Required Reading: NAFTA and COOL

[farmers_son]

NATA Agreement:

http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/NAFTA/naftatce.asp

“Annex 311: Country of Origin Marking
1. The Parties shall establish by January 1, 1994, rules for determining whether a good is a good of a Party ("Marking Rules") for purposes of this Annex, Annex 300-B and Annex 302.2, and for such other purposes as the Parties may agree. “

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/E/pub/cm/d11-3-3/d11-3-3-eng.html
NAFTA Country of Origin Marking Rules

Production Outside Canada
9. Where the country of origin of imported goods would be determined to be Canada under any of sections 4 to 7 and the goods have undergone production that involves more than minor processing in another NAFTA country prior to their importation, the country of origin of the goods shall be the last NAFTA country in which the goods underwent that production.

Clearly the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling requirements are in violation of the United States NAFTA obligations. Live Canadian animals slaughtered in the United States definitely shall be labeled as product of the United States. It also appears to me that live Canadian feeders fed in the U.S. should be considered to be U.S. production.
Given the economic significance of COOL to Canadian cattle producers these NAFTA rules should be required reading.
I believe the U.S. can be persuaded to treat Canada fairly, especially as we are their number one supplier of oil and gas. I would expect nothing less from the United States than for the U.S. to uphold their end of the NAFTA agreement if they expect Canada to uphold its NAFTA obligation to provide the U.S. access to our energy reserves.

[Willowcreek]

Still no pride in your product- EH farmers_son...You think you need to DECEIVE and DEFRAUD the consumers of both countries in order to market it?

Well coming from an ABP high potentate that doesn't surprise me...Its too sad that when Canadians sold out their slaughter plants to the multinational Packers- they thought they also had to sell out their pride and credibility!!

Yep- go back to the old status quo of riding the US producers shirttail and sucking hind teat of what the packers will let you have....

[jensend]

you're fooling yourself if you think the americans can live up to nafta. they do so only when there is an advantage to them (oil) and ignore it if it suits them (lumber, grain, beef, cattle). the usa is going to go into a pretty serious recession and will be in no mood to keep their word. you should know better by now.

[kato]

jensend, we at least have to try.

I have already written to the PM, my MP and Mr. Ritz. I think we all need to make our concerns known. I got very quick replies to my letters, so I know they have been read.

To stand by and say nothing is to say we are happy with the status quo. I for one am not happy with things the way they are. The Canadian economy as a whole is doing very nicely right now, and we and the hog producers are the only ones suffering. WE ARE IN DANGER OF BEING FORGOTTEN.

This is not the time to accept being walked on once again.

I realize there are good people working on various plans to get us out from under the American thumb, but in the meantime, they are our biggest market, and we need them to live up to their agreements for a change.

[Willowcreek]

Kato- Like Canada honored its agreement for US cattle to go north unrestricted?

The minute the agreement was signed the Canadians put all types of restriction on US cattle- saying "ALL US CATTLE ARE DISEASED"... Restrictions you kept on until your teat was in the wringer, and needed to sell your tainted product- and you had to drop the restrictions in order to get NCBA to go along with opening the border!!...

Now you have a product that is considered tainted by many consumers- that people want identified so they can have a choice- that negatively effects the US market if not labeled and your screaming about honoring agreements....

What a HYPOCRITE---Remember Canada set the precedent on import/export restrictions involving the border...

[Willowcreek]

Kato-- You never have replied to the article on here or on ranchers-net about the HONEST and CREDIBLE cattle producers from Ontario- that have agreed they not only want COUNTRY of Origin Labeling- but want to go one step further and give their consumers PROVINCE of Origin Labeling in a progressive proactive move that they know will benefit their marketing ability.....

Do you want me to bring it back to the top for you on ranchers.net?

[Willowcreek]

FROM FORTUNE MAGAZINE:
Quote:
Free trade fears on the rise

Economic anxiety has inspired a backlash against free trade, as a new Fortune poll shows, giving Democratic candidates a potent issue. Will it lead to protectionism?
By Nina Easton, Washington editor



(Fortune Magazine) -- "We are the champions - of the world" may be the verse that rings out in stadiums across the U.S., but in the great game of global trade, Americans are increasingly feeling like the losers. A large majority - 68% - of those surveyed in a new Fortune poll says America's trading partners are benefiting the most from free trade, not the U.S. That sense of victimhood is changing America's attitude about doing business with the world.

[gcreekrch]

Spoken like a true American,Believe what your govt' tells you. Like why you went to Viet Nam, weapons of mass destruction, etc.

[per]

That is why they call the 49th parallel the "longest one way mirror in the world".

[farmers_son]

Cattle producers from Ontario or anywhere else in Canada have no problem with voluntary County of Origin Labeling. However what is happening in the United States is Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling, something very different and basically a non tariff trade barrier in disguise.

Already a large number of U.S. packers have said they will not handle Canadian cattle in anticipation of COOL coming into effect September 2008. This is exactly the reaction that was intended by COOL legislation.

Livestock Producers Team Up Against COOL
CALGARY - The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) and the Canadian Pork Council ( CPC ) have formed a coalition seeking U.S. country of origin labelling (COOL) provisions that conform to international trade agreements.
The coalition, known as Canadian Livestock Producers Against COOL (CLiP COOL) shares the view that the mandatory COOL provision of the U.S. Farm Bill violates U.S. trade obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Mandatory COOL, as it is currently written, must be repealed or undergo substantial revisions if it is to conform to NAFTA and the WTO. CLiP COOL is also concerned that the so-called “fix” currently being promoted in Washington continues to fall extremely short of complying with U.S. obligations.

“The problem is that access for live animals to U.S. slaughter facilities will be impaired if those facilities do not want to incur the burden of tracking which product satisfies which origin label.” Hugh Lynch-Staunton , president of the CCA.
CLiP COOL is calling on the Government of Canada to express these concerns to the U.S. government in the strongest possible terms. “Of course we would hope that the Canadian and U.S. governments could find a way to avoid this trade barrier from being implemented, but failing that, we expect our government to exercise its rights under the NAFTA and WTO and challenge this trade barrier,” explains Pork Council president Clare Schlegel.

There will be added costs as a result of the requirement for verifiable recordkeeping audit trails, and detailed labelling that would allow only meat from animals ‘born, raised and processed’ in the United States to be labelled a ‘Product of USA’. Beef and pork produced in U.S. facilities from cattle and hogs born in Canada and exported to the United States at a young age for feeding would require a label indicating the meat is ‘From Canada and the United States ’.

“We have never been concerned that Canadian beef and Canadian pork could not compete. In fact we will market our meat products aggressively to ensure they can do well under this law,” states Hugh Lynch-Staunton , president of the CCA. “The problem is that access for live animals to U.S. slaughter facilities will be impaired if those facilities do not want to incur the burden of tracking which product satisfies which origin label. So even though Canadian meat might do well with U.S. consumers, Canadian livestock producers will face lower prices for their animals.”

The only way to avoid the discrimination against Canadian animals is for the labelling law to acknowledge that the act of processing live animals into meat is a substantial transformation and that the meat is the origin of the country where that transformation occurred. CLiP COOL believes that the NAFTA and the WTO require the United States to treat meat from animals processed in the United States as U.S. meat.

Live cattle and swine exports to the United States in 2006 were valued at over $1.8 billion

[gcreekrch]

I forgot to add that they've been convinced that there is no BSE in the US either!!!

[Willowcreek]

It is ironical and comical when Canadian producers try getting on their high horse attacking US credibility-- while they have used and are still promoting lying to and deceiving consumers of both countries in order to sell their beef/cattle..

Promoting FRAUD and DECEPTION by lying to and mislabeling the products sold to little kids and the elderly is about as low as you guys can slink...

What happened to the old "code of the west" that ranchers used to have-- did you sell those out too, when you sold out your Slaughter plants to the multinationals?

[farmers_son]

The record keeping requirements for COOL can be viewed at:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/coolbeef.pdf

I would question how many U.S. producers can meet these requirements.

It is easy to see how given the need to keep Canadian live cattle and beef segregated that the majority of feedlots and packers will just decide not to touch anything Canadian. And that is the rationale behind COOL.

[per]

It would take a record number of recorders to recognize the records needed to reconcile, regroup and rehash the regulators regulation so the registrar can record the regulation without regret.

Regards,
per

[kato]

per... that is funny!

OT, methinks you are getting a little frantic. There must be a more relevant arguement to bring up than that old bluetonge thing. Asking for testing to protect from a disease is NOT the same as blocking access. There are health testing protocols between one state and another all the time. Does that mean that there should be trade wars between Minnesota and Iowa? Get a grip. This arguement is so old it's ridiculous.

I answered your post on Ranchers about the Ontario issue, so I won't explain it to you here. It would be just as redundant as the bluetongue thing is.