Stabenow proposes voluntary COOL

Posted June 25, 2015

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) released a draft proposal which would remove beef and pork mandatory labeling provisions under Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and put a completely voluntary Product of the U.S. label in its place, according to a Feedstuffs article available here. Agri-Pulse also published an article available here. A recent COOL blog post is available here.

Stabenow said she hopes her proposal offers a pathway forward on COOL following a May World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling which found the United States out of compliance again.

“This proposal offers a viable alternative and I look forward to discussing it at our hearing and with my colleagues in the Senate as we work to come to agreement on a bipartisan solution,” she said.

House Agriculture Mike Conaway, R-Texas, rejected Stabenow's proposal. He said he would continue to insist on full repeal of the law. A voluntary labeling program is OK but only as long as it is run by the industry and not subject to requirements of the law, according to Agri-Pulse.

“If there's teeth in it, if there's requirements in it … we're not going to do that. A voluntary program that's strictly run by the industries, that's fine with me,” he said. 

The North American Meat Institute continues to support his strategy. “The real opinions that count about this bill are those of the Canadian and Mexican governments,” said their president and CEO, Barry Carpenter. “Change that doesn't satisfy our trading partners or the WTO still results in billions in tariffs.”

For more information, a copy of the legislation is available here.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

House votes to repeal COOL

Posted June 12, 2015

The House of Representatives has voted to repeal country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef, pork, and chicken, according to a Food Safety News article available here. Meating Place also published an article available here and Feedstuffs here.

Texas Republican Rep. Michael Conaway’s Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 passed Wednesday by a 300-131 vote.

Conaway introduced the bill on May 18, which was the same day the World Trade Organization rejected a U.S. appeal of its decision that COOL unfairly discriminates against meat imports and gives the advantage to domestic meat products.

The 2002 and 2008 farm bills mandated Country of origin labeling (COOL), and meat processors have been lobbying for the law to be changed ever since. Consumer protection activists and livestock producers have lobbied just as hard to keep the law in place, according to Meating Place.

In response to the House vote, the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) issued a statement calling it "an essential first step."

“Chairman Conaway and Representative Costa have shown incredible leadership in encouraging the U.S. live up to its obligations and abide by World Trade Organization rules,” NAMI President and CEO Barry Carpenter said in the statement. “It's an issue of marketing, and that should be decided in the marketplace. We hope the Senate will move quickly to vote for repeal so the President can sign the bill and put this failed experiment behind us.”

COOL supporters urged the Senate to quickly vote. Peterson said in his closing comments on the House floor that “we feel repeal is not where we’re going to end up or where we should end up.” He said as it heads over to the Senate he hopes there’s a way to work through the ruling without needing retaliation, according to Feedstuffs.

Roberts added, “We can sit here and let this happen. Or we can move. Let’s get a move on.”

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WTO Rejects Cool Appeal, House Rejects COOL

-->

Posted May 20, 2015

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has rejected a U.S. appeal of its decision that country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on meat unfairly discriminates against meat imports, according to a Food Safety News article available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and The Packer here.

The latest U.S. labeling rules require meat sold in grocery stores to indicate the country, or countries, where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered.

According to a WTO report, the labeling rules unfairly discriminate against meat imports and give the advantage to domestic meat products. But the WTO compliance panel also found that the labels do provide U.S. consumers with information on the origin of their food, countering Canada and Mexico’s assertion that the labels do not serve their intended purpose.

Canadian cattle groups urged Canada to seek immediate permission from the WTO to impose billions in retaliatory tariffs on a wide variety of U.S. exports to Canada, according to The Packer.

Produce industry leaders said specialty crop exports to Canada and Mexico could be at risk if Mexico puts in place retaliatory tariffs, but there is no indication that mandatory COOL regulations for fresh fruits and vegetables will change.

A joint statement from Ed Fast, minister of international trade, and Gerry Ritz, minister of agriculture and agri-food, jointly with Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal, Mexico’s secretary of economy, and Enrique Martínez y Martínez, Mexico’s secretary of agriculture, called on the United States to repeal the COOL legislation, according to Feedstuffs.

“In light of the WTO’s final decision, and due to the fact that this discriminatory measure remains in place, our governments will be seeking authorization from the WTO to take retaliatory measures against U.S. exports,” the statement added. In a separate statement Fast and Ritz said in June 2013 Canada released a proposed list of targeted U.S. imports for retaliatory tariffs and they are now preparing its request to retaliate.

National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson also believes there’s still a future for COOL on meat, according to Food Safety News.

“As we have seen in other disputes, once decisions are handed down, WTO members often work together to find a solution that will work for them,” he said. “In this case, such a solution must involve continuation of a meaningful country-of-origin labeling requirement.”

Update:  The House Agriculture Committee approved H.R. 2393, a bill that would repeal mandatory country of origin labeling requirements (COOL) for beef, pork, and chicken, while leaving intact the requirements for all other covered commodities, according to a Meating Place article available here.

The bill, which amends the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1946, passed the committee by a vote of 38 to 6. A combination of 68 Democrats and Republicans joined Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas) in introducing this bipartisan bill.

“We must do all we can to avoid retaliation by Canada and Mexico, and this bill accomplishes that through full repeal of labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken,” said Conaway in a statement. “We will continue working to get this to the House floor as quickly as possible to ensure our economy and a vast range of U.S. industries and the men and women who work for them do not suffer any economic implications of retaliation.”

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Senate Advances Fast Track Bill

Posted May 18, 2015

The Senate voted 65-33 to advance a Trade Promotion Authority bill, or Fast Track, opening it to votes on amendments that could last until the Memorial Day recess, according to an Agriculture article available here. USA Today also published an article available here and New York Times here.

“The negotiating process has finally worked,” said Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, one of the Democrats who voted for TPA just two days after his party voted against the measure.

This decision comes two days after Democratic senators blocked it. This legislation would grant the president negotiating freedom to complete an expansive trade accord with 11 nations on the Pacific Rim, setting off a contentious congressional debate on one of President Obama’s top priorities for his remaining time in office, according to The New York Times.

The six-year reauthorization of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), commonly known as "fast track," creates an expedited process to get trade pacts through Congress and is opposed by most congressional Democrats, according to USA Today.

The Senate trade debate is expected to roll into next week. If TPA passes, the House is on track to follow suit in June. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said the bill will be open for amendment, and Democrats are likely to seek additional votes on currency manipulation as well as worker and environmental protections, among other issues.

Farm groups called on Congress to move ahead with fast-track legislation, according to Agriculture.

“For America’s farmers and ranchers to see continued export growth, we must pen deals that knock down trade barriers,” said California Farm Bureau President Paul Wenger. 

For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Ag Groups Worried Over TPP Finalization Before TPA Enacted

Posted January 28, 2015

U.S. trade officials could finalize the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the coming months, according to a Reuters article available here. Farm Futures also published an article available here, Washington Post here, and The Hill here.

The TPA, also referred to as "fast-track," limits Congress' ability to add amendments to key trade deals and allows Congress to take an up-or-down vote these trade deals, according to Farm Futures.

Ag groups are worried that this trade deal will not advance without the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch also expressed concerns about TPP being finalized before enacting TPA, according to The Hill.

"Doing so may lead to doubt as to whether the U.S. could have gotten a better agreement, ultimately eroding support for TPP and jeopardizing its prospects for passage in Congress,” said Hatch.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) both support the push, according to Washington Post.

“This president has earned our distrust, but having said that, I still support TPA,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), an Obama critic and former head of the House Oversight Committee. “I still want to have the trade team be able to go forward and make good offers.”

Hatch also stated that there was not a definite timeline for introducing the TPA bill, but he hoped to move it in February, according to Reuters.

For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

China Approves Syngenta Corn, GMO Trait MIR 162

Posted December 22, 2014

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that Chinese officials have approved imports of Syngenta GMO corn trait MIR 162 and two varieties of biotech soybeans, according to a Farm Futures article available here. The Wall Street Journal also published an article available here, Star Tribune here, and Chicago Tribune here.

The country already has rejected more than 1.2 million tons of U.S. corn since the ban was imposed.

This change could resume stronger corn trade with China after they started rejecting U.S. shipments with any traces of Viptera, according to Star Tribune.

The genetically engineered corn seed, MIR 162, protects corn against damage from more than a dozen insect species.

Syngenta has previously stated that several major corn importing countries other than China approved the seed, because it was commercialized “in full compliance with regulatory and legal requirements.”

Each country has a regulatory system to “gauge the safety and appropriateness" of each product, according to the Chicago Tribune.

"The key would be for us to have greater alignment between our regulatory systems and their regulatory systems. Not that we would dictate what conclusions they would reach, but that we would better synchronize, or time, what we do. The Chinese have been reluctant to do that," said Vilsack.

China does not start the process until the U.S. has completed its process, which could delay a product’s availability "by a matter of years," he said.

Ethanol producers could benefit the most as China’s approval allows for resumed purchases of distillers’ dried grains, a byproduct of ethanol production used for animal feed, according to John Payne, senior market analyst at Daniels Trading. Chinese livestock producers are one of the biggest purchasers of feed, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“The bigger win is in the ethanol [industry],” said Mr. Payne.

For more information on biotechnology, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

 

WTO Ruled in Favor of U.S.

Posted October 15, 2014

India broke several World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules when it banned imports of American poultry, meat, eggs and live pigs according to an article on the Des Moines Register available here. USA Today also published an article available here and Reuters here.

In 2007, the trade panel struck down an agricultural ban by India to prevent avian influenza from making its way into the country even though the United States has not had a case since 2004.

“India’s ban was thinly veiled protectionism. Free and fair trade, particularly with food, should never be used as a political bargaining chip,” said James Sumner, president of the USA Poultry and Egg Council, and Michael Brown, president of the National Chicken Council, according to Reuters.

India has 60 days to appeal the WTO ruling.

The ruling could increase imports of poultry and eggs from the U.S., even though India could restrict them using other measures including, anti-dumping duties if U.S. exporters tried to sell their products at cheap prices.

David Miller, director of research and commodity services for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, said the decisions by the Indian government have “hurt U.S. farmers and denied consumers the choice of buying American-made products,” according to

Des Moines Register.

"Iowa and U.S. farmers want a level playing field for international trade and we are confident that the WTO dispute resolution process provides an avenue for that to happen," Miller said. "We want all WTO members to abide by the rules that have been established and to avoid using arbitrary, non-scientific claims to prevent competition."

For more information on international law and organizations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Senators Making Efforts to Keep COOL

Posted October 8, 2014

On Monday, a group of 32 U.S. Senators urged Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Richard Shelby to ensure legislation that would eliminate Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is not included in fiscal year 2015, according to a Farm Futures article by Janell Thomas available here. KEVN also published an article here and Food Safety News here.

COOL provides consumers with trustworthy information regarding the origin of meat by labeling the country in which the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered.

Thirty-two senators have written a letter to leaders of the Appropriations Committee requesting that they delay the COOL rule until the trade dispute between Canada and Mexico has resolved, according to Food Safety News.

“As the Senate debates how to provide funding for the federal government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2015, we urge you to reject efforts to weaken or suspend [COOL] through any continuing resolution or omnibus appropriations bill,” wrote the signatories, who include Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and Mike Enzi (R-WY).

The letter also states that it is "critical that Congress not short–circuit ongoing efforts to support American producers and consumers," according to KEVN.

The Senators also noted that efforts to undermine the COOL rule before completion of the World Trade Organization (WTO) process would "disadvantage American producers and roll-back the transparency within out meat markets," according to Farm Futures.

COOL supporters have suggested that if the rule is upheld, it will continue to put a burden on the packing industry and put pressure on trade relations with both Canada and Mexico.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

U.S., Brazil Resolve Decade-Long Dispute

Posted October 2, 2014

On Wednesday, The U.S. and Brazil ended a decade-long dispute over subsidies paid to cotton growers, according to a Reuters article by Paulo Whitaker available here. ABC News also published an article here, The Hill here, and Feedstuffs here.

As part of the agreement, the U.S. will pay $300 million to the Brazil Cotton Institute and Brazil will not take any further trade measures against the United States.

“Today’s agreement brings to a close a matter which put hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. exports at risk," said U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. 

The agreement resolves a fight between the two countries since 2002 when “Brazil brought a case against the United States charging that the subsidies Washington paid American cotton farmers were a violation of global trade rules.” The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in Brazil's favor and the U.S. was forced to make annual payments, according to ABC News.

The agreement also allows the Obama administration to implement the farm bill. A new insurance measure intended for cotton growers was created to comply with the WTO ruling that previous cotton support payments violated WTO rules against subsidies.

A House Democrat expressed concerns about the agreement, according to The Hill.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the United States, “never should have been in a situation where we have to pay off Brazil while vulnerable families suffer.”

“Our farm subsidies need serious reform and the last farm bill simply extends the status quo. The best way to resolve this issue is to remove our market-distorting cotton payments,” said Rep. DeLauro.

Secretary Vilsack also made a statement, according to Feedstuffs.

"Through this negotiated solution, the United States and Brazil can finally put this dispute behind us. Without this agreement, American businesses, including agricultural businesses and producers, could have faced countermeasures in the way of increased tariffs totaling hundreds of millions of dollars every year. This removes that threat and ensures American cotton farmers will have effective risk management tools."

For more information on international law and organizations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Rough Week for U.S., Japan Trade Talks

Posted September 30, 2014

Trade talks with Japan experienced a bumpy week when both countries blamed the other for a “stalemate over farm exports,” according to a Reuters article by Krista Hughes and Linda Sieg available here. Wisconsin Ag Connection also published their article here and Cattle Network here, and Feedstuffs published an article available here.

On Wednesday, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman and Japanese Economy Minister Akira Amari met in Washington to discuss bilateral Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.

“While there were constructive working level discussions over the weekend, we were unable to make further progress on the key outstanding issues,” USTR said in a statement, according to Feedstuffs.

The TPP is a regional trade agreement among 12 Pacific Rim countries, including Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States, which makes up for almost 40 percent of global GDP.

U.S. pork producers believe the Japanese are to blame for the halt in negotiations, according to Reuters.

The Japanese have been, and continue to be, holding up the entire negotiation. They've got to fish or cut bait," said Nick Giordano, National Pork Producers Council vice president.

U.S. President Barack Obama anticipates a TPP agreement by the end of the year, but others are not so sure.

"There will have to come a time that the U.S. realizes that unless they are flexible, they will not have a package, or else they (negotiations) may continue for an indefinite time," said a Japanese government source.

At a Friday meeting, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed both sides could do more on TPP, and Biden said that he would go back to work to find a solution.

For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Cargill Seeking Damages from Syngenta

Posted September 19, 2014

Cargill files a lawsuit against Syngenta Seeds seeking damages for China rejecting U.S. genetically modified (GMO) corn, according to a Reuters article by Tom Polansek available here. Farm Futures also published an article available here, Minneapolis Star Tribune here, and The Wall Street Journal here.

Cargill stated in court documents that $90 million was lost due to Syngenta’s sale of Agrisure Viptera corn, known as MIR 162, to U.S. farmers without obtaining prior import approval from China, which resulted in refusal of boatloads of U.S. crop containing the variety.

In August, China’s Ministry of Agriculture refused to renew certificates that allowed Chinese research groups to grow genetically modified rice and corn even though the country has stated that GMO foods are safe. China is also refusing to accept imported GMOs that are not approved by the government, according to the Star Tribune.

According to Cargill, China’s Ministry of Agriculture has refused more than 1.4 million metric tons of corn after traces of Viptera were discovered.

A Cargill spokesman said the corn in question was diverted to other ports that would accept the corn. However, Cargill wants to make an example out of Syngenta’s business practices.

"Unlike other seed companies, Syngenta has not practiced responsible stewardship by broadly commercializing a new product before receiving approval from a key export market like China," said Mark Stonacek, president of Cargill Grain & Oilseed Supply Chain North America. "Syngenta also put the ability of U.S. agriculture to serve global markets at risk, costing both Cargill and the entire U.S. agricultural industry significant damages," according to Farm Futures.

Stonacek said that seed companies, farmers, grain handlers, exporters and others have a “shared responsibility to maintain and preserve market access when introducing new technology.”

For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Stabenow to Create Foreign Acquisitions Legislation

-->

Posted September 17, 2014

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow is developing new legislation to change how the government reviews foreign investors’ purchases of American companies, according to an U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee release available here. Farm Futures also published an article available here and Politico here.

Stabenow’s concerns were voiced during a PBS Newshour Investigation highlighting the acquisition of Virginia-based Smithfield Foods by Shuanghui International, which would be the largest American company purchase by China.

“Food security is national security,” said Stabenow in the report available here. “And I can’t imagine that the American people will feel comfortable if they wake up someday and find that half of our food processors are owned by China. And I think there are some very, very tough questions that need to be answered.”

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. approved the sale even with concerns from the agriculture industry, according to Farm Futures.

Stabenow was “relatively skeptical” of the situation.

"I'm all about exports, I want to see us export our products but it seems to me removing the unfair barriers from China would be a lot quicker and more efficient than saying the only way they can get in is if they own our company. That just doesn't make sense to me," said Stabenow.

For more information, the two-part PBS Newshour investigation is available here.

For more information on international law and organizations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

 

China Increases U.S. Sorghum Import Regulations

Posted September 4, 2014

China’s quarantine authorities have stopped shipments of U.S. alfalfa due to the presence of genetically modified organism (GMO) traits, according to a Hay and Forage article by Jeff Holmquist available here. Reuters also published an article available here.

A year ago, alfalfa was rejected for export from a Washington state farmer after it tested positive for a GMO trait that should not have been present.

Chinese feed mills have been purchasing U.S. sorghum as a cheap substitute for corn and is the world’s largest U.S. sorghum importer, according to Reuters.

"There are worries in the market, which should reduce imports of sorghum in later months," said Zhang Yan, an analyst at Shanghai JC Intelligence Co. Ltd (JCI).

There are concerns that the current 5 percent GMO threshold is no longer acceptable and may be released to 0.2 percent, according to Hay and Forage.

However, the new standard may not be realistic for China or U.S. exporters.

“The Chinese want to have a certain confidence of the hay being GMO-free,” says Harry Kreeft, plant pathologist and nematologist at Western Laboratories. “You can make tests as sensitive as you want, but you have to be realistic. Plus the Chinese also know they need the hay.”

China’s quarantine authority has asked ports to increase screening standards of alfalfa imports, according to Reuters.

For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

USTR Seeking Comments for Annual Report

Posted August 27, 2014

The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will convene a public hearing to seek public comment to assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

The comments will help the USTR prepare their annual report to the Congress on China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Comments are accepted until September 17, 2014. Parties wishing to testify are also to submit notification of their intention and summary of testimony by Sept. 17.

A hearing will be held on October 1, 2014 in Washington, DC.

The Federal Register is available here.

Putin Issues Decree to Ban Imports from U.S. and Europe

Posted August 7, 2014

As a result of Western sanctions imposed over its support for rebels in Ukraine, Russia ordered a ban on all imports of food from the United States and all fruit and vegetables from Europe, according to a Reuters article by Polina Devitt and Maria Tsvetkova available here. The Los Angeles Times also published an article available here, The Wall Street Journal here, and The Des Moines Register here.

The ban will hit consumers at home and farmers in the West the worst. Moscow is the biggest buyer of European fruit and vegetables and the second biggest importer of U.S. poultry.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decree instructed the government to create an action plan and draft a list of products that would be banned. “Officials should take measures to balance the food market and prevent an acceleration in price increases for agricultural and food products," according to LA Times.

"America's farmers and ranchers would have been more surprised if Russia's leaders had not announced bans and restrictions on food and agricultural imports," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "It is unfortunate that the biggest losers in this will be Russian consumers, who will pay more for their food now as well as in the long run,” according to The Des Moines Register.

Putin is attempting to show that the West is not equipped to defend Ukraine, said Andrew S. Weiss, a Russia expert and vice president for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "When someone is cornered, do they relent or do they escalate? Throughout the crisis, Putin has been in favor of escalating," Mr. Weiss said, according to The Wall Street Journal.

If Russia banned all U.S. meat and poultry, it would not cause devastating effects on American farmers.

Last year, U.S. meat and poultry Russian exports totaled $329 million, which is less than a fourth of 2008 levels, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Russia only represents 7 percent of U.S. chicken exports by weight now, which was 40 percent in the 1990s, according to the U.S.A. Poultry and Egg Export Council.

The biggest U.S. exports to Russia are commercial aircraft employed in state-controlled airlines, cars, mining equipment, and oil field machinery, which were not threatened by Putin's decree. Overall, Russia represents about 1 percent of U.S. international trade, but it represented almost 7 percent of the EU's exports in 2013.

Russia has already banned a several agricultural imports from other countries that imposed sanctions, but cited food-safety concerns. McDonald's Corp. was accused of violating safety rules and was threatened by Russian regulators to ban the sale of some products, according to LA Times.

Russia spends $2.7 billion a year on European fruit and vegetables and imports large amounts of meat, dairy products and processed food, however; Russia produces all the enough grain to meet domestic demands and provide a large surplus of wheat and barley for export.

For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.