WTO Challenge.........

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Personally- I think Canadian producers should be screaming at their politicians to put an identical M-COOL in place- instead of fighting ours..

Why would we want a poorly thought out, protectionist piece of crap legislation put in place? Right now, due to the new rules placed on trucking, its estimated that US M-Cool is costing us $90 per animal, INCLUDING THOSE ANIMALS THAT NEVER GO ANYWHERE NEAR THE US!

What a sham.

If the US would simply follow the rules they agreed to in NAFTA and CAFTA, you wouldn't hear a peep from Canadian cattle producers. At least in there, what makes a beef "US Beef" and what doesn't actually makes sense.

As for processing something not making it a product of the US, what a bunch of horseshit. Virtually ALL food born illnesses are introduced at the processing level. So why should we place Product of Canada labels on beef that is processed by YOUR DISEASE INFESTED packing plants?

'Fess up to your shortcomings and take some personal responsibility for damage that you guys have caused the beef industry ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

China was the fuel behind making this legislation popular with the people down here, and the concern wasn't what was added in processing, but what was sent over here in the first place.

 

[Kato]

So in that case COOL will work well with Chinese imports, just as it's supposed to Not a problem.

It also should NOT affect Canadian cattle imports because according to what we BOTH signed onto in NAFTA, Canadian cattle processed in the U.S. BECOME U.S. beef, and therefore are not affected. Go ahead and label anything you like, we're right behind you, and are working at doing the same thing here. Just live up to your word, and accept the fact that when it's been through a U.S. plant, it IS U.S. beef.

It 's just that simple.

 

[Sandhusker]

So in that case COOL will work well with Chinese imports, just as it's supposed to Not a problem.

It also should NOT affect Canadian cattle imports because according to what we BOTH signed onto in NAFTA, Canadian cattle processed in the U.S. BECOME U.S. beef, and therefore are not affected. Go ahead and label anything you like, we're right behind you, and are working at doing the same thing here. Just live up to your word, and accept the fact that when it's been through a U.S. plant, it IS U.S. beef.

It 's just that simple.

I will never buy the notion that simply cutting a piece of meat changes the nationality of that meat. That is simply rediculous. I could accept a "processed in" label, as that would be honest and straight forward, but a system that calls a piece of meat "product of" a certain country when it has spent 99% of it's existence in another country that is not even mentioned completely misleading. A label is supposed to tell you something, it's supposed to be a method of communication, and the current definition used for determining "product of" doesn't inform the consumer of what they want to know.

How in the hell can you have "Canadian orange juice" when there isn't a damn orange tree within 1000 miles of Canada?

 

[PORKER]

The word( origin ) implies just what it is , three kilometers south of Hanna ,Alberta or six kilometers north of Rosetown,Saskatchewan Canada
, not North America or the product of the USA.. Canadian ranchers should be proud of their beef and put or force the labeling as such. Give the consumer a choice!

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

The, not North America or the product of the USA.. Canadian ranchers should be proud of their beef and put or force the labeling as such. Give the consumer a choice!

This is all to do with pride. We don't want our name stamped on something processed in the US, given the track record of foreign packing plants. You and I both know that the vast majority of food safety issues arise at the processing level, so why would I want my countries name and my perfectly safe beef smeared through the mud the first time a US packing plant drops the ball.

And you and I both know that R-Quack would be the first to blame it on the Canadian beef, whether it were true or not, and with no legal recourse for the Canadian cattleman after R-Quack slandered it.

You guys wanna process it, then take ownership of it. Its that simple.

Rod

 

[ranch hand]

The, not North America or the product of the USA.. Canadian ranchers should be proud of their beef and put or force the labeling as such. Give the consumer a choice!

This is all to do with pride. We don't want our name stamped on something processed in the US, given the track record of foreign packing plants. You and I both know that the vast majority of food safety issues arise at the processing level, so why would I want my countries name and my perfectly safe beef smeared through the mud the first time a US packing plant drops the ball.

And you and I both know that R-Quack would be the first to blame it on the Canadian beef, whether it were true or not, and with no legal recourse for the Canadian cattleman after R-Quack slandered it.

You guys wanna process it, then take ownership of it. Its that simple.

Rod

Rod, then process them up there and send them down with your label.
Talk about protectionist.

 

[Sandhusker]

The, not North America or the product of the USA.. Canadian ranchers should be proud of their beef and put or force the labeling as such. Give the consumer a choice!

This is all to do with pride. We don't want our name stamped on something processed in the US, given the track record of foreign packing plants. You and I both know that the vast majority of food safety issues arise at the processing level, so why would I want my countries name and my perfectly safe beef smeared through the mud the first time a US packing plant drops the ball.

And you and I both know that R-Quack would be the first to blame it on the Canadian beef, whether it were true or not, and with no legal recourse for the Canadian cattleman after R-Quack slandered it.

You guys wanna process it, then take ownership of it. Its that simple.

Rod

Us guys don't want to process it. The guys that want to process it want to pass it off as US. Incidentally, their long-term goals are to be able to pass off South American as US both here and in Canada. How 'bout we stop that plan right now?

 

[Silver]

It make a pretty air tight case for yankee protectionism when plants can't even use the "Product of USA, Canada, Mexico" if that beef was 100% yankee raised. Seems reasonable at first until you consider that a plant may have Canadian born animals at it, and they can't be killed on the same day as yankee beef. And you can't use the aforementioned lable, even though it would be cost effective to cover all the beef killed with one lable. Now there is a problem. The easy solution is not to take Canadian beef at the plant. Even though NAFTA clearly states that a product becomes the product of the country in which it was significantly altered.

Oh wait.... I said NAFTA didn't I? Now some retard is gonna come down with NAFTA being all unconstitutional and all...... well too bad. We gotta live by it too, so suck it up, Buttercup.

 

[Sandhusker]

It make a pretty air tight case for yankee protectionism when plants can't even use the "Product of USA, Canada, Mexico" if that beef was 100% yankee raised. Seems reasonable at first until you consider that a plant may have Canadian born animals at it, and they can't be killed on the same day as yankee beef. And you can't use the aforementioned lable, even though it would be cost effective to cover all the beef killed with one lable. Now there is a problem. The easy solution is not to take Canadian beef at the plant. Even though NAFTA clearly states that a product becomes the product of the country in which it was significantly altered.

Oh wait.... I said NAFTA didn't I? Now some retard is gonna come down with NAFTA being all unconstitutional and all...... well too bad. We gotta live by it too, so suck it up, Buttercup.

Why not just use the label, "Product of Earth"? That would certainly be in the sprit of the law, now wouldn't it?

 

[gcreekrch]

It make a pretty air tight case for yankee protectionism when plants can't even use the "Product of USA, Canada, Mexico" if that beef was 100% yankee raised. Seems reasonable at first until you consider that a plant may have Canadian born animals at it, and they can't be killed on the same day as yankee beef. And you can't use the aforementioned lable, even though it would be cost effective to cover all the beef killed with one lable. Now there is a problem. The easy solution is not to take Canadian beef at the plant. Even though NAFTA clearly states that a product becomes the product of the country in which it was significantly altered.

Oh wait.... I said NAFTA didn't I? Now some retard is gonna come down with NAFTA being all unconstitutional and all...... well too bad. We gotta live by it too, so suck it up, Buttercup.

Why not just use the label, "Product of Earth"? That would certainly be in the sprit of the law, now wouldn't it?

Sandy, you're being obtuse. You aren't in the corn patch tonight by any chance are you?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Why not just use the label, "Product of Earth"? That would certainly be in the sprit of the law, now wouldn't it?

How about making it the consumer's decision? They can choose product of Earth, Product of US, or Product of Canada.

BTW, the arguement "Everything else has a 'made in' sticker" doesn't wash. Nothing else has a product "origin" as you R-Quackers are trying to foist on beef. Everything else utilizes common sense rules as to the amount of processing time/danger to denote the "Product of".

Oh wait, we already had that with NAFTA. Imagine, the US signing something and then ignoring what they've signed. I think its pretty despicable that a once great country now has a world wide reputation for being bullies and sissies, simply because you can't trust the paper their government signed. Tell me R-Quackers, do you guy often sign contracts and then break them on a whim?

As for "we don't want to process your beef" Sandhusker, you finally came out of the closet and admitted that you're protectionist, huh? Maybe YOU don't want to process our beef, but plenty of other companies DO.

Ranch Hand, as for you, you need to find a dictionary. You should read a word or two per day. Start with "Protectionist" or "Protectionism".

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Rod, the customer's decision is that that want to know what country their food originated in! Where it was processed is not their primary concern, it's where it was grown that has their attention.

I get accused of having no respect for agreements and laws because I think NAFTA should be deep sixed. Actually, my basis for that IS my respect for laws and agreements. Constitutionally, there can be no greater law-making body in this country than the US Congress, and NAFTA puts a board above them. That can not be! Our leaders exceeded their authority and agreed to terms that violate our law. Therefore, out of respect for the highest law in this country, I will not accept it.

If certain companies want to process your beef, I say fine. Label the beef as to the country of origin, as consumers have dicatated, and knock yourself out.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, the customer's decision is that that want to know what country their food originated in! Where it was processed is not their primary concern, it's where it was grown that has their attention.

Yeah, thanks to outfits like R-Quack that have set food safety to the rear behind protectionism. If R-Quack was really interested in food safety, they'd be educating the consumer as to where most food born illnesses come from, not trying to lie and say that origin really matters.

Besides, consumers have the choice right now. They can choose a product of the US (which is a genuine product of the US, origin be damned), product of Canada, or a product of another country, or non-labelled. If the consumer doesn't wish to buy non-labelled beef, thats their option right now.

I get accused of having no respect for agreements and laws because I think NAFTA should be deep sixed. Actually, my basis for that IS my respect for laws and agreements. Constitutionally, there can be no greater law-making body in this country than the US Congress, and NAFTA puts a board above them.

Thats a weak assed arguement and you know it. If NAFTA wasn't constitutional, then the US should never have signed it in the first place. Actually, they should not have signed ANY trade agreements period. And then where would your country be? If you really think that the US can go it alone, you're living in a dream world. You require products from other nations to survive, and you know it. And if you honestly believe that other countries should simply let you have those products under your terms and conditions, then we're back to my bullies and sissies comment.

Or do you honestly believe that other countries should just lie and down and take it?

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

You think that R-CALF is responsible for millions of people calling their Congressmen and demanding COOL? I wish we had that much pull, but I'm afraid you're giving us way too much credit. China had more of an effect on anybody else on COOL.

R-CALF has been very active on food safety. We've been stumping for tighter controls and more inspection in the plants. We've given John Munsell a platform to tell his story. We're advocating allowing provate BSE testing. We're trying to eliminate the reasons people might not buy beef.

Our lawmakers do things that are unconstitutional quite often. Do a google search and see how many laws have been tossed by the courts because of that. As sad as it is, very few lawmakers carry around a copy of the Constitution.

I'm not against trade agreements. I'm against ILLEGAL trade agreements.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I'm not against trade agreements. I'm against ILLEGAL trade agreements.

From your description, any trade agreement is going to be against your constitution for _all_ trade agreements must, at one point in time or another, have one country answering to another. And trade agreements that can simply be wiped away when a new government takes power aren't worth spit.

Like I said, its a weak assed arguement. Fact of the matter is that MCOOL, as it currently stands, is nothing more than a protectionist piece of garbage that is costing producers money on _both_ sides of the border.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

I'm not against trade agreements. I'm against ILLEGAL trade agreements.

From your description, any trade agreement is going to be against your constitution for _all_ trade agreements must, at one point in time or another, have one country answering to another. And trade agreements that can simply be wiped away when a new government takes power aren't worth spit.

Like I said, its a weak assed arguement. Fact of the matter is that MCOOL, as it currently stands, is nothing more than a protectionist piece of garbage that is costing producers money on _both_ sides of the border.

Rod

I would argue that a country's priorities are horribly skewed if "Trade" is put above the law and the wishes of the populace. A nation's sovereignity is more important than a damn trade agreement.

Think about it, the way NAFTA is set up, a Mexican and a Canadian, two unelected foreign nationals, can trump the entity that our highest law says has the final word - all in the name of "trade". We have a complex system set up to make our laws, a process to determine who can make the laws, etc..... and all that can get tossed by a couple of foreigners who we don't even know. You've got to be kidding me.....

 

[MoGal]

Well, we've got countries filing WTO charges against the US for bailing out the auto companies so may as well have them for the beef.

Ummm, a UK paper is saying the US is gonna have 1 mil layoffs per month the first 3 months of '09 so I don't think anyone will see higher farm prices for our beef (except in the stores).

They may not be buying your CA beef and pork or Mexico's beef but I can assure you all the grocery stores in this area have the pork labelled as from USA and Canada and all the beef is labelled from USA, Canada and Mexico.
Anybody else seeing the same thing?? You couldn't buy a USA only or Canadian only steak if your life depended on it.

 

[Anonymous]

As well as putting restrictions on any of the auto companies bailout loan money being used by foreign companies, or in out of country plants, or foreign labor--One of the big push's Obama has made and is strongly being echoed by many in Congress is that all the products needed and used by the rebuild America bailout the are proposing to be used to put out of work, workers back to work- and create new energy sources- be all sourced from and manufactured in the US with US labor....

That should really make the WTO and freetrader folks howl

 

[MoGal]

That's good OT. I just hope they stipulate the jobs created aren't for illegal aliens either.