Rep. Lance Gooden, a Republican from Texas, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, on Wednesday introduced H.R. 7291, proposing to restore the word “beef” into existing labeling law under the U.S. Agricultural Marketing Act.

The bill, if passed and enacted, would give U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack up to 180 days to “determine a means of reinstating” mandatory COOL for beef in a way that’s “in compliance with all applicable rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).”

Tai and Vilsack would have up to a year from the date when the bill is enacted to “implement the means” to do so.

“American cattle ranchers are being undercut by foreign competition because current labeling standards allow imported beef to be marked as made in the United States if it is only packaged here,” Gooden said in a release Wednesday. “Our trade policies should promote American-made beef and put the hard-working cattle ranchers in the United States first.”

“It is critical that American consumers are able to make informed decisions about the meat they buy,” Khanna said in the same release. “Consumers should be able to know that they are truly supporting American farmers and ranchers from labels at the store.”

Groups including the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and R-CALF USA also stated their support for the bill in Gooden’s release on Wednesday.

After its introduction Wednesday in the House of Representatives, the bill was referred to both the House agriculture committee and the House Ways and Means committee.

A nearly identical bipartisan bill, S. 2716, was introduced last fall in the U.S. Senate by Sen. John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, and Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, among others.

That bill was introduced Sept. 13, read twice and referred that day to the Senate committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry and has yet to return.

Both of the bills specify restoring COOL for beef must be WTO-compliant, because beef was pulled from the relevant labeling legislation in 2015 after the WTO ruled that COOL violated the United States’ international trade obligations.

COOL was first developed during the Clinton administration, passed near the end of the George W. Bush administration in 2008 and implemented during the Obama administration in 2009. It imposed mandatory origin labels for beef, pork, lamb, chicken and goat meat and certain other perishable commodities where sold at retail in the U.S.

Canada and Mexico responded by challenging COOL at the WTO and in U.S. courts, because the COOL rules — as applied by Vilsack as the Obama administration’s ag secretary — called for U.S. processors of meat from imported animals to provide labels that detailed where the specific animals involved in a given package of meat were born, raised and slaughtered.

The costs involved in segregating animals and production lines to follow that label law prompted some U.S. packers and processors to restrict or halt their imports or cut the prices they paid for Canadian cattle and hogs. Some estimates pegged Canadian cattle and hog producers’ losses to reduced prices and lost sales at over $8 billion.

After the WTO’s 2015 ruling against COOL, the Obama administration repealed the label rules on beef and pork rather than face retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico on U.S. goods.

Since then, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, language has also been included in the 2020 Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) to require that each party ensures any regulations on labeling “accord treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like goods of national origin.”

Any rules on labeling that any of the CUSMA free trade bloc members impose in the future also must “not create unnecessary obstacles to trade between the parties.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post U.S. congressmen seek revival of mandatory COOL on beef appeared first on Grainews.

President Donald Trump’s government has imposed sanctions on dozens of top Venezuelan officials as well as state oil company PDVSA in an effort to remove Maduro, whom it accuses of fixing elections last year and abusing human rights in the oil-rich nation.

Senators Marco Rubio and Robert Menendez sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin asking for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review transactions by JBS, which has bought several U.S. meat companies in recent years, Rubio’s press office said on Twitter.

“This meat-processing conglomerate has engaged in illicit financial activities and has business ties with the Maduro regime,” the Twitter post said.

In a statement, JBS said it had always cooperated “transparently” with U.S. authorities regarding “passed events” in Brazil.

It had improved the management of the companies it acquired in the United States, delivering “solid results” that contributed to farm sector growth, JBS added, and continues to provide opportunities to farming and cattle-raising families.

Venezuela’s information ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In August, Washington froze all Venezuelan state assets in the United States and threatened sanctions on any company continuing to do business with the government.

In their letter to Mnuchin, made public on Tuesday, the senators said CFIUS should investigate the business transactions among JBS, the Venezuelan Corporation of Foreign Trade (CORPOVEX) and Diosdado Cabello, a powerful ally of Maduro who is under U.S. sanctions.

They did not provide further details about the alleged transactions.

The senators said JBS had engaged in the bribery of public officials in Brazil to obtain funds to expand abroad, acquiring in recent years U.S. meatpacker Swift Foods and chicken producer Pilgrim’s Pride.

Assets managed by JBS’s U.S. arm also include its Brooks, Alta. beef packing plant, one of Canada’s largest, with capacity to process up to 4,200 head of cattle per day.

Brothers Joesley and Wesley Batista, founders of JBS’s holding company J+F, signed plea bargain and leniency deals in May 2017, in which they confessed to running a political bribery ring in Brazil.

“We ask CFIUS conduct a review of JBS SA’s acquisition of U.S. companies to assess the implications for security and safety of America’s food supply and, in turn, our national security,” the senators said in their letter.

— Reporting for Reuters by Anthony Boadle.

The post U.S. senators seek probe of JBS appeared first on Grainews.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, said the proposed mergers of Dow and DuPont, Bayer and Monsanto, and Syngenta and ChemChina had potential consequences which were “troubling, in fact alarming.”

Executives at the five companies defended their mergers at a hearing of the U.S. Senate judiciary committee but Blumenthal was one of several senators who were unconvinced.

“The stakes are very high here. I am worried about consolidation in this area of our economy and other areas as well,” said Blumenthal, pressing executives from Bayer and Monsanto to acknowledge that their herbicides Liberty and Roundup, respectively, were competitors.

“They are competitors, yes,” said Bayer CEO Jim Blome, who noted the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup was generic. He said this meant merging the two companies would not reduce competition.

The merger spree began in December, when chemical titans DuPont and Dow Chemical agreed to an all-stock merger valued at $130 billion at the time, a first step toward breaking up into three separate businesses (all figures US$).

Next was ChemChina’s $43 billion takeover of Swiss pesticides and seeds group Syngenta in February. That deal won approval from a U.S. national security panel in August.

In September, two of the three big fertilizer companies, PotashCorp and Agrium, said they would merge and German drug and crop chemical maker Bayer clinched a $66 billion takeover of U.S. seeds company Monsanto.

Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley, committee chair and a farmer, was one of several lawmakers who worried the deals would slow the rate of improvement in seeds and pest control for farmers.

“I’m concerned that further consolidation will diminish critical research and development initiatives which drive innovation,” he said.

The five companies sought to allay that concern and reassure lawmakers that they would keep licensing new types of seeds to smaller companies.

“Especially in agriculture, innovation is a requirement, not a choice,” responded James Collins, an executive vice-president at DuPont.

“This transaction will increase competition in seeds and traits,” he said, noting that DuPont’s strength is in seeds and Dow’s in agricultural chemicals. “We will be a more effective competitor.”

Asked about cross-licensing of new seeds, Bayer’s Blome said Bayer had “no plans to discontinue that.”

— Diane Bartz is a Reuters reporter covering antitrust issues from Washington, D.C. Additional reporting for Reuters by PJ Huffstutter.

The post U.S. lawmakers skeptical of ag chemical, seed merger wave appeared first on Grainews.

Grassley, a Republican from the farm state of Iowa, has already expressed concern that the deals would result in farmers paying more for seeds, pesticides and herbicides and reduce the companies’ incentives to innovate.

“The seed and chemical industries are critical to agriculture and the nation’s economy, and Iowans are concerned that this sudden consolidation in the industry could cause rising input costs in an already declining agriculture economy,” Grassley said.

Dow and DuPont said in December that they would combine in an all-stock merger with plans to then break into three separate businesses. In February, China’s state-owned ChemChina made a US$43 billion bid for Swiss seeds and pesticides group Syngenta.

Executives from the companies will be invited to testify, as will consumer groups, the lawmaker said in a statement.

The committee has no formal say over whether the deals may go forward. The Justice Department is looking at the merger of Dow and DuPont, while the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing ChemChina’s purchase of Syngenta.

— Reporting for Reuters by Diane Bartz.

The post U.S. Senate judiciary committee to hold hearing on ag chem deals appeared first on Grainews.

Earlier this week, the World Trade Organization authorized an annual retaliation level of $1.055 billion for Canada, though that was considerably less than what Canada had sought.

The dispute, fought at the WTO since late 2008, stems from the U.S. requirement that retail outlets label meat with information about its origin. Canada has argued that country-of-origin labeling (COOL) has led to fewer of its cattle and pigs being slaughtered in the U.S., or bought at discounts to U.S.-born and -raised livestock.

“We would rather not have to engage in retaliatory measures, but we certainly will, to stand up for our farmers, to stand up for Canadians who have been unfairly addressed and affected by this legislation,” Trudeau told reporters.

“We will continue to make sure that this gets fixed and we’re going to work with Americans, or against them, to make sure that it happens.”

Asked what impact retaliation might have on the relationship between the neighbouring countries, Trudeau said, “The (U.S.) president understands that the relationship between Canada and the U.S. is far greater than any one issue.”

Passed by the U.S. government in 2008 and implemented in 2009, mandatory COOL requires country-of-origin labelling for beef, pork, lamb, chicken and goat meat, and certain perishable commodities sold at retail outlets in the U.S.

Canada’s opposition Conservatives, who while in government spearheaded the country’s challenges of COOL at the WTO, on Wednesday urged the Liberal government to maintain pressure on U.S. lawmakers, some of whom may soon see a bill to repeal COOL.

The Tories’ international trade critic, former agriculture minister Gerry Ritz, noted Wednesday each member of the U.S. Senate has received a letter from about 250 U.S. companies and trade associations supporting Canada’s stance on COOL.

Ritz urged Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland to “immediately identify the first U.S. goods Canada intends to impose retaliatory measure on, and keep pressure on the U.S. Senate until they repeal COOL.”

The Tories, while in government, drafted Canada’s shortlist of proposed retaliatory tariffs, aimed mainly at U.S. live cattle and hogs and fresh and frozen beef and pork products.

The list also called for tariffs on U.S. cereal, bread, pasta, frozen potatoes, frozen orange juice, wine, cheese, cocoa, apples, cherries, fowl, maple syrup, ketchup, sugars, glucose and fructose and some other food- and non-food-related wares.

The U.S. House of Representatives in June passed a bill calling for COOL to be repealed.

The Tories’ agriculture critic Chris Warkentin on Wednesday also called on Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay to “stop waiting for U.S. inaction and start taking action on behalf of Canadian farmers and ranchers to end these blatantly protectionist rules.”

— Reporting for Reuters by Leah Schnurr in Ottawa. Includes files from AGCanada.com Network staff.

The post Trudeau says prefers to avoid COOL retaliation on U.S. appeared first on Grainews.

On Wednesday, the Senate was likely to vote to grant Obama the power to speed trade deals through Congress, including his Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If that happens, the fast-track measure would then go to the White House for Obama’s signature.

That would be a major win for the Democratic president and a setback for one of his allies, U.S. labour unions that have campaigned against the TPP out of fear that it could destroy U.S. jobs. Still, another question remains.

The Senate also was expected to vote soon on legislation to extend and expand a program of federal aid for workers hurt by international trade. If it is approved, the bill would go to the House of Representatives.

House Democrats voted against that bill just 11 days ago. But that vote was meant to block fast-track, and by extension the TPP. Circumstances have now changed and trade-pact supporters are betting that the House will approve the worker aid bill the next time around.

A House vote on fast-track is possible on Thursday, if the Senate approves it.

“Our goal is to get (both measures) to the president’s desk this week,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

The White House has said that it wants both bills to reach the president’s desk to be signed into law. But a spokesman offered no clarity on Tuesday on whether the president would sign one without the other, or wait for them both to arrive.

Obama administration spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama had no set time frame for signing the bills but that the president is expected to approve both.

Debate limited

The Senate voted 60-37 on Tuesday to limit debate on the fast-track measure. That just barely satisfied the 60-vote threshold needed after two senators who supported the bill on its first run through the Senate a month ago — Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Ben Cardin — changed their votes to “no.”

“Today is a very big vote. It’s an important moment for the country,” said Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s top Republican, in urging senators to support the 12-nation TPP, a central part of Obama’s foreign policy pivot to Asia.

Democrat Sherrod Brown, who voted “no” on fast-track, said the trade deal would benefit companies at the expense of workers. “This is a day of celebration in the corporate suites of this country,” he said after the vote.

Fast-track legislation would let lawmakers set negotiating objectives for trade deals, including the TPP, but restrict them to yes-or-no votes on final agreements.

That would leave just one section of the four-part trade package outstanding, a bill to strengthen customs and enforcement that must be considered by a joint committee of lawmakers from both chambers.

Trading partners want fast-track enacted before finalizing TPP, the biggest trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement liberalized commerce between the U.S., Canada and Mexico two decades ago.

The TPP, potentially a legacy-defining agreement for Obama, would open markets for U.S. exporters such as Intel and Caterpillar, extend monopoly periods for Pfizer and rivals’ medicines, and cut import costs for companies such as Wal-Mart.

— Krista Hughes and Richard Cowan report for Reuters from Washington, D.C.

The post U.S. Senate pushes Obama’s Pacific Rim trade pact forward appeared first on Grainews.