by JIM ALGIE
Key agricultural leaders in U.S. Congress have vowed to avoid trade retaliation by Canada and Mexico following yet another World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling, Monday, against American country of origin labelling laws (COOL).
In a decision posted Monday to the website of the Geneva-based WTO, an appeal panel ruling rejects the latest in a series of U.S. appeals during a seven-year-long dispute mainly about the labelling of meat from cattle and hogs imported to the United States. The panel headed by presiding member Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández specifically rejected U.S. arguments and upheld Canadian and Mexican complaints that U.S. labelling laws “impose a disproportionate burden on producers and processors” of imported livestock.
The burden in record-keeping and verification is greater than can be explained “by the need to provide origin information to consumers,” a summary of the report’s findings says.
Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and International Trade Minister Ed Fast are to meet with reporters and representatives of Canada’s beef and pork industries, today, in the foyer of the House of Commons to discuss the ruling’s implications. In a joint statement issued Monday a statutory holiday in Canada Fast, Ritz and Mexican trade and agriculture officials called on the United States to repeal COOL legislation and comply with their “international obligations.”
Both Mexican and Canadian governments will now seek WTO authority to take retaliatory measures against U.S. exports, Monday’s joint statement said. In 2013, the Canadian government issued a list of potential target commodities for retaliation. It included live cattle and hogs, pork, beef and a range of other products, among them: apples, maple syrup, chocolate, frozen orange juice, ethyl alcohol, jewellery and wooden furniture.
In a statement reacting to Monday’s announcement, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association President Dave Solverson described it as “an incredibly important day for Canada’s cattle industry.” Solverson added his voice to the chorus calling on Congress to “finally repeal COOL on red meat.”
Solverson estimates his organization has spent $3.25 million since 2007 fighting COOL. The labelling measures add costs for Canadian farmers doing business with American buyers and packers.
In the U.S., Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Pat Roberts (Rep. Kansas) and House of Representatives Agriculture Committee chair Michael Conaway (Rep. Texas) both urged Congressional action to head off retaliation by Canada and Mexico.
“I will consider any solution – including repeal regarding meat – that will allow the United States to be WTO-compliant and avoid retaliation from Canada and Mexico,” Roberts’ statement said. Likewise Conaway said “it is more important now than ever to act quickly to avoid a protracted trade war with our two, largest trade partners.”
Proposed solutions to the current impasse are on the agenda for a House Ag Committee business meeting planned for Wednesday in Washington, D.C., Conaway said. As well, the House committee chairman planned an 11 a.m. press conference, Tuesday, with other representatives of both the Democratic and Republican parties as well as officials of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council. Major U.S. meat processing firms have lobbied strongly against the labelling law.
U.S. National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson, whose organization supports COOL and downplays the costs involved, called for a negotiated agreement with Canada and Mexico that will allow for “continuation of a meaningful country-of-origin labelling requirement.”
“Those who find value in greater information to consumers on where their food products are from want to see the administration work with Canada and Mexico for a resolution that maximizes the information to consumers in all three countries,” Johnson said.
Meanwhile, in an April report to Congress, the office of the chief economist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture found existing labelling law “does not provide much in the way of measurable economic benefits for the American consumer.” Analysis by government economists and an academic panel of independent livestock economists found the labelling law added significant costs for producers, packers and retailers without producing much obvious increase in demand. BF
Comments
Forcing the US to dismantle COOL without Canada having to do anything to dismantle supply management, is the standard Canadian hypocrisy.
Supply management and COOL both do effectively the same thing, and that is to provide a type of food sovereingty, COOL for meats in the US, and supply management for dairy and poultry products in Canada.
Since this decision is a so-called "loss" for the US, if anything, it is likely to be offset by an increasing resolve by the US to have Canada dismantle supply management as a condition of allowing Canada to join TPP.
And, really, who could blame the US if they did? - certainly not Canada's cattle and hog farmers!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Truth be told the U.S. meat sector and politicians are also non too happy about all the Canadian camouflaged livestock subsidy support in the form of Agri Invest, old NISA, Agristability, old CAIS, RMP for livestock, buyout subsidies etc.
COOL is different - it is clearly in violation of trade rules.
SM only violates your naive personal economic ideological beliefs.
Don't worry though, the US almost never complies when it loses trade rulings.
The above obligatorially-anonymous poster knows nothing about:
(1) kindergarten sand-box - "I'll get you back for this" - diplomacy
(2) economics, the net-negative effect of tariffs and the almost 150 years of real-world data demonstrating this net-negativity.
(3) consumer behaviour and the farm-gate price banditry causing milk consumption to drop in Canada but not in the US
(4) what it's like to be a younger, non-supply managed farmer whose own "naive personal economic ideological beliefs" cause him/her to be constantly angry about being continually battered by the purchasing power excesses afforded to supply managed farmers through 200% tariff barriers.
(5) what it's like to be one of the 68 voters at Ontario Pork's 2013 annual general meeting who followed their own "naive personal economic ideological beliefs" and voted 68 - 13 to "urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism".
More to the point, the above anonymous poster, like every other anonymous supply management supporter on this site, is so completely-unable to dispute my message that the COOL ruling is likely to make the US even more adamantly opposed to Canada's admission to TPP unless supply management is significantly weakened, that he/she adheres to his/her own "naive personal economic ideological beliefs" about the supposed benefits of supply management and follows the time-honored SM tradition of:
(A) minimizing the number of, conviction of and intelligence of "the enemy".
(B) shooting any messenger who warns about the number of, conviction of and intelligence of "the enemy".
It's like this, I'm not naive and I'm not speaking personally because the entire economics discipline has almost 150 years of empirical evidence upon which to base our mutual disdain of supply management.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Given that the Canadian dairy industry:
(1) Spends money on advertising to try to increase milk consumption
(2) Spends even more money defending 200% tariff barriers which, by definition, serve to reduce milk consumption
(3) Can't see the economic and logic contradiction in (1) and (2) above
no supply management critic deserves to be berated, especially by an anonymous supply management supporter, for having "naive personal economic ideological beliefs".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Claiming that US politicians aren't happy about Canadian livestock subsidies when compared to their extreme unhappiness about supply management, is like claiming a cancer patient isn't happy about having a skin rash - one is a problem the other is merely an irritant.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Well at least for once you didn't deny Canadian livestock producers get bags of camouflaged subsidies that U.S. livestock don't receive. The NPPC says Cool is minor compared to Canadian livestock subsides.
Quote: "“The Canadian subsidy programs distort the North American hog and pork market, limiting the growth of U.S. production, employment and profitability,” said Doug Wolf, NPPC’s immediate past president and chairman of its trade committee.
“Canada’s entry into the TPP negotiations should be contingent on renunciation of its trade-distorting subsidies,” he said.
As for Mandatory COOL, Wolf said “you can’t argue that MCOOL distorts the hog markets then ignore the far greater impact of the Canadian subsidy programs.” See: http://www.ontariofarmer.com/sitepages/?aid=5931&cn=TO%20PLACE%20A%20WOR...
The us isn't worried about the red meat industry there after the eggs and milk
An article in this week's Economist noted that, in the US, so-called "millenials", those aged between 18 and 34, are turning their backs on politics, even going so far as to tell interviewers that people in politics are "squirrelly".
It would be easy to understand the same "squirrelly" descriptor in Canada given the quote by Canada's Trade Minister, Ed Fast, in today's London Free Press. Fast called on the US to "restore our integrated North American supply chain" for beef and pork as a result of the recent COOL decision, yet Fast completely ignored the fact that Canada has no intention of getting rid of supply management which would - "restore our integrated North American supply chain" - for dairy and poultry products, thereby producing exactly the same benefits for business and consumers as getting rid of COOL.
And then people wonder why delegates to Ontario Pork's 2013 annual general meeting voted 68 - 13 to "urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism"
Sigh!!!!
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Please don't even go there.Here in Ontario I have to pay dearly for an acre of land for my cow/calf operation.
Public grazing lands in U.S.cost $1.35 per month per cow/calf pair.This has cost the U.S. taxpayer $1Billion over the last decade.If I had that advantage here in Ontario I would double my herd as soon as I possibly could.Charlie Sytsma
You bring up an interesting point. The U.S. National Pork Producer Council statement was in reference to Canadian Pork camouflaged subsidy support not beef but a total U.S. vs. Can. comparison would be interesting.
Well at least for once you didn't deny Canadian livestock producers get bags of camouflaged subsidies that U.S. livestock don't receive. The NPPC says Cool is minor compared to Canadian livestock subsides.
Quote: "“The Canadian subsidy programs distort the North American hog and pork market, limiting the growth of U.S. production, employment and profitability,” said Doug Wolf, NPPC’s immediate past president and chairman of its trade committee.
“Canada’s entry into the TPP negotiations should be contingent on renunciation of its trade-distorting subsidies,” he said.
As for Mandatory COOL, Wolf said “you can’t argue that MCOOL distorts the hog markets then ignore the far greater impact of the Canadian subsidy programs.”
Monies hog and/or beef farmers received from taxpayers over the years are a pittance compared to the monies supply managed farmers have received over the last few decades from consumers, which is a subsidy according to WTO.
Entry into the TPP is dependant upon radical changes or dismantlement of supply management.
Raube Beuerman
Post new comment