In this file:
·
COOL
Ruling Could Impact Pork Exports
·
COOL
Ruling Could Benefit Weanling Producers
·
Canada Hopes for Negotiated Resolution of
M-COOL Dispute
·
KAP
welcomes WTO ruling on COOL law
·
CME:
Reacting to the WTO ruling
·
N.S.
reaction mixed on COOL ruling
COOL Ruling Could
Impact Pork Exports
Steve R. Meyer, Ph.D., Paragon Economics, Inc.
National Hog Farmer - Nov 21, 2011
The World Trade Organization (WTO) made official on Friday
its finding that the
The panel found that the COOL program is a technical
regulation that is "inconsistent with the
The Vilsack letter's suggestions for voluntary action, according to the panel, go beyond certain obligations under the COOL program and, thus, are an unreasonable administration of COOL.
As noted, the ruling dealt with
The
There is no guarantee that
The tariffs could be avoided, but I think that would require a repeal of the COOL law – or at least amendment of the COOL law. There is some hope that an administrative fix (i.e., change the rules) can be accomplished by USDA, although I'm not sure how we could change the rules enough to satisfy WTO and still be within the law. There is little interest in Congress to do anything at present, but that may change as the date for punitive action draws nigh.
September Exports Up 37% ...
more
COOL Ruling Could
Benefit Weanling Producers
Written by Kelvin Heppner - Portage Online
(
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
The WTO has ruled the American policy, which came into
effect in the fall of 2008, discriminates against foreign
livestock.
"This is another step forward in trying to repair some of
the damage done by COOL," says Karl Kynoch, Chair of
the Manitoba Pork Council.
"In
Kynoch says Manitoba-born
weanlings are still being sold at a $10 to $15 discount due to
COOL.
"Right now we still have about 3 million going south, where
we used to have 4.5 million. So we had a huge reduction in the number going
south. Another difference is that the weanlings that go south are still being
discounted heavily," he says.
He notes Manitoba Pork is not looking for a complete
removal of the COOL legislation...
more
http://www.portageonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24672&Itemid=469
Gerry Ritz -
Farmscape for November 22, 2011 (Episode 4015)
Implemented in 2008, Mandatory U.S. Country of Origin Labelling requires American processors to label a range of food products, including beef and pork, according to their country of origin.
In a ruling released Friday the World Trade Organization found the legislation provides imported livestock less favorable treatment than like domestic livestock and is inconsistent with U.S. trade obligations.
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz recalls, when the labelling law was implemented, the impact on the Canadian and American livestock industries was immediately negative.
Clip-Gerry Ritz-Canada Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food:
To comply with the mandatory labelling program the
These additional handling procedures of course mean additional costs which are passed on to producers.
Some processors have simply refused to buy Canadian animals while others are only willing to buy on certain days or at a deeply discounted price...
more
KAP welcomes WTO
ruling on COOL law
By Jordan Maxwell - The Daily Graphic (
Nov 22, 2011
Doug Chorney, president of the Keystone Agricultural Producers, welcomed a WTO ruling on the U.S Country of Origin Labelling law (COOL), a law passed in 2008 which unfairly scrutinized Canadian products.
"This is a welcome finding. We certainly are pleased for
the sake of our beef and hog producers. This is going to be very important but
we have to be cautiously optimistic because it still requires the appeal process
to be not invoked by the
The WTO's ruling found that Canadian products were treated
less favourably than
In 2002, the
The
According to the Manitoba Pork Council, Chorney said that "the price that farmers received in some cases when down to nothing."
"When you add freight to the purchase price and farmers had no choice but to do shipping which is not sustainable. Farmers and businesses fail because of that. There were one-million market hogs being shipped to the U.S and but later declined by 50 per cent," he added.
What's more, Agriculture minister Stan Struthers said in a release that in 2007, 4.5-million feeder pigs provided $191 million while slaughter pigs relinquished close to $178 million.
But when COOL was implemented,
In the first year, the exports of slaughter hogs declined 64 per cent compared to the previous year. Meanwhile, a 19 per cent drop in exports was reported for feeder pigs.
"
KAP hopes the WTO's favourable
ruling will bring about the elimination of trade impediments between
more
http://www.portagedailygraphic.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3377561
CME: Reacting to
the WTO ruling
CME Group
via PorkNetwork - November 22, 2011
A dispute panel of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
officially ruled on Friday that the
The panel ruled on the complaint filed by
The WTO said in its ruling that the country-of-origin labelling (COOL — it did not include the “mandatory” language that we have used in the past) program is “inconsistent with the United States’ WTO obligations” since it give less favorable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs than to similar domestic products. In addition, the panel said that the program does not the legitimate objective of providing consumers with information regarding the origin of products. So not only is the program illegal under WTO rules, according to the WTO it doesn’t even do what it was intended to do.
In addition to the actual program, the WTO said the Secretary Vilsack’s letter was an unreasonable administration of COOL and thus constituted another violation of WTO regs.
Where do we go from here? The
The real question lies in what the Americans must do during that one year period to avoid the tariffs. Can we change some regulations to make the program WTO palatable or must the authorizing legislation be changed? The former is obviously much easier but it seems unlikely that regulations can be eased and still have anything that agrees with the MCOOL legislation. If that means the legislation itself must be changed or repealed, the challenge gets larger. How many laws do you recall being repealed? Just how interested is Congress in messing with MCOOL given the seismic issues on its plate at present?
There is no guarantee that retaliatory tariffs will fall on
Through September,
more
http://www.porknetwork.com/pork-news/latest/CME-Reacting-to-the-WTO-ruling-134319398.html
N.S. reaction
mixed on COOL ruling
By COLLEEN COSGROVE - The Chronicle Herald
(
November 22, 2011 - 4:38am
A trade victory for Canadian livestock producers spurred
mixed reaction among
While the World Trade Organization’s ruling Friday against
Relying on the export market, they say, is risky and unsustainable.
"There is a growing demand for that connection between rural and urban, so people know where their food is coming from and where it’s being grown. The local movement has so much momentum and so much support," De Waal told The Chronicle Herald on Monday.
"It doesn’t make sense for
Implemented at the request of the
The Canadian Pork Council said the regulations cost the industry millions, while the cattle industry lost $400 million annually thanks to COOL, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association reports.
In
In anticipation of lower market prices, Beck, a hog
producer from the
"(COOL) put a lot more little pigs on the market in
Although sympathetic to producers forced out of the business by the regulation, Troop said the family business avoided any COOL-related headaches by sticking to a local, niche market. She suggests it is an approach all producers should consider...
more
http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/35507-ns-reaction-mixed-cool-ruling