COOL Challenge

[kato]

I don't know about anyone else, but I was under the impression that we had launched a challenge to COOL. Seems that, according to the Manitoba Co-operator today, it hasn't happened yet, and there is an important deadline on Oct. 9 that the government has yet to indicate it intends to meet.

Please read this.

http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/issues/ISArticle.asp?aid=1000342854&PC=FBC&issue=10022009

Gerry Ritz email address is RitzG@parl.gc.ca

I have already written a letter. I wonder what else we've been mislead about???????

[burnt]

OTTAWA, ONTARIO — Canada’s government launched a World Trade Organization (W.T.O.) dispute settlement process Oct. 7 over U.S. mandatory country-of-origin labeling (C.O.O.L.). Stockwell Day, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, and Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, announced the move.
"The U.S. C.O.O.L. requirements are so onerous that they affect the ability of our cattle and hog exporters to compete fairly in the U.S. market," Mr. Day said. "That is why our government has no choice but to request a W.T.O. panel."
Canadian farmers and ranchers produce top-quality food, and they are facing unfair discrimination because of C.O.O.L. legislation, said Mr. Ritz. "This government is standing up for Canadian farmers and ranchers by exercising Canada’s rights under the W.T.O., and we are confident our challenge will be successful," he added.
A mandatory labeling measure in the U.S., C.O.O.L. requires firms to track and notify customers of the country of origin of meat and other agricultural products at each major stage of production, including at the retail level. The Canadian government charges these provisions impose unfair and unnecessary costs on integrated North American supply chains, reducing competitiveness in both Canada and the U.S. C.O.O.L. has created confusion and uncertainty for livestock industries on both sides of the border, the government added.
After two rounds of W.T.O. consultations with the U.S. failed to resolve the issue, Canada decided to request a panel earlier today, which is the next step in the W.T.O.’s dispute-settlement process.
In December 2008, Canada initially requested W.T.O. consultations with the U.S. on C.O.O.L., because it believed the measures were creating undue trade restrictions to the detriment of Canadian exporters. U.S. provisions at that time were being implemented based on the interim final rule. On Jan. 15, 2009, the Final Rule was published in the Federal Register, and it was implemented several months later on March 16. Canada held a further round of C.O.O.L. consultations with the U.S. on June 5.
Canada and the U.S. are each other’s largest agricultural trading partners. In 2008, bilateral agricultural trade totaled approximately C$37 billion ($35 billion). Reducing obstacles to trade has contributed to mutually beneficial supply chains, making both countries more competitive domestically and internationally, the Canadian government relayed.
Despite this latest move, Canada and the U.S. continue to have "a close and ongoing dialogue on C.O.O.L. and other issues," the government of Canada concluded.

[kato]

Thanks for posting that. Here's another article on the subject.

http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/issues/ISArticle.asp?aid=1000343225&PC=FBC&issue=10072009

It's a start.

[Willowcreek]

October7,2009



Yet Again, Canada Tries to File WTO Complaint Against U.S. COOL Law



Billings, Mont. – The Canadian government is seeking a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement process over the U.S. mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law. A WTO panel is scheduled to hear the request at the Oct. 23, 2009, meeting of WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body.

A joint statement issued today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) indicates that both departments agree that the U.S. COOL law provides information to consumers in a manner that is consistent with WTO commitments, and also that countries have recognized COOL as a legitimate policy long before the WTO ever existed.

“We are pleased that both USDA and USTR are taking a strong stand to defend our constitutional right to pass and implement the U.S. COOL law that provides U.S. consumers with important information regarding where their food is grown and produced,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “We urge both departments to take deliberate and decisive steps to quash Canada’s attempt to interfere with the United States’ sovereign right to inform U.S. consumers about the origins of the food they purchase for themselves and their families.

“We believe the complaints by Canada against the U.S. COOL law are baseless,” he continued. “Unfortunately, this WTO dispute procedure grants Canada an overly simplified forum to retaliate against U.S. citizens’ exercise of their constitutional rights.

“This action by Canada should give considerable pause to those elected officials who have unwittingly transferred our sovereign right of self-government to an international tribunal,” Bullard pointed out. “We are now in the unenviable position of awaiting a decision from the WTO to determine if our right to self government is absolute, or if we must kowtow to a higher, international power that no U.S. citizen has ever voted for. This attack by Canada strikes at the heart of American sovereignty.”

It is important to note that:

1) The U.S. COOL law imposes no duty or restrictions on any foreign government, nor imposes any limits on the volume or type of commodities that a foreign country may export to the United States.

2) Foreign countries are not obligated, in any way, to export to the U.S. any of the commodities subject to the U.S. COOL law – hence, a foreign country’s decision to market its products in the U.S. market and under the rules of the U.S. market is purely voluntary.



And, 3) COOL jurisdiction is exclusively limited to U.S. retailers, as defined exclusively by U.S. law, and subjects all covered commodities marketed by U.S. retailers to identical information requirements, regardless of where the commodities originate.



“Thus, our domestic COOL law does not affect international trade agreements, and it is fundamentally inappropriate for the WTO to even entertain a foreign country’s complaint against our domestic COOL law,” Bullard emphasized.



“COOL enables consumers to freely choose between food products of various origins,” he concluded. “Consumers’ choices will influence the market demand for products from any given country. This is how a competitive market is supposed to work, and neither Canada nor the WTO has any right to take that competitive market away from U.S. consumers.”



To view/download R-CALF USA’s June 1, 2009, presentation to USTR on these matters, please visit this link: http://www.r-calfusa.com/Trade/090601-PresentationToUSTR.pdf.



Also, to view/download a complete version of R-CALF USA’s formal comments to USTR filed on July 1, 2009, please go to:

http://www.r-calfusa.com/COOL/090701%20R-CALF%20USA%20Comments%20on%20USTR%20COOL%20Challen ge,%20Final.pdf.

[kato]

Nafta states that if a product is substantially transformed in one country, it becomes A PRODUCT OF THAT COUNTRY. If it goes through a U.S. plant that makes it U.S. beef. It's just that simple. MCOOL violates NAFTA.

We signed the agreement. You signed the agreement. Either show some integrity and live up to your word, or admit you lie and we'll throw the whole thing out and renegotiate it with some more favourable terms for this country. There are lots of things we'd like to change about this agreement, but we prefer to have some of that integrity that you seem to lack, and we take giving our word seriously.

If America wants to be in the same class as third world dictators who only honour their commitments when they feel like it, then it's your problem to live with. If America wants to adopt the attitude that it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants because it has some God given right to not have to acknowledge the existence of the rest of the world, then so be it. It won't make you any friends.

I can hardly wait to see how this turns out.

[burnt]

Bull****Bill rides again . . . .

[Willowcreek]

Yep-- and the Packers get richer- and the cattle producers make less.. But you keep following your cultist leaders of the ABP/CCA/SSGA/NCBA/etal that long ago sold out and crawled in bed with the Big Packers..

Thats the reason the Big Multinational Corporate Packers have fought M-COOL so hard- so they can source beef/meat from any place in the world where its cheaper- and pass it off as a domestic raised product to the consumers of the US and Canada-- and thereby leverage down the price they pay to US/Canadian producers....

The answer would be for both countries to pass and enforce a strong M-COOL law- so that we can identify OUR product from the "phoney balony" and promote OUR product....Let the consumers make the final decision...

And both countries need a Packer Ownership Law (especially Canada, now)- banning the owning of cattle over 14 days before slaughter so the XL/Nilson/JBS Brazil boys don't end up running the whole "worldwide" industry.

And its my belief- that in many cases the consumers will choose their own domestic US/Canadian product over Mexican, Uruguyan, Vietnamese, etc. etc- or any of the 47 other countries the US imports beef/meat from now......

[kato]

....that they have cut off most of the Canadian cattle exports.

[Hopperbin]

What would be wrong with a Canada A meaning grown in Canada grade A? USA grade A meaning USA grown grade A. China grade A not that china would ever export to here cannot imagine it, but nevertheless should have China grade maybe D stamped on it for all the pollution the cow consumed. My point is country of origin should be responsible for the meat product they export and should be traceable back to the farmer in my opinion.

[kato]

If an animal left here as a calf, and has lived in a U.S. feedlot, eating American feed, fed by Americans, then it is American, IMO.

If Canadian beef goes to the U.S. in a box, then by all means slap that maple leaf right on the package, and we'd be more than happy.

But since 95% or more of the problems with e coli and other pathogens occur at the packing plant, I'd prefer not to have a meat recall blamed on Canadian beef, when the source of the live cattle had nothing to do with it, thank you.

[greybeard]

If we get to mandatory ID and source verified, are we not going to be able to demand equivalence the same as the Europeans did with Brazil?
If we are going to the highest cost of production, we need protection from that cheap coming in.

[kato]

I totally agree. Especially if our biggest export customer decides that current trade agreements don't matter any more.

[grassfarmer]

Yes, Greybeard I believe that is the right way to go. Make no mistake though this will not happen by Government action - if producers want it they will have to fight this issue in partnership with consumers. How many producers are prepared to stand outside a supermarket with a few friends and hand out leaflets to consumers? I would because I know it would work and the majority of consumers would be very supportive. This policy if implemented would reduce imports in a non-countervailable way but this in itself would not necessarily raise fed cattle prices here given there is still no competition in the packing sector.