WTO ruling on cool...

[Kato]

http://www.farms.com/ag-industry-news/wto-ruling-on-cool-kept-under-wraps-981.aspx

WTO ruling on COOL kept under wraps
Canada, Mexico and U.S. officials have received a confidential report on the Country-of-Origin-Labeling ruling

By Amanda Brodhagen, Farms.com

Countries involved in the trade dispute over the U.S. Country-of-Origin-Labeling (COOL) law that requires meat to be labeled to include information on where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered, have been informed of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on the case.

In an emailed statement, a media relations representative for Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Claude Rocon, explained the process of trade dispute verdicts from the WTO. "It is standard WTO practice for the disputing parties to get a confidential interim report from a panel," she said.

The parties involved – Canada, Mexico and the United States governments are in possession of the report on COOL from the WTO compliance panel. The full report is expected to be released sometime in the late summer or early fall 2014, Rocon confirms.

The COOL rule, also known as (mCOOL), m which stands for mandatory, obliges retailers to provide a meat label for beef, pork and lamb products: "Born in Canada, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States," would be one example.

The U.S. meat labeling law is blamed for discriminating against out of country meat and livestock from Canada and Mexico, reducing the amount of exports to the United States by about half since 2008. Canadian livestock groups argue that the COOL rule undermines their competitiveness, which is causing them about $1-billion a year in losses.

Most U.S. companies including, Tyson Foods Inc., have reduced or stopped buying Canadian and Mexican livestock because they can't afford to sort, label and store meat differently from other countries than the meat from domestic (U.S.) livestock.

According to Rocon, after the report is public, it will either be adopted by the WTO or appealed (and then adopted after the appeal). If the U.S. is found to have continued to violate its WTO obligations, Canada and Mexico would then have the opportunity to retaliate.

The Canadian government has already published a list of American products that could have retaliatory tariffs sanctioned against them if the WTO ruling finds the U.S. is still not meeting its international trade responsibilities. The full list can be found on the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada website.

Hypothetically, if the U.S. is found in violation, it could see an arbitration (which is not subject to an appeal) for the amount of the retaliation. This process could take up to six months to complete.

 

[Sandhusker]

It's absolutely disgraceful to give up sovereignty to an unelected arbitrary board of foreigners who don't give a crap about your citizenry.

 

[Mike]

It's not the "COOL Labels" per se that are the problem. It's the forced segregation of cattle and the record keeping involved that makes Mexican & Canadian cattle more expensive to U.S. cattle buyers. That in turn leaves those buyers no choice but to pay less for the imported cattle, putting their producers at a disadvantage.

A number of news outlets reported over the weekend that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has determined that USDA's latest attempt to write rules for mandatory country of origin labelling still runs afoul of WTO rules. Our sources confirm the finding which was circulated to the affected countries late last week and will be publicly released in September. This is the second time that the MCOOL scheme has been found in violation of WTO rules and suggests strongly what we and many others have believed ever since MCOOL was adopted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill: It may not be possible to satisfy both the MCOOL legislation and WTO rules. This ruling will give Canada and Mexico leave to impose retaliatory tariffs. Both countries have put together lists of products on which those tariffs will be levied though we have only seen the list from Canada. It covers a broad range of items including a number of non?agricultural goods. The goal of retaliation, of course, is to get the offending country to change its policies so the tariffs will be aimed at other industries that have historically had strong lobbies or presences in the states or congressional districts of key members of Congress. If one is going to apply a lever, one should apply it wisely, you know. Beef and pork are on Canada's list and will most certainly be on Mexico's. Mexico was the largest single destination for US pork products in 2013, ranking second for both muscle cuts (to Japan) and pork variety meats (to China/Hong Kong). Canada was our fourth largest pork muscle cut market in 2013. On the beef side, Canada was our second largest muscle cut market in 2013 while Mexico ranked third for muscle cut exports and second (to Egypt) for variety meat tonnage but number one for variety meat value. Mexico is far and away our largest broiler export customer, accounting for nearly 20 per cent of 2013 broiler exports. Tariffs will not stop exports to these countries but they will no doubt slow them and any reduction for markets as large as these two will have negative price impacts,especially if pork and broiler production increase at the same time. - See more at: http://www.thebeefsite.com/news/46426/cme-report-us-cool-still-runs-afoul-of-wto-rules#sthash.jfkvWnZm.dpuf

Those that wanted a mandated COOL program without any real cattle ID system are getting exactly what they asked for. A mess. :wink:

 

[bearvalley]

It's not the "COOL Labels" per se that are the problem. It's the forced segregation of cattle and the record keeping involved that makes Mexican & Canadian cattle more expensive to U.S. cattle buyers. That in turn leaves those buyers no choice but to pay less for the imported cattle, putting their producers at a disadvantage.

A number of news outlets reported over the weekend that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has determined that USDA's latest attempt to write rules for mandatory country of origin labelling still runs afoul of WTO rules. Our sources confirm the finding which was circulated to the affected countries late last week and will be publicly released in September. This is the second time that the MCOOL scheme has been found in violation of WTO rules and suggests strongly what we and many others have believed ever since MCOOL was adopted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill: It may not be possible to satisfy both the MCOOL legislation and WTO rules. This ruling will give Canada and Mexico leave to impose retaliatory tariffs. Both countries have put together lists of products on which those tariffs will be levied though we have only seen the list from Canada. It covers a broad range of items including a number of non?agricultural goods. The goal of retaliation, of course, is to get the offending country to change its policies so the tariffs will be aimed at other industries that have historically had strong lobbies or presences in the states or congressional districts of key members of Congress. If one is going to apply a lever, one should apply it wisely, you know. Beef and pork are on Canada's list and will most certainly be on Mexico's. Mexico was the largest single destination for US pork products in 2013, ranking second for both muscle cuts (to Japan) and pork variety meats (to China/Hong Kong). Canada was our fourth largest pork muscle cut market in 2013. On the beef side, Canada was our second largest muscle cut market in 2013 while Mexico ranked third for muscle cut exports and second (to Egypt) for variety meat tonnage but number one for variety meat value. Mexico is far and away our largest broiler export customer, accounting for nearly 20 per cent of 2013 broiler exports. Tariffs will not stop exports to these countries but they will no doubt slow them and any reduction for markets as large as these two will have negative price impacts,especially if pork and broiler production increase at the same time. - See more at: http://www.thebeefsite.com/news/46426/cme-report-us-cool-still-runs-afoul-of-wto-rules#sthash.jfkvWnZm.dpuf

Mike, you are completely right and as I have said there are no real winners under MCOOLS protectionist regulations. In the same sense there will be no winners if tariffs are put in place. The US producers sending their products south into Mexico and north to Canada will suffer as the price of their goods will have to adjust market wise the same as our meat products have. The Canadian and Mexican consumer will suffer as well as they will be forced to pay an inflated price with the added on tariff. The only winner I can see in this whole deal is the Canadian and Mexican governments as they will be the ones collecting any tariff money with no intention of passing it back to the Canadian or Mexican meat producer that has taken the financial hit for MCOOL.
There probably s not a better time than right now for non-US meat producers to wean themselves off the tit. With North American beef production at more than a 60 year low I am sure Canadian beef will still sell without a US company in the middle as a broker. Might even bring more than US product if all of a sudden it's taken out off the mix. Just my thoughts on the issue.

 

[Anonymous]

It's absolutely disgraceful to give up sovereignty to an unelected arbitrary board of foreigners who don't give a crap about your citizenry.

Yep- a huge majority of US citizens/consumers requested that they be able to identify the country their food products they feed their families came from- and in the case of beef/meat the country that product was born, raised and slaughtered in--- and for one of the first times, the US Congress and the President of the United States agreed and passed a law requiring that....

And then a foreign entity comes along and tells us that as citizens and a government we have no say in how our country is run or what we consumer as consumer- and that we have to bow to the wishes of two countries that we have subsidized for years.... :shock: :shock:

Yep- Sandhusker definitely a sad step in losing our sovereignty to the world organizations/UN types....

 

[Mike]

It's absolutely disgraceful to give up sovereignty to an unelected arbitrary board of foreigners who don't give a crap about your citizenry.

Yep- a huge majority of US citizens/consumers requested that they be able to identify the country their food products they feed their families came from- and in the case of beef/meat the country that product was born, raised and slaughtered in--- and for one of the first times, the US Congress and the President of the United States agreed and passed a law requiring that....

And then a foreign entity comes along and tells us that as citizens and a government we have no say in how our country is run or what we consumer as consumer- and that we have to bow to the wishes of two countries that we have subsidized for years.... :shock: :shock:

Yep- Sandhusker definitely a sad step in losing our sovereignty to the world organizations/UN types....

That's Bullshit and you know it. You've been told that the Label is perfectly fine to label meat/beef. The WTO and everyone else has no problems with anyone applying a COOL label on a meat package. NONE!!!! Just as long as the rules are not too onerous to the buyers of beef from countries that have a Trade Agreement with us.

YOU are the one that fought M'ID and were too stupid to know the unintended consequences. Deal with it............................

Imagine that....losing your sovereignty for being stupid!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

It's absolutely disgraceful to give up sovereignty to an unelected arbitrary board of foreigners who don't give a crap about your citizenry.

Yep- a huge majority of US citizens/consumers requested that they be able to identify the country their food products they feed their families came from- and in the case of beef/meat the country that product was born, raised and slaughtered in--- and for one of the first times, the US Congress and the President of the United States agreed and passed a law requiring that....

And then a foreign entity comes along and tells us that as citizens and a government we have no say in how our country is run or what we consumer as consumer- and that we have to bow to the wishes of two countries that we have subsidized for years.... :shock: :shock:

Yep- Sandhusker definitely a sad step in losing our sovereignty to the world organizations/UN types....

That's BS and you know it. You've been told that the Label is perfectly fine to label meat/beef. The WTO and everyone else has no problems with anyone applying a COOL label on a meat package. NONE!!!! Just as long as the rules are not too onerous to the buyers of beef from countries that have a Trade Agreement with us.

YOU are the one that fought M'ID and were too stupid to know the unintended consequences. Deal with it............................

Imagine that....losing your sovereignty for being stupid!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mandatory ID has nothing to do with it- for years every live animal coming into the US from Canada was branded C Rafter N and from Mexico branded M- besides being tagged .... They were easily identifiable...

US producers should not have to take extra steps/cost to allow foreign countries to import into our country- that should be the duty of the foreign country/producers if they want to put the animals into our market.....

 

[Mike]

Look Einstein, I'll make this as simple as I can for you and will use very small words so you can understand.

Only a very small portion of meat/beef in the U.S. is subject to COOL. Retail beef is all. That's it.

Because EVERY slaughter animal that comes from Canada must be branded "CAN" high on the hip, tattoed "C" & "N" in the ear, be traceable to it's origin premises, plus meet all health requirements & inspections, it costs more to prepare cattle for export to the US than it does for US producers to sell domestically because we don't have to abide by all those Regs.

Tracking those cattle is expensive & a pain in the butt for both buyers & packers and they'd rather not mess with them even if they pay Canadian producers the same price as they do for US cattle because of the tracking and verification costs. So they pay the producer less.

And don't forget the hefty fines if a mistake is made in the verification.

M'ID would level the playing field and make COOL available for every animal slaughtered. Not just that pittance called retail....

Or........just make it voluntary and have those that want verified COOL beef pay a little extra. Like we have now.............

Oh, and I forgot to tell you that you're bound to a contract Clinton signed in 1994 promising not to make trade into your country no more problematic than trade into theirs.

Keep your promise and be a man or quit trading with your partners altogether.

Most U.S. companies including, Tyson Foods Inc., have reduced or stopped buying Canadian and Mexican livestock because they can't afford to sort, label and store meat differently from other countries than the meat from domestic (U.S.) livestock.

 

[Silver]

We all need to realize that arguing with OT on this matter is a waste of time. He is simply using weak arguments to justify an outcome that accomplishes what he wants: to step all over anyone he can for an extra nickel on sale day.
It's obvious that mcool is only intended to be a trade barrier and nothing more. The sovereignty argument is ridiculous to the point of being absurd and no argument can be made to back that up. Period.
I was under the impression that the US had a reasonably functioning free market system. If this is the case and there is in fact a demand from the people for COOL labeled beef then the market will accommodate with no need for more legislation. More legislation means larger more cumbersome government.

 

[loomixguy]

We all need to realize that arguing with OT on this matter is a waste of time. He is simply using weak arguments to justify an outcome that accomplishes what he wants: to step all over anyone he can for an extra nickel on sale day.

You're half right, Silver. OT is happy to lose a nickle on sale day, if it means he can step all over someone.

 

[Anonymous]

We all need to realize that arguing with OT on this matter is a waste of time. He is simply using weak arguments to justify an outcome that accomplishes what he wants: to step all over anyone he can for an extra nickel on sale day.

You're half right, Silver. OT is happy to lose a nickle on sale day, if it means he can step all over someone.

In ways you are correct... Just like I will gladly spend an extra nickel to buy from a local dealer/store rather then buying it on the internet or going 300 miles away to Billings or Great Falls and getting it for less- just so I can keep my local stores operating...Thru watching the area in the last 40 years I know if they don't get support, they will fade away and die....

I will do the same with buying Made in the USA over a foreign made product also.... I know how important it is to support your community/countries business's- and their producers no matter if you make an extra nickel or not and/or it costs you an extra nickel ...
No difference with selling my product if I can support the local community and country....
Made in the USA used to be a proud motto followed by the majority of the country.... Now everyone just sits around and bitches about "where did all our business's/producer's go'--- and this loss of sovereignty over self control of our food products is a good example of one of the steps we have let happen that decreased local/national production... We no longer can even decide how to label the products we sell in our own country ....

 

[Mike]

We no longer can even decide how to label the products we sell in our country....

:disagree:

You can label them anyway you like. Just don't put your neighbors at a disadvantage by forcing them to unfairly spend more than you do adhering to those labels. :roll: :roll:

 

[Silver]

We no longer can even decide how to label the products we sell in our country....

:disagree:

You can label them anyway you like. Just don't put your neighbors at a disadvantage by forcing them to unfairly spend more than you do adhering to those labels. :roll: :roll:

I suppose those that can't run an efficient operation and be competitive with their neighbours need to go crying and whining to Big Brother to get a leg up.

 

[loomixguy]

OT has no problem latching onto any subsidy he can get his fat, greasy hands on.

 

[gcreekrch]

We all need to realize that arguing with OT on this matter is a waste of time. He is simply using weak arguments to justify an outcome that accomplishes what he wants: to step all over anyone he can for an extra nickel on sale day.

You're half right, Silver. OT is happy to lose a nickle on sale day, if it means he can step all over someone.

In ways you are correct... Just like I will gladly spend an extra nickel to buy from a local dealer/store rather then buying it on the internet or going 300 miles away to Billings or Great Falls and getting it for less- just so I can keep my local stores operating...Thru watching the area in the last 40 years I know if they don't get support, they will fade away and die....

I will do the same with buying Made in the USA over a foreign made product also.... I know how important it is to support your community/countries business's- and their producers no matter if you make an extra nickel or not and/or it costs you an extra nickel ...
No difference with selling my product if I can support the local community and country....
Made in the USA used to be a proud motto followed by the majority of the country.... Now everyone just sits around and bitches about "where did all our business's/producer's go'--- and this loss of sovereignty over self control of our food products is a good example of one of the steps we have let happen that decreased local/national production... We no longer can even decide how to label the products we sell in our own country ....

.....and you have openly admitted buying that good Canadian whiskey because you enjoy it so much better....... :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

You're half right, Silver. OT is happy to lose a nickle on sale day, if it means he can step all over someone.

In ways you are correct... Just like I will gladly spend an extra nickel to buy from a local dealer/store rather then buying it on the internet or going 300 miles away to Billings or Great Falls and getting it for less- just so I can keep my local stores operating...Thru watching the area in the last 40 years I know if they don't get support, they will fade away and die....

I will do the same with buying Made in the USA over a foreign made product also.... I know how important it is to support your community/countries business's- and their producers no matter if you make an extra nickel or not and/or it costs you an extra nickel ...
No difference with selling my product if I can support the local community and country....
Made in the USA used to be a proud motto followed by the majority of the country.... Now everyone just sits around and bitches about "where did all our business's/producer's go'--- and this loss of sovereignty over self control of our food products is a good example of one of the steps we have let happen that decreased local/national production... We no longer can even decide how to label the products we sell in our own country ....

.....and you have openly admitted buying that good Canadian whiskey because you enjoy it so much better....... :wink:

Yep- good Canadian blended Rich & Rare whiskey produced and owned by a U.S. company... :wink:

Although originally produced by the firm of Gooderham and Worts, Rich & Rare Canadian whisky became an established Hiram Walker brand, distilled in Walkerville, Ontario. During Prohibition the Walker plant was purchased by one Harry Hatch. With a partner, Hatch already owned Gooderham and Worts and the two companies were soon merged. Then in 1987, the business, by then called Hiram Walker & Sons, passed into the hands of Allied Lyons, a British firm. But that was not the end of its corporate identity changes. A few years later, in 2005, the French conglomerate, Pernod Ricard took over the company and it was not long before they divested some of the Hiram Walker brands, including the aptly-named Rich & Rare.

The Sazerac Company of New Orleans, now the owner of the brand, bottles Rich & Rare at its facility in Frankfort, Kentucky.

 

[bearvalley]

It's absolutely disgraceful to give up sovereignty to an unelected arbitrary board of foreigners who don't give a crap about your citizenry.

Yep- a huge majority of US citizens/consumers requested that they be able to identify the country their food products they feed their families came from- and in the case of beef/meat the country that product was born, raised and slaughtered in--- and for one of the first times, the US Congress and the President of the United States agreed and passed a law requiring that....

And then a foreign entity comes along and tells us that as citizens and a government we have no say in how our country is run or what we consumer as consumer- and that we have to bow to the wishes of two countries that we have subsidized for years.... :shock: :shock:


Yep- Sandhusker definitely a sad step in losing our sovereignty to the world organizations/UN types....

That a boy OT, keep your blinders on and follow your Muslim leader down the trail. Or would you rather duck out on the foreign entity topic. By the way you should try a good bottle of Gibsons Finest real Canadian Whiskey instead of the make believe stuff produced in Louisiana. My US friends think it's top notch stuff.

 

[Anonymous]

It's absolutely disgraceful to give up sovereignty to an unelected arbitrary board of foreigners who don't give a crap about your citizenry.

Yep- a huge majority of US citizens/consumers requested that they be able to identify the country their food products they feed their families came from- and in the case of beef/meat the country that product was born, raised and slaughtered in--- and for one of the first times, the US Congress and the President of the United States agreed and passed a law requiring that....

And then a foreign entity comes along and tells us that as citizens and a government we have no say in how our country is run or what we consumer as consumer- and that we have to bow to the wishes of two countries that we have subsidized for years.... :shock: :shock:


Yep- Sandhusker definitely a sad step in losing our sovereignty to the world organizations/UN types....

That a boy OT, keep your blinders on and follow your Muslim leader down the trail. Or would you rather duck out on the foreign entity topic. By the way you should try a good bottle of Gibsons Finest real Canadian Whiskey instead of the make believe stuff produced in Louisiana. My US friends think it's top notch stuff.

Well bear valley-- I've heard GW Bush called many things- but this is the first time I've heard him called a "Muslim leader"... :shock: :roll: :wink:
As GW is the one that signed the law requiring mandatory ID requested by the majority of the US consumers, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in 2008...

 

[bearvalley]

Ahh OT, you and me both know I didn't mean GW. RIGHT or wrong he at least took a stance. Can't say as much for the elected embarrassment you staunch US patriots have now. But then maybe it will all work out if by chance you can get Hillary voted in. She couldn't keep old Billy happy but maybe she'll please you. The air in your part of Montana must be mighty thin. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

I see many other food stuffs/ manufactured goods being labels with country of origin. Even without those examples, you can't tell me that this has to be difficult/highly expensive. The problem is that the people charged with making it work (USDA) don't want it to work because they are owned by the big boys who don't want it to work for obvious reasons.

A few rational non-biased people with a one bottle or a twelve-pack could figure this out in one evening.