U.S. must act
To the Editor:
In advance of the June 25, 2015, meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I would like to provide Canada’s views on country of origin labeling (COOL) and trade retaliation for the consideration of the committee.
The long dispute over COOL has caused significant harm to the integrated livestock industry on both sides of the border, and risks causing significantly more harm should Congress not repeal the legislation forcing Canada to impose retaliatory tariffs. The time has come to get a clean fix to resolve this issue once and for all.
Read Also
Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations
Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.
Following a fourth consecutive, and final, decision siding with Canada, on June 4, 2015, Canada formally requested World Trade Organization authorization to impose over C$3 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. As the WTO has previously found Canada’s economic analysis, prepared by internationally recognized University of California Davis economist Dan Sumner, regarding COOL’s discrimination to be robust, Canada is confident in its assessment. Added to this is Mexico’s request to impose $870 million.
Canada will soon be in a position to apply retaliatory tariffs on a range of U.S. goods such as beef, pork, ethanol, cherries, corn as well as manufactured products.
It is now up to the U.S. Senate to take constructive action to avoid imposing additional pain on U.S. exporters. The only way to avoid retaliation will be to end the segregation that discriminates against our livestock exports.
For Canada, legislative repeal of COOL is the only approach that will achieve this end. Canada is supportive of chairman Michael Conaway’s bill (H.R. 2393) that received strong bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Other approaches such as a legislated “voluntary” label or a generic label are not satisfactory outcomes for Canada and would force Canada to impose retaliatory tariffs, as early as late summer.
The United States Department of Agriculture has already recognized that COOL has cost the U.S. livestock and meat industry $1.8 billion with no benefit to consumers, and these costs will rise exponentially if this is not resolved by late summer.
With this important finish line fast approaching, it is essential that the U.S. Senate repeal COOL for meat before the beginning of its summer recess in order to avoid any further economic impacts.
Mother Nature rules
To the Editor:
Your front page photo and caption “Praying for rain” (WP, June 11) speaks volumes.
Continuous cropping is a great, fantastic idea. When it works, it works very well.
However, if the farmer planted his canola in the very field in the photograph and got a frost then, yes, he takes the risk of a severe crop loss to frost.
Mankind always thinks he can rule Mother Nature. All that stubble upon the soil does not allow that canola field to retain heat from the sun like summerfallow or blackened stubble. The heat radiating from the warmed soil would have a better chance to save that stubble canola crop from frost damage or loss.
Even in the fall, the stubble canola crop has a better chance of damage than the blackened stubble field or summerfallow field.
Case in point occurred in 2004. That spring my neighbour and I planted our canola crop upon adjoining fields the very same day. His was on stubble and mine was on summerfallow. The land was the same elevation. Both crops grew very well. We had a severe frost in early August that year. The stubble canola crop had major frost damage. My summerfallow canola crop, because of heat radiating off the black summerfallow soil, had absolutely zero damage. Yields amounted to about the same, however, the stubble canola was downgraded so bad that the price was very poor. The summerfallow canola was No. 1 grade and the price was eight times greater.
To be fair, moisture is important. In fact, this June is the driest at my farm since 2001. In order to match the second driest since 2001, I still require double this month’s rainfall to date.
Mother Nature rules and if mankind thinks he can run Mother Nature she will eventually retaliate and hit mankind hard.
