Announcement?

[kato]

Just got this little blurb on my facebook page. I subscribe to AgCanada.com

AgMin Gerry Ritz calls news conf. in Sask. tomorrow a.m. with cattle, hog, meat groups and "important news" re WTO ruling on U.S. COOL.


mmm...... anybody else heard anything?

[grassfarmer]

Maybe he will say he is prepared to sacrifice SM in the
hopes it will help the COOL case?

[kato]

ha ha ha ha! I think it's earmarked for something bigger.

[ASRG]

maybe they are going to pay the money they owe us for bungling the BSE thing?

[kato]

Reuters..

(Reuters) - The United States lost the bulk of its appeal against a World Trade Organization ruling on meat labeling rules on Friday, meaning it may have to stop forcing retailers to display the country of origin on meat they are selling.

The Appellate Body found said the U.S. country-of-origin labeling rules, commonly known as COOL, were wrong because they gave less favorable treatment to imported beef and pork from Mexico and Canada, which brought the case, than to U.S. meat.

[kato]

From the online Cattleman

WTO appeal body upholds ruling against COOL

By: Staff
Livestock, Markets

A U.S. law that requires labelling of certain foods by country of origin, and adds hassles for U.S. processors who import meat or livestock from Canada, has again been ruled out of bounds by a world trade body, this time on appeal.

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Friday upheld the ruling by a panel of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which in November last year found that the U.S. government's mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) law violates parts of the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).

The U.S. government in March filed an appeal, seeking to overturn the DSB's ruling that COOL violates Washington's WTO obligations and "does not fulfil its legitimate objective" of consumer education.

However, the Appellate Body has upheld the DSB's finding that COOL "has a detrimental impact on imported livestock."

COOL's recordkeeping and verification requirements "create an incentive for processors to use exclusively domestic livestock, and a disincentive against using like imported livestock," the Appellate Body said.

The Appellate Body went further, however, and ruled COOL "lacks even-handedness" by imposing "a disproportionate burden on upstream producers and processors of livestock, as compared to the information conveyed to consumers through the mandatory labelling requirements for meat sold at the retail level."

COOL, the Appellate Body said, requires a "large amount of information must be tracked and transmitted by upstream producers for purposes of providing consumers with information on origin" but "only a small amount of this information is actually communicated to consumers in an understandable or accurate manner."

On top of that, the Appellate Body ruled, "a considerable proportion of meat sold in the United States is not subject to the COOL measure's labelling requirements at all."

COOL's impact on imported livestock thus "cannot be said to stem exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction" and instead amounts to discrimination against Canadian products, violating the TBT agreement.

The Appellate Body's decision is the latest step in Canada's 2008 challenge of COOL at the WTO.

COOL was conceived in Washington's 2002 Farm Bill and launched in 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.

Canada's Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz has scheduled a press conference for later this morning at a farm at Dundurn, Sask., about 35 km south of Saskatoon, with representatives from Canada's cattle, hog and meat processing industry groups, to discuss the Appellate Body's decision.

[perfecho]

Sooo.....is getting rid of COOL a fair trade for dropping supply management?

[ASRG]

If the WTO ruled COOL was an USA illegal trade action......when will the check be arriving?

[grassfarmer]

perfecho - no absolutely not.
ASRG - I wouldn't hold my breath. They may or may
not comply but I wouldn't think they'll be cutting any
cheques. They would probably bounce anyway!
It was interesting on the news tonight they said the
move was worth tens of millions of dollars to
ranchers. I guess that must be counting on the trickle
down effect again.

[kato]

And we all know how well that works.

[perfecho]

GF, I agree. Always thought that COOL could work to our advantage if we stepped up to it.......believe we should have Canadian products highlighted for our consumers.
PC announcements are really getting to bug me....just as the announcement that farmers and ranchers can now take a dead animal to have processed (and would help them immensely).....the only ones to take advantage are the major players...and it will be a lot of money to them.

[kato]

For Manitoba COOL was nothing but a disaster on top of a disaster. We don't process anything here, (which is a whole other subject.. don't get me started on that one) so pre BSE, our main market was south. Fat cattle, cull cows, feeders, and many thousands of pigs went south. Freight to Nebraska was not much different than freight to Alberta, so the livestock went where the price was best. And remember, when ours went south, and were off the Canadian market, it likely helped Alberta cattle bring more money at home where the freight was zip.

BSE was a massive blow, and just when it looked like there was some light at the end of the tunnel, along came MCOOL to extend the pain for more years. For the hog industry in this province, MCOOL was the final nail in the coffin for a lot of them.

What the Americans do now will be interesting. As usual, they're having yet another election. As usual, their signature on trade agreements is not to be trusted. As usual, they think they're above the law. I don't expect much to change any time soon ... unless it's a benefit to "American Interests".