Canada’s Data Undisputed on Damages Following COOL

(Country Guide)

The U.S. government hasn’t challenged Canada’s “economic evidence” of the harm caused by mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL), but blames “market participants” rather than COOL itself, Canada’s cattle agency reports.

Attending the first round of oral hearings in a challenge of U.S. COOL by Canada and Mexico at a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association said Canada’s team was solid in its preparations and professional in refuting the U.S. team’s “creative suggestions.” “We correctly anticipated the arguments the U.S. would use to defend COOL and while there were no surprises, it is clear that the U.S. intends to defend this trade barrier vigorously,” CCA president Travis Toews said in a release Friday.

According to the CCA, Washington’s defense of COOL at the dispute settlement body’s hearings in Geneva, Switzerland was to claim that COOL is designed to inform consumers, not restrict trade, and that it hasn’t directly caused any segregation or other negative impact on Canadian cattle. Canada retorted that the market reaction to COOL was “not only predictable but in fact the intended outcome of COOL’s proponents,” the CCA said. Read more here.

Canadian Farmers Challenge U.S. Labelling Requirements at WTO

(Bridges Weekly)

Canada is challenging the U.S.’s country-of-origin labelling (COOL) requirements for beef and pork at a meeting of the WTO’s Dispute Settlements Body (DSB). The Canadian government, backed by several business groups – including some from the U.S., claims that the implementation of COOL requirements is immensely costly forcing Canadian businesses to seek less money for their beef so as to absorb the cost of implementing the requirement. They maintain that COOL is a technical barrier to trade (TBT) and as such illegal under WTO law.

“The COOL measure is not intended to address health or safety concerns,” Canada said in its opening statement. “The objective of the COOL measure was to distort the conditions of competition in the U.S. market to favour U.S. cattle and hogs compared to imported livestock.”

The COOL act requires that consumers be informed of the country of origin of meat by a label on the sales package. To receive an “A” label, cattle must be born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. Meat from cattle with a mixed life – for example, born and raised in Canada but slaughtered in the U.S. – must have a label indicating the mix. Read more here.

WTO COOL Dispute Moves Ahead

(Portage Online)

It’s another step forward in Canada’s case against American Country-Of-Origin Labelling legislation.

The World Trade Organization has appointed three members to a panel to review whether the U.S. labelling requirements violate international trade rules. Both Canada and Mexico say the laws restrict market access and act as a technical barrier to trade. Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz welcomed the creation of the dispute panel. He says Canada has a strong case.

“We know we have the data on our side to prove there’s been economic harm,” Ritz says. “We’re disappointed that the Americans continue moving ahead with this as opposed to taking a good, educated look.” Read more here.

U.S. Court Upholds COOL – Implications For Canada’s & Mexico’s WTO COOL Complaints

(Cattle Network)

In a memorandum sent Friday to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), R-CALF USA [a national cattle producer organization – Ed.] explained that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Court) recently issued an order that addresses a principal argument contained in the complaints filed at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the U.S. country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law by Canada and Mexico. The order stems from the lawsuit that Easterday Ranches Inc. (Easterday) filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the U.S. COOL law.

In that litigation, Easterday argued that the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s marking rules, established to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), provide that beef derived from the slaughter of imported cattle in the U.S. market is entitled to be designated as a product of the USA. Easterday further argued that as a result of these preexisting marking rules (NAFTA marking rules), the COOL law improperly requires beef from such imported cattle to be labeled as a product of both countries – Canada and the United States.

The Court disagreed. In its Feb. 5, 2010, order the Court found that the COOL law can coexist with, and does not repeal, the preexisting NAFTA marking rules because these rules are for purposes of tariff designation in a customs setting, while the COOL law applies to retail products, and because the COOL statute neither covers the whole subject matter of the NAFTA marking rules nor does the COOL law present an irreconcilable conflict with those rules.

“We believe this U.S. Court decision will help in the defense of our COOL law against Canada’s and Mexico’s attack at the WTO,” said R-CALF USA COOL Committee Chair Mike Schultz.

“Much like the Easterday complaint filed in the U.S., both Canada’s and Mexico’s complaints filed at the WTO are seeking the same protection,” he continued. “And like Easterday, Canada and Mexico want to continue hiding the true origins of their foreign beef in the U.S. marketplace. Read more here.

USDA Instructions on Label Verification for Imported Meat and Poultry

(World Trade Interactive)

The Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service issued Feb. 2 a directive providing instructions to its import inspection personnel on performing label verification procedures when reinspecting imported meat and poultry products. LVPs are conducted to ensure that foreign establishments exporting these products to the U.S. adhere to the labeling requirements in the federal meat and poultry regulations.

Among the instructions provided by this directive are the following.

• Labels must be in English and mechanically printed, stenciled or stamped directly on the shipping container or on a self-adhesive label affixed to the shipping container.

• Shipping containers (e.g., boxes, bags, barrels, crates or other receptacles or coverings that contain fully labeled immediate containers) must be labeled with the name of the country of origin (preceded by “product of”), the establishment number assigned by the foreign meat inspection system and certified to FSIS, a unique shipping mark used to link the product to the foreign health certificate, and any applicable special handling statements. In addition, there must be sufficient space on the main and end panel for the U.S. mark of inspection. (This requirement is not applicable to product from Canada since the U.S. mark of inspection is applied to the health certificate and import application.)

• If shipping containers hold product packaged in immediate containers, those immediate containers must bear all of the mandatory label features, which include the name or a descriptive designation of the product, an ingredients statement (if needed), the foreign establishment number, any needed handling statements, the net quantity of the contents (if needed), the manufacturer’s or distributor’s name and address, any required nutrition labeling, the name of the country of origin (preceded by the words “product of”), and safe handling instructions for raw and partially cooked meat and poultry products that have not undergone further processing that would render them ready-to-eat and are destined for the consuming public.

Read more here.

Canadian Pork Producers Call for Equivalent Food Labelling Rules

(Farmscape – Bruce Cochrane)

The chair of Manitoba Pork Council reports a growing number of Canadian pork producers believe Ottawa needs to impose the same labelling rules on U.S. pork entering Canada as is required for Canadian product entering the U.S.

A delegation representing Manitoba Pork Council visited Minneapolis last week and is in Des Moines this week for a series of trade advocacy meetings and to discuss issues of common concern with their U.S. counterparts.

Pork Council chair Karl Kynoch says Canadian pork producers are increasingly concerned with the fact that, while U.S. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling has made it more difficult to move Canadian product into the U.S., American product continues to flow freely into Canada. Read more here.

U.S. to Vigorously Defend COOL

(Capital Press – Tim Hearden)

Senators urge Obama to prevent WTO from making changes

The Obama administration is reaffirming its vow to vigorously defend a new country-of-origin labeling law after being urged by 25 U.S. senators to do so. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office is working closely with the Department of Agriculture to take America’s case to the World Trade Organization, asserts Debbie Mesloh, the deputy assistant U.S. trade representative in Washington, D.C.

“The United States believes the country-of-origin provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill are fully consistent with all of our WTO trade obligations,” Mesloh told the Capital Press in an e-mail.

Mesloh’s reassurances come after U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., led a group of senators calling on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and trade representative Ron Kirk to defend mandatory country-of-origin labeling against complaints from Canada and Mexico. Johnson and Enzi were joined by 23 colleagues, including Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. The senators urged the government to ensure that no changes are made to the program as a result of the WTO process. Read more here.

AMI Sides with Canada & Mexico on COOL

(Food Safety News – Dan Flynn)

The American Meat Institute (AMI) is coming down on the side of Mexico and Canada when it comes to opposing the USA’s Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) as mandated by the 2008 Farm Bill. AMI has weighed in with a seven-page letter to the U.S. Trade Representative saying the COOL law puts the United States at odds with its international trade obligations.

“Critical to the United States’ ability to enforce successfully World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) obligations is consistency in U.S. behavior and actions,” wrote Mark D. Dopp, senior vice president, regulatory affairs, and general counsel. “In that regard, the United States’ credibility is undermined when U.S. legislation violates America’s commitments pursuant to those international agreements.” Read more here.

WTO Agrees to Rule on Legality of U.S. Food-Labeling Policies

(Bloomberg – Jennifer M. Freedman)

World Trade Organization judges agreed to decide whether U.S. country-of-origin labeling provisions violate global trade rules and unfairly harm agricultural trade, as Canada and Mexico allege. The U.S. requires food processors to identify the countries where cattle, hogs and some fresh produce originate. Canada and Mexico say the provisions impose unfair and unnecessary costs on their exports, reducing their competitiveness. […]

The Country of Origin Labeling Legislation, or COOL, has caused many U.S. pork-processing companies to stop buying animals born in Canada and has cost the country’s pork industry millions of dollars, according to the Canadian Pork Council, a federation of nine provincial pork industry associations. COOL has cost Canadian cattle producers more than C$250 million in lower beef prices and higher expenses, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association says. Read more here.

Vilsack, Kirk Comment on Canadian Panel Request Regarding Country-of-Origin Labeling

(USDA)

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk today [Wednesday] issued a statement regarding Canada's request to establish a dispute settlement panel at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to review their claims in a dispute regarding country of origin labeling (COOL) required by the 2008 Farm Bill for certain agricultural products. The panel request will be considered at the October 23, 2009, meeting of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body.

From Secretary Vilsack and Ambassador Kirk:

"We regret that formal consultations have not been successful in resolving Canada's concerns over country of origin labeling (COOL) required by the 2008 Farm Bill for certain agricultural products.

"We believe that our implementation of COOL provides information to consumers in a manner consistent with our World Trade Organization commitments.

"Countries have agreed since long before the existence of the WTO that country of origin labeling is a legitimate policy. It is common for other countries to require that goods be labeled as to their origin.

"We hope to continue to work with Canada to resolve this issue amicably."

Background:

The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) mandates country-of-origin labeling (COOL) at the retail level for beef, lamb, pork, chicken, goat, perishable agricultural commodities, and certain nuts as of September 30, 2008. The statute sets out four categories of country of origin for meat: A) exclusively U.S. origin; B) multiple countries of origin; C) animals imported for immediate slaughter; and D) exclusively foreign origin. On August 1, 2008, USDA published an Interim Final Rule to implement the COOL statutory requirements. On December 1, 2008, Canada requested WTO dispute settlement consultations on the COOL interim rule, and Mexico similarly requested consultations on December 17, 2008. Pursuant to a January 7, 2009 procedural agreement, Canada committed not to pursue WTO dispute settlement until September 2009 if the Final Rule contained certain flexibilities in meat labeling. On January 15, 2009, USDA published the Final Rule on COOL. On February 20, 2009, Secretary Vilsack announced that the Final Rule would take effect as originally scheduled on March 16, 2009. Canada and Mexico sent a new consultations request regarding the Final Rule to the United States on May 7, 2009.

U.S. Food Labelling Unfair and Uneconomical

(Michael J. Armstrong — The ChronicleHerald)

When Canada recently resumed its World Trade Organization challenge of the U.S. Country-Of-Origin Labelling (COOL) laws, we were in effect doing both countries a favour. That’s because COOL in its current form is unfair, uneconomical and unjustified. COOL has more to do with protecting U.S. livestock producers than protecting U.S. consumers.

Signed into law last March, COOL affects certain foods that come from a foreign country but are packaged in the U.S.A. If an American packing plant buys hogs from Canada to make pork chops, U.S. grocery stores selling those chops must identify the meat’s Canadian origin. In principle, this sounds good.

In practice, however, meat packers don’t want the extra work required by COOL, which forces them to track which country the meat in each package comes from. For example, steaks from American cattle must be labelled “Product of the U.S.” whereas steaks from Canadian cattle must be labelled “Product of Canada and the U.S.” Since Washington forbids general labels such as “Made from U.S. and/or Canadian cattle,” packers must change their operating procedures to handle Canadian animals separately from American ones.

U.S. processors are already cutting back on imports. Sales of Canadian cattle and hogs into the U.S. have plunged as more American plants stick to domestic livestock so they simply can label everything “Product of the U.S.” So the labelling law is costly because it affects much more than labels. It is harming Canadian producers. Read more here.

Canada Requests Further Round of WTO Consultations on U.S. Country-of-Origin Labelling

(Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada)

The Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, and the Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, today announced that the Government of Canada is taking action on behalf of Canadian farmers in the dispute over U.S. country-of-origin labelling (COOL) measures. Canada has taken the next step in the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process by formally seeking further consultations with the United States.

“We are concerned with the approach the United States is taking to implement COOL and the negative impact it is having on our exporters,” said Minister Day. “Recent instructions from the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture encouraging the U.S. industry to use very strict labelling practices have removed the flexibility previously envisioned in the legislation and this affects the ability of our cattle and hog exporters to compete fairly in the U.S. market.”

“We are standing up for Canadian producers as we always have, and always will,” said Minister Ritz. “COOL is having a significant negative impact on the Canadian livestock industry and we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that our producers are treated fairly.”

Canada initially requested WTO consultations with the U.S. on COOL in December 2008, as it believed the measures were creating undue trade restrictions, to the detriment of Canadian exporters. At that time, U.S. provisions were being implemented on an interim basis.

A Final Rule to implement COOL was published in the U.S. Federal Register on January 15, 2009. However, on February 20, 2009, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture issued an open letter to the U.S. industry, encouraging the use of stricter and broader labelling practices. According to Canadian industry representatives, those proposals will only add to the challenges they are already experiencing. They have observed that, since COOL came into effect, some U.S. processors are choosing not to buy Canadian animals, or are trying to buy them at a reduced price.

Mexico is in the process of filing a similar request at the WTO. This underscores both countries’ concerns over the impact of COOL on the integrated North American industry.

WTO consultations provide parties with an opportunity to resolve a dispute through discussions. If consultations fail to resolve the matter, the complaining party may request that the matter be referred to a WTO dispute settlement panel.

Canada Revives WTO Complaint on U.S. Meat Label Law

(Reuters – Roberta Rampton & Doug Palmer)

Canada has revived a complaint at the World Trade Organization about a U.S. meat labeling law that Canadian producers have complained has hurt their hog and cattle sales, Canada’s Trade Minister Stockwell Day said on Monday.

Canada has complained a new mandatory rule that meat packers include the country of origin of their products on labels has curbed sales of Canadian livestock because of added costs for U.S. packers, hurting prices for Canadian producers.

“I’ve informed Ambassador (Ron) Kirk that we will move forward with the (WTO) consultation,” Day said, noting the complaint will move into a 60-day consultation period. “By giving formal notification of a consultation period, it says, ‘We think this is off-side and we want the consultation period to begin,’” he told reporters after meeting Kirk.

Canada normally exports about C$4 billion ($3.28 billion) a year of hogs and cattle to the United States. Read more here.

Stockwell Day Toughens Canadian Stance on Meat Dispute

(Financial Post)

International Trade Minister Stockwell Day suggested Thursday Canada’s patience with Washington is running thin over a U.S. meat-labelling law that is “dissuading” the purchase of Canadian-bred livestock, and he plans to be “aggressive” in defending the country’s interests.

Mr. Day’s remarks, at the conclusion of a week-long visit to Asia, mark a sharp U-turn on how Canada will deal with the Obama admistration on this trade dispute that Canadian swine and cattle producers claim is “killing” their sector. Only a week ago, he said he would “reserve judgment” on pursuing retaliation against the United States through the World Trade Organization.“We have time limitations on how long we will let this draw out,” Mr. Day told reporters in a conference call from Hong Kong.

The law sparking this latest Canada-U.S. brouhaha deals with country-of-origin labelling, and was years in the making and introduced in stages — in the fall and then last month. It requires that labels on meat and other foods sold at U. S. supermarkets have labels that indicate from which countries the food originates.

Canada had won concessions from the former Bush administration that it was, at least temporarily, willing to live with. But in February, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a letter to the American meat-packing sector in which he asked that it undertake additional “voluntary” measures that are not in the bill, including that labels be included on processed meats. Read more here.

Ottawa Holding Off on Trade Action Versus U.S.

(Paul Vieira — Financial Post)

Stockwell Day, the International Trade Minister, said on Thursday Canada is “reserving judgment” on potential trade action against Washington over a meat-labelling law that domestic livestock producers argue is a “significant” non-tariff barrier costing them hundreds of millions of dollars.

As he played down potential trade action with Washington, Mr. Day announced he asked the World Trade Organization to begin consultations to address South Korea’s nearly six-year ban on imported Canadian beef.

Canadian livestock producers say their sector is in crisis as the result of a U.S. law that requires labels on meat and other foods sold at U. S. supermarkets to indicate from which countries the food originates. Sales of live hogs to Americans are down over 40% from a year ago, and the cattle producers claim the law has cost its sector $400-million, as U.S. meat packers decline to take Canadian livestock due to the added red tape the labelling law entails. Read more here.

Changes for Food Labels

(CBS News Online)



For years, consumer groups have fought for new food labels listing the product's country of origin. As Ben Tracy reports, this rule has now taken effect for most fresh meat and some produce products.

New Labelling Rules UnCOOL

(Embassy Magazine)

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack’s efforts to tighten up American country-of-origin labelling rules for livestock provoked strong reactions from farmers and meat industry officials during appearances before the [Canadian] Commons’ Agriculture committee last week.

A number of industry representatives said exports to the U.S. have already slowed by as much as two-thirds for some products, and once the final rules are in place this month, Canadian farmers will be hit even harder.

Some witnesses called on the Canadian government to relaunch its WTO challenge of the rules, which was put on hold in January. Others, however, said getting a ruling will take too long and the government – including Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself – must work American legislators and the Obama administration now.

“The White House really has to be alerted to this grim situation,” Martin Rice, executive director of the Canadian Pork Council, told committee members on March 5. “And in terms of getting their attention, our view is that it really has to come from our central agency, the Prime Minister’s Office in particular, to alert the White House that this is a problem that’s not just going to affect Canadians, it’s going to affect U.S., because if you take away 10% more of U.S. processors’ raw material, they are not going to be able to continue in business as they are.” Read more here.

Canada Holds Fire on New U.S. Meat Labeling Rules

(Reuters – Louise Egan)

Canada's agriculture minister said on Wednesday he sees no reason at this time to revive a trade challenge against the United States over its new meat labeling rules. "Right now, they've gone with what we're asking for," Gerry Ritz told reporters.

Ritz later clarified that he was concerned, however, by new voluntary labeling guidelines issued by Washington, which have been a source of confusion for industry players as they await implementation of the new rules as of March 16.

The rule requiring more explicit labels on meat sold in U.S. grocery stores initially sparked a complaint by Ottawa at the World Trade Organization because it viewed the policy as unfair to the Canadian livestock industry. Ottawa agreed in January to put that complaint on hold after Washington made the rules more flexible in the final days of the Bush administration.

However, the Obama administration gave the rule a second look and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has asked the U.S. industry to add the extra information voluntarily to labels. He warned he may rewrite the rule to enforce the changes if industry does not comply on a voluntary basis. Read more here.

Canada’s Beef Industry Calls on Ottawa to File Trade Challenge Against U.S.

(The Canadian Press)

Only a week after expressing hope that U.S. President Barack Obama would soften a trade rule that is already hurting Canada's ailing beef industry, worried producers say they've learned that Washington's final plan will hurt them even more.

The final U.S. Country-Of-Origin-Labelling rule, which takes effect March 16, would effectively force all American meat companies to label beef with a sticker that states where the product came from, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association said Tuesday.

Some companies have already stopped buying Canadian beef and cattle due to the extra cost of meeting an interim version of the trade rule that was introduced in September. The final rule will be even more costly and onerous, CCA President Brad Wildeman said Tuesday.

“The association is calling for the Canadian government to undertake all available actions, including an early resumption of a World Trade Organization challenge against these U.S. trade restrictive actions,” Mr. Wildeman said in a news release. Read more here.

U.S. COOL to Go Ahead Under Scrutiny

(Grainews)

In a move expected to create more uncertainty for [U.S.] importers of Canadian livestock and meat, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s final rule on country-of-origin labelling (COOL) will take effect as planned next month.

President Barack Obama’s ag secretary, Tom Vilsack, confirmed that much in a release Friday, but Vilsack also published a letter he wrote to U.S. food industry stakeholders Friday, inviting them to “voluntarily adopt” practices that may tighten COOL beyond importers’ comfort zones.

USDA, Vilsack said in a release, “will be closely reviewing industry compliance with the rule and will evaluate the practicality of the suggestions for voluntary action in my letter.”

Depending on industry’s performance after the final rule takes effect March 16, as outlined in his letter, Vilsack said he would then “carefully consider whether modifications to the (COOL) rule will be necessary to achieve the intent of Congress.”

The “suggestions” in Vilsack’s letter include:

• tighter terminology on labels, including information about what production step took place in a given country, such as “Born in Country X and Raised and Slaughtered in Country Y”;

• voluntary labelling of processed foods, for which the definitions in the final rule “may be too broadly drafted” – meaning that in Vilsack’s view, products subject to curing, smoking, steaming, grilling or broiling should include a voluntary label; and

• a tighter inventory allowance – meaning that where a ground beef package, for example, could previously bear the name a country for up to 60 days even if product from that country isn’t in inventory, that number should be voluntarily reduced to 10 days, Vilsack said, to limit the levels of product without clear COOL and to give the label more credibility.

Read more here.