST



North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson says he doesn't expect much to come of a complaint Canada has filed over country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef and pork.



Johnson says many countries, including Canada, routinely require country-of-origin labeling on many products.



Canada filed the complaint with the World Trade Organization, saying the new U.S. rules were discriminating against Canadian agricultural exporters. Johnson says he thinks it might be an attempt by the Canadian government to appease industry officials north of the border who have lobbied for a legal challenge.



- Associated Press

bismarcktribune.com

I dont know why those canuckleheads are raisin hell about M cool,they have had it for years.
good luck
 

gcreekrch

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
11,397
Reaction score
102
Location
west chilcotin bc
Personnally, I have no problem with the logistics of COOL.
I do however, take exception to the way the packers are using the rule as a way to discount Canadian cattle and hogs, which in turn has a negative effect on your market values also.
In the end it will all shake out but for the present it is painful.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
gcreekrch said:
Personnally, I have no problem with the logistics of COOL.
I do however, take exception to the way the packers are using the rule as a way to discount Canadian cattle and hogs, which in turn has a negative effect on your market values also.
In the end it will all shake out but for the present it is painful.

Personally- I think Canadian producers should be screaming at their politicians to put an identical M-COOL in place- instead of fighting ours..Have it in place- and have an identified product name built so when Tyson, JBS Brazil, and all the other multinationals start shipping the cheap Brazilian and Argentine beef in- they won't be able to pass it off as Domestic....

Also both countries producers should make a combined move on their government to put identical Packer Ownership Ban (captive supply) into place- since we finally have an administration that is receptive to it...
 

Latest posts

Top