ALDOBA

 

 

By MARY CLARE JALONICK

The Associated Press-Google

Feb 18, 2009

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is throwing out food labeling rules proposed by the Agriculture Department just before George W. Bush left office, saying it wants labels for fresh meat and other foods that would show more clearly where an animal or food came from, according to consumer groups who've been briefed on the issue.

 

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told several consumer groups Tuesday in a conference call that he will ask the meat industry to voluntarily follow stricter guidelines for new package labels designed to specify a food's country of origin, according to three people who were on the call. If the industry does not comply, the administration will write new rules, according to those who spoke with Vilsack.

 

The labeling requirements, which would apply to fresh meats and some perishable fruits and vegetables, long have been debated in Congress and were enacted as part of a wide-ranging farm bill last year. While the meat industry and retailers responsible for the labels have protested the changes — saying they are burdensome and could lead to higher prices — consumer groups and northern states ranchers who compete with the Canadian beef industry favor them.

 

All sides worked out a compromise during debate over the farm bill last year, but much of the law was left open to interpretation by the Agriculture Department. Supporters of the law were not happy with the Bush administration's version of the rules, which they said allowed meat companies to be vague about where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered.

 

According to those on the call, including Jean Halloran of Consumers Union and Patty Lovera of Food and Water Watch, Vilsack said he would like to see labels that would give consumers a clearer idea about the origin of the animal or food.

 

Vilsack also said the law should cover more foods, Halloran and Lovera said. Many foods that are defined as "processed" — roasted peanuts, for example, or cured bacon — are exempt from the law, but Vilsack proposed narrowing that definition.

 

Lovera said she was encouraged by the proposals, which Vilsack is expected to lay out in a letter to the meat industry Wednesday.

 

"The bottom line is we think people have a right to know and they can act on it based on their own opinions and preferences," she said.

 

The leading opponents of the law have been grocery stores and large meatpacking companies — many of whom mix U.S. and Mexican beef — and other businesses involved in getting products to supermarkets.

 

The Obama administration's changes could cause problems with the country's North American neighbors. Both Mexico and Canada have protested the labeling law in a complaint to the World Trade Organization. Obama is scheduled to visit Canada this week.

 

Source: The Associated Press

google.com

 

 

The Canadian Press-Google

Feb 17, 2009

 

OTTAWA — Canada's ailing beef industry is hoping U.S. President Barack Obama enacts changes to an importing rule that could save Canadian cattle exporters $1 million a day.

 

The Obama administration is reviewing a country of origin labelling (COOL) rule which is scheduled to go into effect March 16.

 

Canadian exporters are operating in the dark until they know which way U.S. agricultural officials will go.

 

"That's the limbo we're all in right now. We don't really know," said John Masswohl, director of government and international relations for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

 

If the U.S. rejects the amended rule and declines to enact it, Canada is prepared to re-file a complaint with World Trade Organization.

 

"We don't want to see thickening of the border," Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz told reporters during a conference call.

 

The interim version of the COOL rule went into effect Sept. 30, 2008. It mandates that American meat processors segregate animals according to where they are born and fed.

 

The legislation divides cattle into three groups: U.S.-born and raised cattle, Canadian-born and U.S.-raised cattle, and Canadian born and raised cattle imported for immediate processing.

 

"Having the second and third category has one group of Canadian cattle being discriminated against the other group of Canadian cattle," Masswohl said.

 

Canada's complaint to the World Trade Organization was put on hold when former U.S. president George W. Bush finalized an amended version of COOL in January. The final rule lumps cattle from the second and third categories into one group.

 

While the new rule is poised to offer some relief for Canada's cattle farmers, the interim version continues to eat away at Canadian profits.

 

" 1/8American plants 3/8 have been saying, 'We'll buy the U.S.-born 1/8cattle 3/8, the ones born in Canada and raised in the U.S., but we're not buying the ones directly from Canada,' " Masswohl said.

 

American processing plants are reluctant to absorb the higher cost of labelling and transporting Canadian beef. Those plants that are taking in Canadian beef are paying reduced prices for the cattle they do accept.

 

Masswohl said the rule translates into a $90-loss per animal - a $1-million loss per day - for Canadian ranchers.

 

The COOL rule also applies to chicken, lamb, pork, fish, goat meat, ginseng, pecans, macadamia nuts and peanuts.

 

Processed foods - anything cured roasted, smoked or cooked - are exempt. Food served at restaurants or sold in specialty markets, such as a butcher shop, is also exempt from the labelling rule.

 

Source: The Canadian Press

google.com

 

 

Reuters UK

Wed Feb 18, 2009

 

(In U.S. dollars unless noted)

 

By Randall Palmer

 

OTTAWA, Feb 17 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he still wants to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement, despite a warning from Canada that this would be a mistake, but he said he did not want to end up curbing trade.

 

In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, shortly before his visit to Ottawa on Thursday, Obama also declined to characterize oil from Canada's vast oil sands region as "dirty oil" which should somehow be curtailed.

 

Obama had alarmed Canada during the Democratic primaries last year when he advocated renegotiating NAFTA, and he reiterated this goal on Tuesday while recognizing these were sensitive economic times.

 

"As I've said before, NAFTA, the basic framework of the agreement, has environmental and labor protections as side agreements. My argument has always been that we might as well incorporate them into the full agreement so that they're fully enforceable," he said in the interview with CBC television.

 

However, he also said: "I think there are a lot of sensitivities right now because of the huge decline in world trade."

 

Obama noted there was $1.5 billion in trade between Canada and the United States every day, adding: "It is not in anybody's interest to see that trade diminish."

 

When Obama raised the issue of toughening up NAFTA on the campaign trail a year ago, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said if Washington "made the mistake" of opening the agreement, Ottawa would bring other issues to the table for renegotiation.

 

Later in the year Harper said Canada's energy exports to the United States would enable it to negotiate from a position of strength.

 

The energy industry and environmentalists are watching Obama carefully for any moves that might damage Canada's oil sands sector, which offers huge reserves of secure crude but produces high emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

Obama acknowledged that oil sands create "a big carbon footprint" but he said the United States and Canada should collaborate on ways to sequester carbon, preventing it from being emitted into the atmosphere.

 

"Ultimately, I think this can be solved by technology. I think that it is possible for us to create a set of clean energy mechanisms that allow us to use things not just like oil sands, but also coal," he said.

 

"The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we have our own home-grown problems in terms of dealing with a cheap energy source that creates a big carbon footprint."

 

A Canadian official indicated to Reuters that it was possible that an agreement between Harper and Obama to present a common front on pursuing clean energy could emerge from Thursday's meeting.

 

A U.S. environmentalist, reacting on Tuesday to Obama's comparison of coal and the oil sands, said a key difference was that development of the oil sands was growing.

 

"It's really that expansion that's of great concern," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of Natural Resources Defense Council.

 

"Any kind of special exemption or protection that would be given under greenhouse gas regulations for especially the expanding tar sands industry just seems to be totally at odds with the commitment that both of our countries have made to fight global warming."

 

In his interview, Obama also praised Canada's management of its financial system in contrast to the United States.

 

"I think that's important for us to take note of, that it's possible for us to have a vibrant banking sector, for example, without taking some of the wild risks that have resulted in so much trouble on Wall Street," he said.

 

And he said Canadians should not be too concerned by the "buy American" clause in the stimulus bill he just signed. (Additional reporting by Jeffrey Jones in Calgary; editing by Rob Wilson)

 

uk.reuters.com

 

 

Reuters Canada

Tue Feb 17, 2009

 

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada stands ready to revive a trade complaint against the United States should Washington reinstate country-of-origin meat labeling rules that Ottawa considers protectionist, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said on Tuesday.

 

"Should the Obama administration continue on with protectionism and country-of-origin labeling, we will then reignite our WTO (World Trade Organization) challenge," Ritz told reporters on a conference call.

 

Canada agreed to shelve its WTO complaint last month after the government of George W. Bush revised U.S. rules to allow greater flexibility on labeling of meat sold in U.S. grocery stores. Ritz said the complaint remains off the shelf as "the Obama administration goes back and makes sure that the Bush administration didn't leave any landmines in any of these deals."

 

(Reporting by Louise Egan; editing by Rob Wilson)

ca.reuters.com

 

 

By Sylvain Charlebois

Associate Dean

Kenneth Levene Graduate School of Business

University of Regina

Via Troy Media Corp.

February 16, 2009

 

With its "Buy-American" requirement for spending on domestically manufactured products, the United States recently threatened to encourage a return to one of the worst eras of economic history, but there are signs that more responsible policies will prevail.

 

As the global economy goes south at an astonishing rate, gargantuan stimulus bills and other protectionist measures are becoming a priority for many countries.

 

We've seen this before.

 

In 1929, some American politicians pushed forward the Smoot-Hawley bill which raised tariffs on imports, and the result was all too predictable. Other countries retaliated with their own tariff hikes and the world suffered a collapse in international trade. But with a new tenant in the White House, and despite Obama's support for the American stimulus bill, we have reason to hope this time that the United States will think beyond its borders.

 

Conventional wisdom suggests that Republican presidents have been far less protectionist than Democratic presidents, but history suggests otherwise. Many now believe that Republican president Ronald Regan was the personification of modern conservatism and free trade. However, Reagan often broke with free-trade principles during his time in office. In the 1980s, he called for voluntary restraint agreements to limit imports of automobiles and steel, and he signed an agreement in 1985 that made Japanese imports more expensive by raising the value of the yen. Some of George W. Bush's policies were inhibiting to trade as well, in particular the mad cow crisis, the subsidy-driven Farm Bill and the soft wood lumber conundrum.

 

Canadians have already seen a difference because of the recent regime change. Days before President Obama's inauguration, the American government eased regulations on Country of Origin Labelling (COOL). This new regulation, which went into effect last October, received little press because of the recent Canadian and US elections. COOL's major provision is to require labels that identify the country of origin on certain foods, such as pork, beef, produce and nuts, when sold in retail establishments.

 

Under the original COOL, American-based food manufacturing plants would have to establish a separate production line to process foreign-based commodities. As a result, many companies were shying away from buying Canadian cattle and hogs. That business model was just not sustainable. But with the Americans' recent move on COOL, the American market is open again to Canadian producers, and Canada's department of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced it was suspending its complaint to the World Trade Organization.

 

In times of economic frugality, Americans are becoming more price-sensitive, especially in terms of food products. Fortunately, the new American administration recognizes that food, like housing, is a necessity. These commodities usually have inelastic demands and thus few or no substitutes. Last year, Canadians and American consumers saw food price hikes in double digit territory. In some states and provinces, the cost of food for any given household increased by as much as 12 per cent in the last year alone. McDonald's Restaurants are certainly noticing a difference in food consumption behaviour. McDonald's Corp. posted higher sales in recent months. Sales in fast-food restaurants generally have been boosted in recent months by cash-strapped consumers shifting down to lower-priced fare during the recession. Thus, American consumers are feeling some pressure and they need all the help they can get.

 

When considering economic predictions that suggest the Canadian dollar will hang at around $0.80 US for the next little while, cheap Canadian commodities are becoming more attractive to Americans. Corporate players like Tyson Foods and Cargill are poised to gain from this change because they will have access to more affordable commodities. These beneficiary companies may create more jobs or, at least, be more likely to keep the workers they already have.

 

Food trade policy is essential to providing variety and affordability to consumers, no matter where they live. The food industry is largely recession-proof, but is still vulnerable to external influences. The decision that altered COOL's agenda is significant, particularly to Canadian agriculture and American consumers.

 

The Canadian government should remain cautiously optimistic and continue to build strong relationships with the new American administration. With a president in the White House who seems ready to think more internationally, the virtues of free trade may be fortified. That would be welcome news to the Canadian economy during these worrying conditions.

 

 

troymedia.com

 

 

Roger Bernard

AgWeb

2/18/2009

 

Vilsack and COOL. USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack was scheduled to hold a news conference this morning on mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). He was expected to announce he's not changing the final rule, but is urging companies in a letter to label each meat package indicating the country in which the animal was born, the country in which it was raised, and the country in which it was slaughtered. However, a notice from USDA this morning says the press conference has been cancelled and Vilsack will brief reporters "at a later date."

 

agweb.com

 

 

To pstories for Feb. 18

by Sam Gazdziak - Provisioner Online

February 18, 2009

 

The Obama Administration wants new labels for fresh meat and other foods that more clearly show where the animal or food item came from, according to consumer groups who recently had a conference call with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

 

The Associated Press is reporting that Tom Vilsack will ask the meat industry to voluntarily follow stricter guidelines for new package labels designed to specify a food's country of origin. The industry will write new rules if the industry does not comply. The country-of-origin labeling laws were originally enacted as part of last year's farm bill after much compromise. The meat industry protested that the laws were burdensome and could lead to higher changes, while COOL supporters maintained that the rules allowed meat companies to be too vague about where an animal was born.

 

People who were involved with the conference call included Jean Halloran of Consumers Union and Patty Lovera of Food and Water Watch. They reported that Vilsack wants origin labels to cover more foods, narrowing the exemption for processed foods, such as cured bacon. Lovera said that Vilsack is expected to lay out the new proposals in a letter to the meat industry today.

 

Mexico and Canada both filed protests to the World Trade Organization when the COOL laws passed. Canada shelved its complaint once former President Bush agreed to allow more flexibility on meat labels, but Canadian Agriculture Minister Gary Ritz said the country is ready to renew its complaint if the laws change unfavorably.

 

“Should the Obama administration continue on with protectionism and country-of-origin labeling, we will then reignite our WTO (World Trade Organization) challenge,” Ritz said

 

Source: Associated Press, Reuters

 

provisioneronline.com