Author: Shad Arthur Michel Thevenaz Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
The final implementation of the Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling Law has caused some U.S. packing plants and finishing operations to discontinue using Canadian live hogs and feeder pigs in their operations, thereby reducing trade. Using a system of simultaneous equations representing U.S. import demand and U.S. price, this thesis has estimated the reduction in trade and any possible price effects in both live hogs and feeder pigs associated with the implementation of the final rule of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling in the United States. It has been found that the implementation of the Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling Law reduced the trade of live hogs between the United States and Canada by 37.8 percent, with the trade of feeder pigs reduced by 24.1 percent. It also has been found that the implementation of the Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling Law has had no effect on the price of both live hogs and feeder pigs in the U.S. market.
Author: Remy Jurenas Publisher: DIANE Publishing ISBN: 1437938248 Category : Business & Economics Languages : en Pages : 20
Book Description
This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. Many retail food stores are now required to inform consumers about the country of origin of fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, ginseng, and ground and muscle cuts of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and goat. Contents of this report: (1) Recent Developments; (2) Background; (3) Other Laws with Labeling Provisions: Tariff Act; Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; (4) Implementation of Farm Bill COOL Requirements; (5) Key Provisions: Record-Keeping, Verification, and Penalties; (6) Economic and Trade Issues: Costs and Benefits; North Amer. Livestock Trade; U.S. Livestock Imports; (7) Expansion of COOL in Food Safety Measures; COOL for Dairy Products. Illustrations.
Author: Remy Jurenas Publisher: Createspace Independent Pub ISBN: 9781478355380 Category : Political Science Languages : en Pages : 38
Book Description
Most retail food stores are now required to inform consumers about the country of origin of fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, shellfish, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, ginseng, and ground and muscle cuts of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and goat. The rules are required by the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) as amended by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Other U.S. laws have required such labeling, but only for imported food products already pre-packaged for consumers. The final rule to implement COOL took effect on March 16, 2009. Both the authorization and implementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service have been controversial. Much attention has focused on the labeling rules that now apply to meat and meat products. A number of livestock and food industry groups continue to oppose COOL as costly and unnecessary. They and the main livestock exporters to the United States—Canada and Mexico—view the requirement as trade-distorting. Others, including some cattle and consumer groups, maintain that Americans want and deserve to know the origin of their foods, and point out that many U.S. trading partners have their own import labeling requirements. Less than one year after the COOL rules took effect, Canada and Mexico used the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) trade dispute resolution process to challenge some features that apply to labeling meat. Both countries argued that COOL has a trade-distorting impact by reducing the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market. For this reason, they argued that COOL violates WTO trade commitments agreed to by the United States. On November 18, 2011, a WTO dispute settlement (DS) panel found that (1) COOL treats imported livestock less favorably than like U.S. livestock (particularly in the labeling of beef and pork muscle cuts), and (2) COOL does not meet its objective to provide complete information to consumers on the origin of meat products. The panel reached these conclusions by examining the economic effects of the measures taken by U.S. livestock producers and meat processors to implement COOL, and by accepting arguments that the way meat is labeled to indicate where the multiple steps of livestock birth, raising, and slaughtering occurred is confusing. On March 23, 2012, the United States appealed the panel report to the WTO Appellate Body (AB). On June 29, 2012, the AB upheld the DS panel's finding that the COOL measure treats imported Canadian cattle and hogs, and imported Mexican cattle, less favorably than like domestic livestock, because of its record-keeping and verification requirements. The AB, however, reversed the panel's finding that COOL does not fulfill its legitimate objective to provide consumers with information on origin. The Obama Administration welcomed the AB's affirmation of the U.S. right to adopt labeling requirements to inform consumers on the origin of the meat they purchase, but did not signal what steps might be considered to address the 'less favorable treatment' finding. Participants in the U.S. livestock sector had mixed reactions, reflecting the heated debate on COOL that occurred over the last decade. Two consumer groups expressed concern that this WTO decision further undermines U.S. consumer protections. If the United States decides to bring COOL into compliance with the AB finding, WTO rules call for that to occur within a reasonable period of time. Options would be to consider regulatory and/or statutory changes to the COOL regulations and/or law. If the United States does not comply, Canada and Mexico would have the right to seek compensation or retaliate against imports from the United States.
Author: Congressional Research Service Publisher: CreateSpace ISBN: 9781507869963 Category : Political Science Languages : en Pages : 56
Book Description
Most retail food stores are now required to inform consumers about the country of origin of fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, shellfish, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, ginseng, and ground and muscle cuts of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and goat. The rules are required by the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) as amended by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Other U.S. laws have required such labeling, but only for imported food products already pre-packaged for consumers. The final rule to implement country-of-origin labeling (COOL) took effect on March 16, 2009. Both the authorization and implementation of COOL by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been controversial, particularly the labeling rules for meat and meat products. A number of livestock and food industry groups continue to oppose COOL as costly and unnecessary, and they and the main livestock exporters to the United States—Canada and Mexico—view the requirement as trade-distorting. Others, including some cattle and consumer groups, maintain that Americans want and deserve to know the origin of their foods. Canada and Mexico challenged U.S. COOL in the World Trade Organization (WTO), arguing that COOL has a trade-distorting impact by reducing the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market, thus violating WTO trade commitments. In November 2011, the WTO dispute settlement (DS) panel found that (1) COOL treats imported livestock less favorably than U.S. livestock, and (2) COOL does not meet its objective to provide complete information to consumers on the origin of meat products. In March 2012, the United States appealed the WTO ruling. In June 2012 the WTO's Appellate Body (AB) upheld the DS panel's finding that COOL treats imported livestock less favorably than domestic livestock. But the AB reversed the finding that COOL does not fulfill its legitimate objective to provide consumers with information on origin. The Obama Administration welcomed the AB's affirmation of the U.S. right to adopt labeling requirements to inform consumers on the origin of their meat. Participants in the U.S. livestock sector had mixed reactions, reflecting the ongoing heated debate on COOL. In order to meet a May 23, 2013 compliance deadline, USDA issued a revised COOL rule requiring that labels show where each production step (born, raised, slaughtered) occurs and prohibiting the commingling of muscle-cut meat from different origins. COOL's supporters applauded the revised rule for providing consumers with specific, useful information on origin. Canada and Mexico expressed disappointment with USDA's revised rule. In September 2013, a compliance panel was formed to determine if the revised COOL rule complies with WTO agreements. On October 20, 2014, the panel found that the revised COOL rule altered competition and thus treated imported livestock less favorably than domestic livestock. The panel confirmed that COOL is a legitimate objective, but could not determine if the rule was more trade restrictive than necessary. The United States appealed the compliance panel report on November 28, 2014, and the Appellate Body will hear the appeal on February 16 and 17, 2015.
Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy Publisher: ISBN: Category : Canada Languages : en Pages : 56
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture Publisher: ISBN: Category : Import quotas Languages : en Pages : 128
Author: Alexander Moens Publisher: ISBN: Category : Canada Languages : en Pages : 70
Book Description
The Mandatory Country-of-Origin Label (MCOOL) for beef and pork products was brought into force by the United States in 2008. It imposes uneven tracking, segregating, and recording costs that result in a de facto barrier to trade, which has created a severe impact on the more than $4 billion in annual trade in this sector. Since MCOOL was implemented, Canadian cattle and hog exports to the United States have decreased by 42 and 25 percent respectively. The trade impact threatens the livestock industry, which contributes over 100,000 jobs in Canada. At the same time, thousands of jobs are at stake in the US slaughtering industry. Over time, the regulation will likely lead to higher prices for consumers on both sides of the border. MCOOL does not address specific problem, but is a product of concentrated lobbying by US livestock producers coupled with a Congressional sentiment to "Buy American." Even after accounting for other major factors, MCOOL appears to have caused a significant reduction in Canadian hog and cattle exports to the United States. The solution for this regulatory problem in meat trade is to harmonize the sector and manage it bi-nationally. The paper calls for Canadian-American negotiations to remove the outstanding regulatory differences between our two countries.
Author: Shad Arthur Michel Thevenaz
Author: Remy Jurenas
Author: United States International Trade Commission
Author: Remy Jurenas
Author: Congressional Research Service
Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture
Author: Charles-Félix Ross
Author: Alexander Moens
Author: United States. General Accounting Office