GHY Tradelines

(Lisa Guenther – GrainNews)

Talks aimed at easing or lifting trade barriers for southbound Canadian livestock were more productive Thursday in Mexico City than earlier this week in Washington, according to Canada’s Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz.

Both nations are currently up against the United States on Washington’s planned changes to its mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) law – and if Canada has to resort to retaliatory tariffs, Ritz now warns they may affect other products apart from northbound U.S. beef and pork. […]

Earlier this week Ritz said annual trade retaliation against the U.S. over COOL could add up to $1 billion. Today he said he saw retaliatory measures going beyond U.S. beef and pork. “It’s hard to put retaliatory measures on your allies in this situation, and the American industry is very much on side with us, as I said. They’re facing as much or more hurt at the end of the day,” said Ritz. Read more here.
 

(Katy Askew – Just Food)

A rift between the US and Canada has deepened over country-of-origin labelling regulations for meat products.

The US food industry has long-objected to the World Trade Organisation’s 2008 COOL rules for meat products, insisting they are an unnecessary regulatory burden.

A complaint was brought before the WTO arbitration service by Canada and Mexico, highlighting the US’s failure to comply with the WTO’s COOL rules. In December the Obama Administration was given a deadline of 23 May to alter its labelling policy in order to bring it into compliance with the country’s WTO commitments. Read more here.
 

(Omid Ghoreishi – The Epoch Times)

Ottawa is warning that it may take “retaliatory measures” if the U.S. doesn’t abandon its new country-of-origin labelling rules for meat products. Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said the government is “extremely disappointed” with the proposed labelling rules.

“The proposed changes will increase the discrimination against exports of cattle and hogs from Canada and increase damages to Canadian industry,” Ritz said in a statement March 8.

Changes to America’s country-of-origin labelling rules proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) require muscle cut commodities to include information about where each of the production steps – where the animal was born, raised, slaughtered – occurred. Read more here.
 

(Reuters – Rod Nickel)

U.S. country-of-origin meat-labeling rules have directly cost Canada’s hog and pork industry more than $2 billion, according to a report that could help determine retaliation against U.S. exports if Washington does not change its requirements.

The United States must bring the labeling rules, known by the acronym COOL, into compliance with a World Trade Organization ruling by May 23, 2013, according to a WTO decision released last month.

But citing no apparent movement by the U.S. Congress since the original WTO ruling in mid-2012, the Canadian Pork Council released an estimate of damages on Monday. The council called on Ottawa to impose retaliatory tariffs on imports from the United States if there is no change by the WTO deadline. Read more here.
 

(John Maday — Drovers CattleNetwork)

An arbitrator with the World Trade Organization (WTO) this week set a deadline of May 23, 2013 for the United States to modify its requirements for country of origin labeling (COOL) for meat. In his ruling, the arbitrator says a period of 10 months from July 23, 2012, the date the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body issued its rulings on the issue, is a reasonable time for implementation.

The dispute stems from the 2009 COOL final rule, which USDA issued after Congress passed the COOL Statute. Canada and Mexico oppose the rule and filed a complaint with the WTO claiming it violates previous trade agreements by according less favorable treatment to imported livestock than to like domestic livestock. The WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico, leading to a failed appeal from the United States.

According to WTO documents, the United States has agreed to bring COOL policies into compliance with existing trade agreements, but contends that it will need at least 12 months to complete the US regulatory process due to the technical complexities of the COOL measure. Read more here.
 

(GrainNews)

Washington says it will carry out WTO body’s recommendations

With the U.S. government poised to square its country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws on food with world trade rulings and end a long-standing hassle for Canadian exporters, two U.S. groups plan to sue to force Washington to ignore those rulings.

The Made in the USA Foundation and the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, along with Colorado online grocer Mile High Organics, announced Wednesday they’ve filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, naming the World Trade Organization, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack as defendants.

The groups’ announcement follows an Aug. 21 notice from the U.S. delegation to the WTO, declaring the U.S. government’s intent to “implement the recommendations and rulings of the (WTO Dispute Settlement Body, or DSB) in these disputes in a manner that respects its WTO obligations, and we have begun to evaluate options for doing so.”

The U.S. government added that it “will need a reasonable period of time in which to do this” and “stands ready to discuss this matter with Canada and Mexico,” the two countries that challenged COOL at the WTO starting in 2008. Read more here.
 

(Philip Janquart – Courthouse News Service)

Western ranchers sued the World Trade Organization in Federal Court, challenging its power to rule, as it did, that the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Act discriminates against foreign meat.

Made in the USA Foundation, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers Association, and Melonhead (a meat and vegetable distributor), sued the WTO, the United States and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Act, aka COOL, requires all fresh produce, meat, chicken and fish to be labeled to reveal its country of origin.

The COOL Act, signed in 2002, led Canada and Mexico to file complaints with the WTO. Three WTO representatives, from Portugal, Pakistan and Switzerland, found that COOL violated the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and “imposes discriminatory burdens on meat imported from Canada and Mexico,” according to the complaint. Read more here.
 

(Feedstuffs – Ian Elliott)

The United States earlier this month informed all 157 members of the World Trade Organization of its plans to implement changes required in connection to its loss in the two COOL cases.

On July 23 the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body approved all the final rulings in the disputes brought by Mexico and Canada, ‘United States – Certain Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements (DS384/DS386).’

The WTO’s highest appeals body ruled June 29 that the COOL measure violates the WTO’s ‘Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement’ by treating imported cattle and hogs less favorably than competing domestic product. Read more here.
 

(Rick Jordahl – Pork Network)

The American Meat Institute (AMI) said Monday that the U.S. must abide by a ruling from a World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body that upheld an earlier finding by the group that mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) violates U.S. WTO obligations.

On Friday, the WTO affirmed its decision that the U.S. COOL policy is trade-restrictive against Mexico and Canada. The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has opposed the legislation since it was formulated saying  the law would be an unnecessary burden to trade. Both NPPC and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) fear retaliation from Canada and Mexico which are key export markets for U.S. pork and beef. Read more here.
 

(Farmscape)

Manitoba Pork Council is hoping the U.S. will make the changes to Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling needed to bring it into compliance with its international trade obligations.

Last November the World Trade Organization panel investigating complaints by Canada and Mexico over U.S. Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling determined the law affords imported livestock less favorable treatment than like domestic livestock and violates U.S. trade obligations. [...]

Manitoba Pork Council general manager Andrew Dickson estimates the legislation has cost Manitoba pork producers 200 million dollars each year since it took effect. Read more here.
 

(Atlantic Farm Focus)

By May 3 the WTO Appellate Body had completed its hearing on the United States appeal of it loss of the WTO dispute panel on its Country of Origin Labeling regime (COOL) as it applies to imported livestock, specifically Canadian hogs and beef cattle.

“We are very pleased with how Canada’s dispute with COOL has been argued at the WTO – first before the Panel and now in front of the Appellate Body,” Canadian Pork Council Chair Jean-Guy Vincent said.

The federal government, the CPC and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association has contested mandatory COOL since its inclusion in the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill.

Jurgen Preugschas noted that the government “very effectively argued that the (COOL) law is a protectionist measure.”

The Mayerthorpe, Alberta pork producer explained, “Despite claims by the United States that COOL was a response to requests from consumers, the legislation was in fact a result of lobbying by a splinter group of U.S. livestock farmers whose intent was to restrict imports from Canada. Read more here.
 

(Manitoba Co-operator)

Filing claims WTO panel’s decision didn’t go deep enough

A World Trade Organization panel’s ruling criticizing the U.S. government’s country-of-origin labelling (COOL) law is now under appeal from both sides of the table.

The WTO last week reported receiving formal notice that Canada, like the U.S., plans to appeal parts of last November’s ruling from the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).

The U.S. filed its appeal on March 23, seeking to overturn the DSB’s ruling that COOL violates Washington’s WTO obligations and “does not fulfil its legitimate objective” of consumer education.

Canada, however, wants to shut down the part of the DSB’s ruling that implies COOL’s main objective was legitimate in the first place. Read more here.
 

(Reuters)

The United States said on Friday it would appeal a World Trade Organization ruling against a law requiring country-of-origin labels on all meat sold in grocery stores, a move that disappointed Canada and Mexico, both of which want the law changed.

The meat labels became mandatory in March 2009 after years of debate. U.S. consumer and mainline farm groups supported the requirement, saying consumers should have information to distinguish between U.S. and foreign products.  Big meat processors opposed the provision, which they said would unnecessarily boost costs and disrupt trade.

A WTO panel ruled in November that the country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, provision violated WTO rules on technical barriers to trade. The case was brought by Canada and Mexico, which have sizeable cattle and hog trade with the United States. Read more here.
 

(Farmscape Online – Bruce Cochrane)

Canada’s Agriculture Minister says ending the restrictions imposed by U.S. Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling would benefit livestock producers on both side of the Canada-U.S. border.

Last November a World Trade Organization panel investigating complaints from Canada and Mexico ruled U.S. Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling is inconsistent with U.S. trade obligations.  The U.S. has until March 23rd to appeal that ruling.

M-COOL was discussed last week when Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz met with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack as part of an agricultural trade mission to Washington, DC.

Ritz says the labelling law has negatively impacted not only agriculture but the economies of the two countries as well. Read more here.
 

(Bloomberg – Jennifer M. Freedman)

The World Trade Organization gave the U.S., Canada and Mexico an extra two months to decide whether to appeal a November ruling that found American country-of-origin labeling provisions unfairly hurt agricultural commerce.

The three governments now have until March 23 to challenge judges’ finding that U.S. requirements for food processors to identify the nations from which cattle, hogs and some fresh produce originate break global trade rules, the WTO said in a statement in Geneva today. Read more here.
 

(World Trade Interactive)

Nineteen senators wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack last week urging the U.S. to appeal a World Trade Organization decision that the U.S. mandatory country of origin labeling requirements for various agricultural products are inconsistent with U.S. multilateral obligations.

The 2008 Farm Bill revised previous mandatory COOL requirements to provide that in order for a commodity to be labeled as a product of the U.S. all production activities associated with the commodity have to occur on U.S. soil or in U.S. waters. For products produced in the integrated North American marketplace, the label must indicate every country in which a stage of production has taken place. The 2008 Farm Bill also imposed mandatory COOL requirements for muscle cuts and ground beef, pork, lamb, goat, and chicken, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts and ginseng.

The senators raised concerns about the impact that the WTO ruling will have on the ability to continue providing country of origin information to consumers. They asserted that the Farm Bill set forth “a common sense plan for implementing a food labeling program” and that it was the intention of Congress that COOL labeling “would be nondiscriminatory … by requiring the labeling of both domestic as well as imported products.” They also expressed support for the Department of Agriculture regulations implementing the COOL requirements, which they believe continue to provide the same opportunity for imported livestock to compete in the domestic marketplace. They therefore urged USTR and USDA to “take appropriate actions to appeal the [WTO] ruling and to work to ensure that our COOL program meets our international trade obligations while continuing to provide such information to consumers.”
 

(Produce News Daily – Joan Murphy)

After hearing news the World Trade Organization ruled against the U.S. country-of-origin labeling program in a trade dispute, the supermarket industry said that Congress should revisit it and perhaps repeal it because it is costing the industry millions of dollars and providing little benefit to consumers.

In December 2008, Canada challenged the COOL law, which required labels to declare the country of origin at retail for certain meats, fish, produce and other commodities. Canada, joined later by Mexico, argued that the farm bill program violated international trade rules in the handling of hog and cattle imports, particularly the provision that animals had to be born, raised and slaughtered in the United States to gain the U.S. COOL label.

A WTO panel ruled Nov. 18 in favor of Canada and Mexico, saying that COOL violated a trade agreement by “according less favorable treatment to imported Canadian cattle and hogs than to like domestic products.”

The supermarket industry pointed to the WTO ruling as an open door to change the law. Read more here.
 

(Reuters – Tom Miles et al.)

Canada and Mexico won a trade case against a U.S. law on meat labeling at the World Trade Organization on Friday.

A WTO dispute panel agreed with their complaint that U.S. mandatory labeling laws were too stringent, giving U.S. cattle and hog sales an unfair advantage over imports from Mexico and Canada.  The panel said the U.S. rules, so called country of origin labeling, or COOL, violated WTO rules on technical barriers to trade.

“The WTO’s final report marks a clear win for Canadian livestock producers,” Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said. “This is a vital first step on the road to recovery.”

The country of origin labeling law, also called COOL, came into effect in 2008, prompting a sharp drop in U.S. cattle and hog imports from Canada.  Canadian cattle shipments to the United States have fallen by more than half, and hog exports to the United States are down 40% so far in 2011 from the volume three years ago.

Following the WTO ruling, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office said it is considering all options, including an appeal.  “Although the panel disagreed with the specifics of how the United States designed those requirements, we remain committed to providing consumers with accurate and relevant information with respect to the origin of meat products that they buy at the retail level,” the USTR said.

The WTO Panel report is on the WTO website here.
 

(Reuters – Rod Nickel)

Canada can expect “significant positive news” on Friday from a World Trade Organization ruling about a U.S. meat labeling law, Canadian government sources said on Thursday.

The law currently requires U.S. packers to label meat with the name of country it is from, raising their costs and discouraging imports of cattle and hogs.

Canada’s agriculture and trade ministers will hold a news conference on Friday at an Alberta ranch. A government advisory said they will announce “significant positive news” for livestock producers.

A senior government source said the announcement will be the WTO’s final ruling on the labeling law. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative’s office was not immediately available for comment. Read more here.
 

(Juliane von Reppert-Bismarck — Reuters)

The World Trade Organization has ruled against some U.S. labeling regulations for meat sold in supermarkets, saying they discriminate against foreign suppliers, people close to the case said on Thursday.

The confidential interim ruling, if approved later this year, would deal a partial victory to Mexican and Canadian breeders frustrated in their attempts to export to the United States, and opens the way to scores of similar legal challenges, the sources said.

A WTO spokesman said the interim report – expected to be largely unchanged in its final version later this year – was circulated to the United States, Canada and Mexico on May 20. The WTO declined to comment on its contents, citing its confidentiality. Read more here.