CCA: WTO Rules In Favour Of Canada On US COOL.

[joedales]

WTO rules strongly in favor of Canada in COOL case


November 18, 2011


Calgary, AB – The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) is extremely pleased that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled in favour of Canada and Mexico’s complaint against U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). We commend Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Gerry Ritz, International Trade Minister Ed Fast, and the Government of Canada’s legal team that presented an outstanding case on Canada’s behalf.



Released publically today by the WTO, the ruling supports Canada’s position that provisions of COOL discriminate against live cattle and hogs imported into the U.S. from Canada to the detriment of Canadian cattle producers. The CCA has maintained that since coming into effect in 2008, COOL has increased costs for U.S. companies that import live Canadian cattle thereby reducing the competiveness of those Canadian cattle in the U.S. market. The WTO confirmed that COOL has had this effect.



In addition to thanking the Government of Canada, CCA President Travis Toews acknowledged the role of the CCA in ensuring the successful outcome of today’s WTO ruling. “Throughout this process, the CCA has expended considerable time and resources in gathering the data and experts required for preparation of the case,” he said. “The favourable ruling from WTO speaks volumes about the level of effort we expended in this process. In my view, the CCA played a pivotal role in the success of the case.”



Even before COOL was implemented, the CCA anticipated the harmful impact it would have on the largely integrated North American market and asked the Government of Canada to challenge COOL at the WTO. In 2007, the CCA together with the Canadian Pork Council (CPC) provided to the Government of Canada a legal analysis to support the CCA/CPC’s request that a formal trade challenge to COOL be pursued, and worked with the Government of Canada in the development of its case. The formal WTO process was initiated in late 2008 and the Dispute Panel was officially established in November 2009.



The work of obtaining change in U.S. legislation lies ahead. We hope the U.S. will decide that complying with the WTO ruling will be in its best interest. The CCA has worked closely with the U.S. industry and met regularly with lawmakers in Washington, D.C. in anticipation of the ruling to clearly communicate that we do not ask for the outright repeal of COOL but seek only those regulatory and statutory changes necessary to eliminate the discrimination that COOL has imposed to the comparative disadvantage of livestock imported into the U.S. vis-a-vie U.S. livestock.



If the U.S. chooses to disregard the WTO Panel’s judgement against it, then the CCA will work with the Canadian government through the appellate process, and, if necessary, regarding retaliatory options.



The CCA has been involved in a number of WTO actions, including this case against the U.S. and the case against Korea’s import restrictions on beef. These cases are lengthy and expensive, but when all other options have been exhausted, we are gratified that such a formal process is available. The CCA is committed to working with the Government of Canada to strongly defend the rights of Canadian beef cattle producers.

[kato]

This is from the Cattlemen..

http://www.canadiancattlemen.ca/news/wto-rips-u-s-cool-law-in-win-for-canada/1000708457/

WTO rips U.S. COOL law in win for Canada
Law "does not fulfil its legitimate objective," panel says; U.S. may appeal
Nov 18, 2011 4:10 PM - 0 comments
TEXT SIZE bigger text smaller text
By: Staff
Livestock, Markets

An international body has ruled the United States' laws requiring mandatory country-of-origin labels on beef, pork and produce violate its commitments to global trade rules.

The ruling, coming Friday from a panel of the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is seen as a clear win for Canada, which has fought the law through diplomatic and WTO channels for years before and after it was imposed.

The law, dubbed COOL, was conceived in Washington's 2002 Farm Bill but not launched until September 2008. It orders U.S. retailers to notify their customers, by way of labeling, on the sources of foods such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, goat, fish, fruits, vegetables, peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts.

Both Canada and Mexico have long contended that COOL violates international trade laws, restricts market access and is a technical trade barrier. Canada in late 2008 formally challenged COOL at the WTO, which convened this DSB panel on the case in November 2009.

Canadian livestock groups add that the law has forced unnecessary costs on U.S. meat processors, who currently must either segregate Canadian animals and meat for labelling purposes, or limit their imports from Canada.

"Inconsistent"

The DSB panel ruling on Friday -- which classifies COOL as a "technical regulation" under the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) -- ruled the label law is "inconsistent with the United States' WTO obligations."

Specifically, the DSB said, COOL breaks the TBT Agreement by "according less favourable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs than to like domestic products."

The panel went on to say COOL -- which the U.S. government has previously touted as a way of educating and informing U.S. consumers -- "does not fulfil its legitimate objective of providing consumers with information on origin" and also breaches the TBT Agreement in that respect.

The TBT Agreement was set up following the Tokyo Round of GATT negotiations in 1979, with the goal of preventing governments from imposing non-tariff trade barriers dressed up as "technical regulations and standards."

"Unreasonable"

Apart from the TBT violations, the DSB panel also condemned an open letter sent to U.S. food processors by U.S. President Barack Obama's agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack in February 2009.

Vilsack in the letter had urged processors to apply stricter and broader labelling practices, or else he would review the COOL law's language with an eye on tightening restrictions even further.

The DSB on Friday ruled the "suggestions for voluntary action" in Vilsack's letter went "beyond certain obligations under the COOL measure, and that the letter therefore constitutes unreasonable administration of the COOL measure" under Washington's obligations to the 1994 GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade).

Vilsack's letter, when released, was seen as a blow to Canada, which had previously gone so far as to put its December 2008 WTO challenge of COOL on hold.

Until his letter's release, it had appeared that the previous interpretation of the COOL rule, near the end of the administration of then-president George W. Bush, wouldn't seriously hinder imports from Canada.

U.S. eyes "all options"

The U.S. will now be required to bring COOL "into conformity with its WTO obligations," the Canadian government said Friday. However, Ottawa warned, if Washington decides to file an appeal at the DSB, "it could delay the outcome."

The U.S. Trade Representative's office suggested as much Friday in its reaction to the DSB decision.

"We are pleased that the panel affirmed the right of the United States to require country-of-origin labeling for meat products," Andrea Mead, press secretary for the USTR, said in a statement.

"Although the (DSB) panel disagreed with the specifics of how the U.S. designed those requirements, we remain committed to providing consumers with accurate and relevant information with respect to the origin of meat products that they buy at the retail level," she wrote.

"In that regard we are considering all options, including appealing the panel's decision."

[ALLFARMER]

It's been nothing but good news lately!

[kato]

'Bout time.

[farmers_son]

The WTO has published a summary of the WTO challenge at:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds384_e.htm

<a href="http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds384_e.htm
">Click Here</a>

You will not believe the reaction from RCALF. "U.S. Sovereignty Usurped by WTO’s COOL Decision"

http://www.r-calfusa.com/news_releases/2011/111118-sovereignty.htm

<a href="http://www.r-calfusa.com/news_releases/2011/111118-sovereignty.htm
">Click Here</a>

A more restrained response from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

http://www.ustr.gov/

<a href="http://www.ustr.gov/
">Click Here</a>

[kato]

The link didn't work, so what the heck, here's their response... could we expect any less? These guys have been twiddling their thumbs for a while waiting to get back on the "Bash Canada" wagon so they could justify their wages.

U.S. Sovereignty Usurped by WTO’s COOL Decision

November 18, 2011 - Billings, Mont. – Today, a panel of three foreign diplomats seated by the United Nation’s World Trade Organization (WTO) issued a decision regarding complaints filed against the United States’ country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law that informs U.S. consumers as to the origins of their food.

The panel consists of a diplomat from Pakistan – the country that harbored the world’s most dangerous terrorist, Osama Bin Laden; a diplomat from Switzerland; and, a diplomat who is a former WTO employee.

The complaint against the United States’ COOL law was filed with the WTO in 2008 by livestock importers Canada, which introduced mad cow disease into the U.S., and Mexico, which continually reintroduces bovine tuberculosis (TB) into the United States. Joining the complaint as third parties were 12 additional countries, including China, which has a long history of importing tainted products into the United States.

“Today’s news from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the WTO is consistent with rumors leaked in May,” said R-CALF USA COOL Committee Chair Mike Schultz adding, “We’re not surprised that a panel of countries that want to weaken the U.S. would support complaints by countries that want more control over our U.S. food supply. The WTO is trying to usurp our nation’s sovereignty.”

According to the WTO, the panel found U.S. COOL is inconsistent with the United States' WTO obligations and does not fulfill its legitimate objective of providing consumers with information on origin.

“Since when do we allow an international tribunal to dictate to our U.S. Congress what is or is not a legitimate objective of providing information to United States’ citizens?” Schultz asked rhetorically.

The USTR put a more positive spin on the WTO’s decision by issuing the following statement today:

“We are pleased that the panel affirmed the right of the United States to require country of origin labeling for meat products,” said Andrea Mead, Press Secretary for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. “Although the panel disagreed with the specifics of how the United States designed those requirements, we remain committed to providing consumers with accurate and relevant information with respect to the origin of meat products that they buy at the retail level. In that regard we are considering all options, including appealing the panel’s decision.”

R-CALF USA members, however, believe that U.S. officials do not comprehend the dangers of allowing international tribunals to erode U.S. sovereignty and they passed the following resolution regarding COOL in a 2011 mail-out ballot that received a positive vote from 99.7 percent of its voting members:

WHEREAS, R-CALF USA’s policy duly enacted by a majority vote of its members in 2010 directs R-CALF USA to work to withdraw the United States from any trade agreement, treaty or organization that usurps the power of the U.S. Congress, States, or local governments, weakens our sovereignty, or violates the U.S. Constitution; and



WHEREAS, as an exercise of our sovereignty and in full conformity with the U.S. Constitution, the United States Congress and the President of the United States in 2002 passed into law, and later expanded that law in 2008, a requirement for mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for beef, pork, lamb, chicken, goat meat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts; and



WHEREAS, COOL is intended to provide valuable information to United States consumers enabling them to identify the country in which the food they purchase for themselves and their families was grown, raised and produced; and



WHEREAS, the information COOL is to provide allows consumers to exercise choice in the marketplace by empowering them to choose from what country they want to purchase their food, choose from what country’s production and safety standards they want their food produced, and choose to support United States farmers and ranchers by purchasing food grown, raised and produced exclusively in the United States; and



WHEREAS, the food exporting countries of Mexico and Canada, and later joined by third-party exporting country participants Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, European Union, Guatemala, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Peru and Chinese Taipei, filed a complaint against the United States’ COOL law with the international tribunal known under the World Trade Organization (WTO), which formally cooperates and coordinates with the United Nations1; and



WHEREAS, the WTO has selected a three-judge tribunal panel of foreign citizens to decide the fate of the United States’ COOL law that consist of the following unelected, foreign citizens: Pakistan Ambassador Manzoor Ahmad, who represents the country that harbored the world’s most dangerous terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, as well as a country with a history of exporting beef products to the United States; Christian Häberlï, a research employee of the World Trade Institute in Bern, Switzerland – a country also with a history of exporting beef products to the United States; and João Magalhães, a former employee of the WTO turned consultant and of unknown nationality; and



WHEREAS, this WTO tribunal, at least two members of which have a clear conflict of interest as they represent countries with a history of exporting beef to the United States, has reportedly issued a preliminary ruling that would strike down the United States COOL law alleging that the law violates provisions of the WTO’s agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; and



WHEREAS, this WTO tribunal members of which are known to be trained on the rights and privileges accorded to U.S. citizens [under the U.S. Constitution] was further reported to have usurped the U.S. Congress by ruling that U.S. COOL requirements do not fulfill the stated congressional objective of helping to inform consumers of the origin of meat; and



WHEREAS, any action on the part of this tribunal to demand any form of concession from the United States with respect to the United States’ law would constitute a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States of America.

Now, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that if the reported, preliminary ruling against the United States’ COOL law stands as the official ruling of the WTO, and should the WTO attempt to demand any form of concession from the United States as a condition for the United States to continue to exercise its sovereign right to inform its citizens as to the country-of-origin of their food through its 2002 COOL law as amended in 2008, R-CALF USA will call on Congress and the President of the United States to immediately withdraw from and not support the World Trade Organization.

[ASRG]

Just wondering.....when all the appeals are done, does the USDA that implemented this improper trade action send us Canadian cattlemen and hog producers, who got lower prices, a check? Or is this just a "feel good" kind of deal?

[kato]

Don't expect a cheque. Never expect a cheque.

What needs to happen because of this is for the U.S. to admit that beef and pork from Canadian cattle and hogs that was fed and/or processed in the U.S. is an American product. It's for the future that this decision is important.

But of course, the Americans will appeal, delay, stall, and carry on in an effort to eliminate the competition rather than compete against it fairly. (Do I dare bring up those three letters, CWB? LOL wink wink)

[farmers_son]

Kato is right, no cheque. This was not a countervail action that saw the Americans put on a tariff on Canadian beef then later the countervail was overturned resulting in the tariff being refunded. Back in 1999, after Canada's countervail win, Canadian producers who were direct exporters to the U.S. did get a refund of the tariff that was deducted at the border.

Yes the Americans might appeal. They use the term "kick the can down the road" because the issue would then be dealt with after the Presidential eleciton next year. A lot of cans have been kicked down the road.

But there are powerful interests in the U.S. that are on our side and share our views. I understand CCA is ahead of the curve and has been down in the U.S. lobbying to convince the Americans not go down the appeal road.

[kato]

Wouldn't that be nice? mm... not sure how to deal with good news any more. LOL

[perfecho]

I will likely get blasted, (hey Kato ;-0 ) however I was actually in favour of COOL. I believed we could have it used to our advantage in marketing our "Canadian Cattle", if we got our act together. I do remember a time when Canadian cattleman were looking at how they could make consumers aware of the cheaper Australian beef that was being sold......just lately a post on cheaper beef from south America could hurt our industry......we can't have it both ways.
If China starts sending the pieces to manufactured goods here for assembly, does this make it a Canadian product? Do they bet to benefit from our "good" name for some of their inferior or tainted product......just something to think about.

[kato]

The situation is different in Alberta than Manitoba. Manitoba at one time, had at least three big packers, but when Cargill moved to Alberta, they fell, one by one, until we had none. There is not enough money in this province to ever bring them back. It's been tried, with no success.

Because of our lack of processors, pre-BSE, we had as many if not more fats leave this province to go south rather than west. The distance was the same, pretty much, and the prices were better.

We were hurt the most in all this debacle. BSE was a horrible slam, and then MCOOL came back and bit us just when it looked like there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. Because of this, our fats, which used to be close to, or even better than Alberta prices, now became close to 10 cents a pound less. It's still like that. We've lost a bundle due to MCOOL.

And it's not just the cattle that were hurt. The hogs in this province were slammed pretty hard as well, and at a time when they couldn't afford it either.

[farmers_son]

I agree. MCOOL hit Manitoba hard.

There is nothing to stop Canada from voluntarily promoting a Canadian product in the U.S.

What MCOOL did was create a technical trade barrier that kept some U.S. packing plants from having anything to do with Canadian cattle and others only on a very restricted basis. The same with U.S. feedlots, there were just too many hoops to jump through to feed Canadian calves.

The challenge now is to counter the RCALF rhetoric and talk to responsible U.S. cattle groups and decision makers to accept the WTO ruling and not appeal. MCOOL did nothing for the U.S. cattleman but raise costs. And MCOOL raised questions about the viability of those U.S. packing plants that depended upon Canadian cattle to have enough volume to keep the doors open. Canada and Mexico are the U.S. two major export markets for beef yet those markets were threatened by the very protectionist measures contained in MCOOL that the U.S. implemented itself. Frankly MCOOL held no upside or benefit for U.S. interests. It was a bad idea from the start and needs to be fixed.

And no one is trying to get rid of labelling in the U.S. Just trying to get rid of the technical trade barrier part of COOL to help maintain much needed infrastructure and markets in the U.S. that benefits both countries.

[kato]

Heartland livestock market report for Manitoba.....

slaughter steers .98 to 1.04
slaughter heifers .96 to $1.02

Alberta Beef Producers market report for Alberta....

slaughter steers $1.14 to $1.15
slaughter heifers $1.15

That says it all. Welcome to Manitoba.

[grassfarmer]

Yet Ontario prices show:

Fancy Steers 115.00 - 120.00
Good to Choice Steers 109.00 -114.00
Fancy Heifers 115.00 - 120.00
Good to Choice Heifers 109.00 - 114.00

Don't Manitoba cattle go east anymore? Is this a Manitoba problem or is it a Heartland (Nilsson)problem?