Required Reading: NAFTA and COOL

[farmers_son]

I need to correct something I said in my last post. COOL is not a slap in the face of the United States' number one source of oil and gas and a crucial ally in the war in Afghanistan. It is a stab in the back.

I agree with the tone of Grassfarmers post. The U.S does pursue its best interest in matters of trade and foreign relations. However COOL is not in the American’s best interest. I believe, as many U.S. cattlemen believe, that the U.S. cattleman will see no benefit from COOL but when you consider the bigger picture, trade and foreign affairs, national defense then COOL is clearly not in the U.S. national interest and why in the world is it even on the table.

I think there are U.S. cattle producers who do appreciate the relationship Canada has with the United States. I think there are members of the U.S. administration as well as potential members of the next administration who appreciate the relationship Canada has with the United States. We are talking about a U.S. law when we are speaking about COOL. We need to communicate to these Americans common sense that COOL is not in the United States best interest. I hope we are successful in that.

In the meantime I think Canadian producers need to be talking with their Members of Parliament about COOL. The United States will not be the only NAFTA country having an election in 2008.

[Willowcreek]

QUOTE {{{{{{Executive director Ian MacIsaac told CBC News Thursday that members will vote on a number of resolutions concerning foreign competition, including asking the government for clear labelling of what is Canadian and what is not.


"We want a better definition of what is product of Canada," said MacIsaac.



"We want it to say, 'Grown in Canada,' and we want it to say 100 per cent of that product that is in the can or in the package was actually grown in Canada."



Currently, product of Canada labelling refers to the value of what is in the package, and because packages can sometimes be more valuable than the produce, a label reading product of Canada can be affixed to food grown in other countries. }}}}}}}}


Farmers_son-- You better reread that article...It appears that these Canuck folks are asking for the same thing that US producers and US consumers are asking for...

Asking the government for a better definition of what is Product of the USA- and asking that food grown in another country can't be so labeled--like the Canadian/Mexican/Aussie/Uruguayan/etc beef/meat that is passed off as US beef is now....

[farmers_son]

PEI is a very nice place and I find the people there great. And no doubt R-Calf supporters are good people too. I have no way of knowing if the PEI Federation of Agriculture speaks for the majority of producers on PEI but I know R-Calf does not speak for the majority of American cattle producers.

I continue to hope most American cattle producers are fair people. And I continue to hope that Canada's efforts in Afghanistan are not for nothing.

I believe some of the Canadian boys who were lost in Afghanstan were from farms in Alberta and Saskatchewan. A neighbour boy from a few miles North of here joined up last week knowing full well where he would be stationed. Why are our boys good enough to fight your wars but our beef is not good enough to be sold in your stores?

I say it again, COOL is anti American. It will not increase the price of live cattle for your producers and it is a non tariff trade barrier with an important trade partner and ally. Would the Americans rather have Saudi Arabia for its northern neighbour, or Libya or even Japan? Canada is not China either. Figure it out.