• 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 ruling on cool...

Help Support Ranchers.net:

COOL update

Recent media reports speculating about the World Trade Organization (WTO) compliance panel process regarding Canada and Mexico's challenge to U.S. mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) have resulted in more than a few media calls to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA).
The CCA does not comment on speculation, noting that the official compliance panel decision remains confidential until the WTO publishes it, but offers the following general comment about Canada's COOL challenge at the WTO:

The CCA believes in the strength of Canada's arguments that were put forth to the panel and we continue to hold the view that COOL discriminates against live imports of cattle and hogs into the U.S. marketplace. The CCA believes that the only way to bring COOL into compliance is through legislative change, either by repeal or amendment of the COOL statute. Such action must result in elimination of the segregation of imported livestock in the U.S.

Until the U.S. comes into compliance with its WTO obligations, the CCA will continue to advocate that the Government of Canada prepare to impose prohibitively high tariffs on key U.S. exports to Canada, including beef.
The CCA has been working hard with its U.S. allies to get COOL fixed. In late July, CCA leadership discussed COOL at length at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) summer conference in Denver.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Minister Gerry Ritz also attended the conference. In reference to the ongoing WTO dispute, Ritz told delegates that if successful in its challenge, Canada will seek to retaliate as quickly as possible and will target everything from California wine to Minnesota mattresses. He continued the straight talk on COOL during a special guest appearance at the CCA Semi-Annual in Charlottetown, PEI.

The potential for retaliatory tariffs continues to command the attention of the U.S. Congress. In the August 5 edition of Action News, we told you about the letter 110 Members of Congress sent to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Trade Representative requesting that, should the WTO rule against the U.S., the Secretary of Agriculture 'rescind the final rule while Congress works to permanently resolve the issue.'

The negative impact of Canadian and Mexican retaliation to the state of Iowa – a leading supporter of COOL – was discussed in an op-ed published in the Des Moines Register. The Corn Refiners Association in Washington, D.C. said $300 million worth of annual exports could be impacted, including commodities such as pork, corn, some prepared foods while the corn wet milling industry could lose $500 million in annual sales to Mexico if corn sweeteners are targeted.

They suggest a solution put forth by a broad coalition of U.S. industries that have no stake in the beef industry: should the WTO find that COOL is in violation of the U.S.'s international trade obligations, the Secretary of Agriculture should immediately suspend COOL until Congress can take legislative action to resolve the dispute.


http://www.cattle.ca/assets/ActionNews/action-news-090214.pdf


The most recent assessments (and reassessments) were published in June 2005 (Table I; 18), and included the categorisation of Canada, the USA, and Mexico as GBR III. Although only Canada and the USA have reported cases, the historically open system of trade in North America suggests that it is likely that BSE is present also in Mexico.

http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/06heim937950.pdf


IN SHORT, AND IN A NUT SHELL ;

(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006)

11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries. The OIE is not responsible for inaccurate publication of country disease status based on inaccurate information or changes in epidemiological status or other significant events that were not promptly reported to the Central Bureau,

http://www.oie.int/eng/Session2007/RF2006.pdf

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

USDA/APHIS NOTICE: Final Rule Regarding Imports and BSE Effective March 4, 2014

http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2014/02/usdaaphis-notice-final-rule-regarding.html

>>>I remember what happened with mad cow disease BSE testing, and the incident where they were using HEALTHY CATTLE BRAINS for testing, yes, brains they new were negative for BSE, and this was when there was suppose to be officials on site. go figure... <<<


SNIP...for those interested, please see full text ;


Tuesday, September 2, 2014

COOL UPDATE September 2, 2014

http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2014/09/cool-update-september-2-2014.html
 
bearvalley said:
So now that the WTO flunked COOL it will be interesting what the next twist will be. Any hints OT?

I think this is where he and Sandy start to squawk about sovereignty.
 
I can't distinguish between US and Canadian beef, and the attempt is something of a fools errand. Think about it, if Canadian beef doesn't go through the US, it still exists and still competes in the marketplace. So a distinction between US and Canadian beef just adds friction (expense) to beef. I'm sure the broiler industry approves. I really think the distinction between US and Canadian beef is just an ignorant trick to try to impede market competition - whether it's cool or blue tongue.

But, I don't want any pork or chicken that had anything to do with China in my house. Who would even think of melomine? Lead toys? I want to know if something comes from china.
 
Brad S said:
I can't distinguish between US and Canadian beef, and the attempt is something of a fools errand. Think about it, if Canadian beef doesn't go through the US, it still exists and still competes in the marketplace. So a distinction between US and Canadian beef just adds friction (expense) to beef. I'm sure the broiler industry approves. I really think the distinction between US and Canadian beef is just an ignorant trick to try to impede market competition - whether it's cool or blue tongue.

But, I don't want any pork or chicken that had anything to do with China in my house. Who would even think of melomine? Lead toys? I want to know if something comes from china.

Well said, Brad S!
 
Tuesday, October 28, 2014


COOL Appeal Likely in 2015

by Chris Clayton, DTN Ag Policy Editor

OMAHA (DTN) -- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told DTN on Monday that the Obama administration likely won't appeal the World Trade Organization ruling against U.S. meat labeling until sometime in January.



The U.S. Trade Representative's office will make the call on whether to appeal last week's adverse ruling on country-of-origin labeling. Vilsack said he knows the USTR is in the process of considering an appeal, but the U.S. also has been asked to take its time, he said.
"We've received indications from the WTO that we probably should wait until January to make that decision because they are not capable of processing any additional appeals, based on the level of work at the WTO that is currently in the queue," Vilsack said in an interview. "So we have some time in which to make that decision."

A WTO panel ruled that the U.S. can have a country-of-origin label for meat products, but the current USDA rule forces packers to discriminate against Canadian and Mexican cattle, thus affecting the ability of producers from those countries to market their cattle in the U.S. The label rule requires heavy segregation of non-native livestock, which effectively discriminates against foreign-born animals.

To change the ground rules for USDA would effectively require congressional action to get rid of the COOL mandate. Until then, Vilsack said he has asked USDA staff to see if there is another way "to craft a label that would walk us down on the fine line between the congressional mandate, which encourages very specific labeling, and the WTO decision that basically says you can't have a label that creates an undue burden in terms of segregating livestock. So we are trying to see if there is any way we can continue to comply with the COOL legislation while seeing if there is a way we can comply with the WTO and not get ourselves into a position where we are violating the WTO rules."

Canada's bombastic ag minister, Gerry Ritz, has forcefully demanded the U.S. drop COOL altogether. He declared Friday on the radio show AgriTalk that an appeal just delays the inevitable. Ritz said on the radio program that COOL is already costing U.S. consumers and Canadian producers "in the neighborhood of $1.5 to $2 billion dollars a year, is what industry has been telling us." He threatened retaliatory tariffs on a broad range of U.S. products, "from Kentucky bourbon to Minnesota mattresses," and Ritz planned to highlight that to every state while the White House moves to appeal the ruling.

"Nothing short of full repeal will actually make this thing go away," Ritz told AgriTalk. "We're not going to spend the next years looking over our shoulder waiting for another shoe to drop."

Ritz also said on the radio program that he hoped the U.S. would make its decision before the next WTO meeting Nov. 18.
 
If this was China, Brazil, or Zimbabwe (amongst others) I could see it.

But we're talking about a neighbor country that moves cattle back and forth everyday. :roll:
 
And especially because in order to "give consumers what they want" all ranchers or meat marketers have to do is label their own product. Many already have done their homework and label their beef (and other products). Talking to consumers, they DO want ranch of origin. Guess some people just have to make things complicated......or want the government to do the job for them.

mrj
 
mrj said:
And especially because in order to "give consumers what they want" all ranchers or meat marketers have to do is label their own product. Many already have done their homework and label their beef (and other products). Talking to consumers, they DO want ranch of origin. Guess some people just have to make things complicated......or want the government to do the job for them.

mrj

MRJ....your above quote could speak for the check off too. If people wanted to pay for it they would without making the government making them. Kind of like the unions....if they do you some good people would join and not be forced to join. I am not promoting or demoting the check off, but just seems like we are getting too much of government telling us what to do.
 
I don't understand why NCBA is fighting COOL to the extent that it is.

Consumers deserve to know what country their food is being produced. Most items that are purchased are labeled with Country of Origin--why should beef be any different?

I was in Canada a few years back and visited a Safeway store--the beef counter was full of Canadian Maple Leaf flags on the beef packaging. Promoting beef that was produced in Canada---why can't we do that and have a USA flag on our beef and give the consumer the choice.

I also have opinions on the checkoff-- I think that the checkoff is fine--lets just separate the checkoff from NCBA.
 
For Immediate Release

December 2, 2014

Over 200 Groups Urge Congress to Continue Supporting COOL

Billings, Mont. - Today 207 groups representing a broad segment of the U.S. economy, including farm, ranch, consumer and manufacturing groups, joined in a letter

http://www.rcalfusa.com/COOL/141202CoalitionLetterOnFY15AppropLegislation.pdf

that urges U.S. Senate leaders to continue supporting the U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) law that is presently under attack by the governments of Canada and Mexico at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The group's letter specifically urges Congress not to weaken, suspend or rescind COOL in the upcoming legislation to provide funding for the federal government in FY 2015.

The group's letter follows on the heels of a bipartisan letter

http://www.r-calfusa.com/COOL/141006JointSenatorLetteronCOOL.pdf

sent by 32 Senators that likewise urged Senate leaders not to weaken or suspend COOL in the FY 2015 appropriations process.

Canada and Mexico challenged the U.S. COOL law at the WTO alleging that livestock from their respective countries were being treated less favorably than domestic livestock under the new requirement that muscle cuts of meat be labeled so consumers will know where the animal from which the meat was derived was born, where it was raised, and where it was harvested.

In October, the WTO agreed with Canada and Mexico and concluded that some U.S. meatpackers were either opting not to purchase foreign livestock or they were discounting foreign livestock because they would have to be segregated in order to label their resulting meat properly.

"These packers that are vehemently opposed to COOL are achieving a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to buy and by imposing discounts on foreign livestock for the purpose of according Canada and Mexico with evidence to use at the WTO to undermine COOL," said R-CALF USA Bill Bullard.

Bullard said the packers would not be able to do this if the U.S. cattle market were not so concentrated because in a competitive market, another buyer would be available to purchase livestock the big four packers were shunning. This is not likely to occur in the U.S. market where just four meatpackers control about 85 percent of the fed cattle market.

"It is only because our entire domestic livestock market lacks competition that multinational meatpackers are able to impose discounts in a market in which the supply of cattle is extremely tight and retail beef prices are continually climbing to new highs," Bullard added.

Last week the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) appealed the WTO ruling and a decision on the appeal is not expected until well into 2015.

"Congress should not short circuit the WTO process; nor should it unconditionally surrender to the threats of tariff retaliation by our trading partners. We believe the United States has strong grounds to appeal the most recent WTO ruling," the groups wrote.

As additional support for the U.S. COOL law, the groups wrote:

"American consumers are increasingly interested in understanding more about the origins of their food and the public overwhelmingly supports Country of Origin Labeling. The commonsense COOL labels that are in place today provide additional and more accurate information about where their food comes from. Farmers are proud of the food they put on American dinner tables and support the current COOL labels that allow consumers to make more informed food purchasing decisions."

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is the largest producer-only cattle trade association in the United States. It is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

http://www.r-calfusa.com/



Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Over 200 Groups Urge Congress to Continue Supporting COOL

For Immediate Release

http://naiscoolyes.blogspot.com/2014/12/over-200-groups-urge-congress-to.html


TSS
 

Latest posts

Top