Beef and pork producers who have been hurt by the United States’ country-of-origin labelling law need to provide documentation to their provincial organizations.
Industry leaders say launching a trade challenge could be difficult without proof of lower prices or refusal by U.S. packers to accept Canadian livestock.
“We’re monitoring the effects and asking producers to submit information where they have been affected by COOL,” said Gary Shordy of the Canadian Pork Council.
Mandatory country-of-origin labelling in the U.S. for red meat, poultry, produce and nuts came into effect Sept. 30.
Read Also
Beef check-off collection system aligns across the country
A single and aligned check-off collection system based on where producers live makes the system equal said Chad Ross, Saskatchewan Cattle Association chair.
The Canadian government has promised to take action with support from the Canadian Pork Council and Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.
“In our opinion COOL in some aspect does contravene NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the WTO (World Trade Organization),” said Travis Toews, CCA’s foreign trade chair.
Cattle and pork producers have been demanding a lawsuit for the last year against what they consider a major trade barrier disallowed under NAFTA and WTO rules.
“It is important we come up with some tangible evidence of losses from this rule,” Toews said.
Extra attention must be paid to market effects in the first weeks of the new law to assess what financial damage it does to Canada.
Producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario are probably the hardest hit because some plants have refused to take Canadian cattle or pigs.
A law firm has been retained to monitor the case.
The cattle market has weakened in the last month because of a number of factors, including COOL. Fewer animals are being exported at the height of the feeder run because U.S. feedlots may decide to sit on the sidelines until the rule settles out.
U.S. packer organizations such as the American Meat Institute are working with members to help them comply with what they consider a bad law.
There is widespread uncertainty about the ability to do business on both sides of the border, said Mark Dopp, the institute’s public policy analyst.
The priority is to help members meet requirements for labelling from the point live animals arrive at a plant until meat is delivered to retail outlets. There are costs when live animals must be sorted into separate pens and meat kept separate.
“Everybody will be in a position to comply with this, but how much will it cost?” Dopp said.
“It is a law that you can throw money at but … in a global context does this law make sense? We would argue no.”
The institute surveyed its packer-processor members in 2003 when COOL was proposed and found that they expected it would cost $3.9 billion to implement, of which $2.4 billion would be associated with meat. Costs could have risen since then.
