|
| Author |
Message |
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21115
Location: Northeast Montana
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: Challenges to COOL Have NO Standing |
 |
|
| Quote: |
July 2, 2009 Phone: 406-672-8969; e-mail: sdodson@r-calfusa.com
Canada, Mexico Have No Standing
to Bring Complaint Against U.S. COOL Law
Washington, D.C. – R-CALF USA has filed formal comments with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to emphasize that the group believes it is fundamentally contrary to the U.S. Constitution for USTR to agree that foreign governments – specifically Canada and Mexico – have any standing whatsoever to bring a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) against our constitutionally passed mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law.
“We urge the USTR to take deliberate and decisive steps to quash Canada’s and Mexico’s attempts to interfere with the United States’ sovereign right to inform U.S. consumers – using the most accurate and truthful means possible – about the origins of the food they purchase for themselves and their families,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “We agree with USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) that our COOL law is consistent with international standards and we believe the complaints by Canada and Mexico against the U.S. COOL law are baseless. Unfortunately, this WTO dispute procedure grants those countries an overly simplified forum to retaliate against U.S. citizens’ exercise of their constitutional rights.”
The U.S. COOL law imposes no duty or restrictions on any foreign government, nor imposes any limits on the volume or type of commodities that a foreign country may export to the United States.
Also, foreign countries are not obligated, in any way, to export to the U.S. any of the commodities subject to the U.S. COOL law – hence, a foreign country’s decision to market its products in the U.S. market and under the rules of the U.S. market is purely voluntary.
In addition, COOL jurisdiction is exclusively limited to U.S. retailers, as defined exclusively by U.S. law, and subjects all covered commodities marketed by U.S. retailers to identical information requirements, regardless of where the commodities originate.
“Thus, our domestic COOL law does not affect international trade agreements, and it is fundamentally inappropriate for the WTO to even entertain a foreign country’s complaint against our domestic COOL law,” Bullard emphasized.
In addition to the comprehensive comments submitted on Monday to USTR – which address each of the eight separate allegations raised against the U.S. COOL law by Canada and Mexico – Bullard also has recently met personally on behalf of R-CALF USA with USTR officials at their Washington, D.C., headquarters. During that meeting he presented import, slaughter and consumption data to explain that it is supply and demand factors that have caused changes in import volumes, not the implementation of COOL as Canada and Mexico allege.
“COOL enables consumers to freely choose between food products of various origins,” said Bullard. “Consumers’ choices will influence the market demand for products from any given country. This is how a competitive market is supposed to work, and neither Canada, nor Mexico, nor the WTO have any right to take that competitive market away from U.S. consumers.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 1579
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Also, foreign countries are not obligated, in any way, to export to the U.S. any of the commodities subject to the U.S. COOL law – hence, a foreign country’s decision to market its products in the U.S. market and under the rules of the U.S. market is purely voluntary.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
don
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1437
Location: saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| good let's scrap all of nafta.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Kato
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2048
Location: Manitoba - At the end of the road
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 1579
Location: Texas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
burnt
Rancher
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 2392
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sandhusker
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 17119
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Doesn't anybody realize how rediculous things have gotten and how priorities have become so skewed when you can't even make a simple law - a law that citizens of the country are asking for - that tells them where their food comes from because foreigners are against it? Does anybody think that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc... would approve of this going on in the country that they created?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 1579
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sandhusker wrote: |
| Doesn't anybody realize how rediculous things have gotten and how priorities have become so skewed when you can't even make a simple law - a law that citizens of the country are asking for - that tells them where their food comes from because foreigners are against it? Does anybody think that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc... would approve of this going on in the country that they created? |
Yes, it is ridiculous. The traders have made the rules as if they own everything.
I personally think that we should combat this kind of stuff with creative ways of putting costs on those who don't want to label. For instance, if you don't go along with the labeling, then your label on country of origin has to be the largest print on the package. If the importers don't want to do that, then they can just keep all of their products with as little labeling as they want.
Trade isn't a right, it is a privilege. No person from any other country should forget this because in a crunch, trade will be used by politicians as a tool of force. Food is such an important item for the people of any country that all countries should be able to regulate it in the way that keeps their population the best fed.
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Broke Cowboy
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 876
Location: With The Herd
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pesonally I give a s*** about COOL - let it be - people will buy what they want.
However - we relate it all to beef.
What about vegetable soup?
Got to stop looking at life through a straw - which is so typical of most ranchers
Going to be interesting to see how all those veggies get labelled.
Or how all those ingredients imported to make ice cream fall in to play.
Other than energy, the next biggest issue is water - if it comes from Canada is it going to be labelled?
Canada has lots and the U.S. of A. is running short in many areas.
Laws in Canada have prevented the sale of water to foreign countries - treaties have prevented the Grat Lakes from being diverted.
In 30 years there will be some interesting times ahead.
Yeah I know - I am being facetious - but go ahead and label away - our cow herd will always sell to someone - besides at the rate it is shrinking it will not matter anyways - we will begin to be net importers of beef unless things change
So will you folks for that matter
BC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 1579
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Broke Cowboy wrote: |
Pesonally I give a s*** about COOL - let it be - people will buy what they want.
However - we relate it all to beef.
What about vegetable soup?
Got to stop looking at life through a straw - which is so typical of most ranchers
Going to be interesting to see how all those veggies get labelled.
Or how all those ingredients imported to make ice cream fall in to play.
Other than energy, the next biggest issue is water - if it comes from Canada is it going to be labelled?
Canada has lots and the U.S. of A. is running short in many areas.
Laws in Canada have prevented the sale of water to foreign countries - treaties have prevented the Grat Lakes from being diverted.
In 30 years there will be some interesting times ahead.
Yeah I know - I am being facetious - but go ahead and label away - our cow herd will always sell to someone - besides at the rate it is shrinking it will not matter anyways - we will begin to be net importers of beef unless things change
So will you folks for that matter
BC |
Broke, labeling your product from Canada should be turned into an asset, not a liability by you.
If you are not proud enough to put your name on it, don't be in the selling business. Personally I would like to see these things being taken out of packer's value and be given back to ranchers.
We have spent so much time on this COOL issue, which should have been a no brainer and less on holding the oligarchs accountable. It has been a great diversion for them for ranchers in both countries.
Tex
Last edited by Tex on Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Broke Cowboy
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 876
Location: With The Herd
|
|
| Back to top |
|
burnt
Rancher
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 2392
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Broke Cowboy wrote: |
| Tex wrote: |
If you are not proud enough to put your name on it, don't be in the selling business. Personally I would like to see these things being taken out of packer's value and be given back to ranchers.
Tex |
I honestly do not know how anyone could argue with either of these two sentences you wrote - although I am sure someone will try. 
Cheers
BC |
While perhaps no one should/could argue with either statement, the first is one of the stupidest statements anyone could make, and thus, they should be ashamed to have it connected with their name, if they had a lick of sense.
To make such a comment is, sadly, either a gauge of deep ignorance or simply intended to be inflammatory.
Because, as it has been repeatedly said here, it is not the producers taking the label off - it is your own domestic interests that do it. If you have a need for COOL and it isn't happening, then lay the blame AND the cost where it belongs, and that is NOT on the CDN producers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
out because you would not hesitate to "purge our country of weapons of mass destruction". Do you really believe what you just wrote?? From this perspective, a contract with the U.S. is only binding if it benefits the U.S. There are plenty of examples of such.