WTO vs Country of Origin Labeling

From Rebekah Wilce, on PR Watch:

The WTO doesn’t want Americans to know where their food was grown or raised. Photo via PR Watch.

“The World Trade Organization (WTO) issued a final ruling today against the U.S.country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law. This popular pro-consumer policy, which informs shoppers where meat and other foods were raised or grown, enjoys the support of 93% of Americans, according to a 2010 Consumers Union poll. Now Congress must gut or change the law to avoid the application of punitive trade sanctions.

The Health Battlefields of Europe … And Why They May Come to Canada

Robert Verkerk, PhD, from the current issue of Vitality Magazine:

Introduction by Helke Ferrie

Robert Verkerk, PhD. Photo via Vitality magazine.

“Robert Verkerk is the executive and scientific director of the Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl) based in the UK. He is an internationally acclaimed expert in agricultural, health, and environmental sustainability with over 30 years’ experience. He successfully challenged Codex issues in international courts.

Here he provides an overview of the ongoing worldwide battle for health freedom. It is essential to understand this global push to protect Big Pharma’s interests, and whom Health Canada really serves (certainly not the public). Dr. Verkerk shows us which strategies seem to work when defending our human right to use non-toxic therapies.

Sandra Finley vs Lockheed Martin?

Like Michael Schmidt’s, this case of Candian Sandra Finley who conscientiously objected to participating in a Canadian census conducted by an American corporation and was subsequently charged and tried in Canadian courts, started more than a year ago. Sandra is set to continue her odyssey through the courts tomorrow, in Saskatoon. Those of us who care about Canadian sovereignty, and who don’t want our country to be swallowed up in a North American Union, would be well advised to take an interest in Sandra’s case. The story that follows came to us as a forwarded email, apparently originating with Sandra herself:

You don’t have to look far to find this sort of thing on the L-M website. This was on their home page.

(Ouch! It’s coming a little too fast!)

FOR NEWCOMERS: I appended material that was circulated in 2008, prior to my original trial date of January 2009. In case you want a quick scroll-through. – Sandra

CONTENTS

Slagging Dairy Supply Management

In the opinion piece from the National Post excerpted below, Terrence Corcoran implies that consumers are being shafted by the government intransigence in continuing to support supply management — i.e. the quota system for milk production — in the face of demands from World Trade Organization members who would like to see our markets opened to foreign imports.

National Post photo by Aaron Lynett

However, Canadian dairy farmers are still making a decent living while U.S. dairy farmers have been operating at a substantial loss for something like a year now. Supply management is what makes that difference. How much longer will American dairy farmers be able to keep operating before the economics of their situation forces many of them to shut down production?

What will Americans drink then? “Dairy Drink” made with imported Chinese milk protein concentrate? Or ultra-pasteurized milk imported from the massive-scale dairy farms of South America?

Is NAIS enforcement beginning? — Amish man in Wisconsin is charged with failing to register his premises

Here’s an excerpt from the story, by Kenny Fox of R-CALF USA, via Op-Ed News:

“Billings, Mont. – It appears that in the state of Wisconsin, which has mandated the first prong of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Animal Identification System (NAIS) through agency rule making, prosecution of individuals opposed to NAIS has begun.

On Sept. 23, 2009, an Amish gentleman named Emanuel J. Miller, Jr., was taken to Clark County Court in Neillsville, Wis., for an evidentiary hearing on complex civil forfeiture for failing to register his premises. The case immediately moved to the first stage of trial. Miller and his father, as well as their church deacon, testified as to their objections to being forced to use the NAIS premises identification number (PIN). As USDA has proudly proclaimed in many glossy brochures, premises registration is the “first step” in the NAIS, and the Wisconsin Amish have become quite aware of this.

On Oct. 21, 2009, in Polk County, Wis., R-CALF USA Members Pat and Melissa Monchilovich are going to trial for the same charges of complex civil forfeiture. Pat and his wife raise cattle in Cumberland, Wis., and have failed to register their property as a premises with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, as Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) requires by regulation.

This is the tip of the NAIS iceberg. One could look upon Wisconsin as the sentinel case in the enforcement measures necessary to bring this nation’s citizens into compliance with NAIS.

AFRAA Tribunal finds DFO action “not fair and reasonable”, orders repayment of $803,753 in milk quota transfer “tax”

Dairy Farmers of Ontario board in action. Photo from DFO website

In a decision handed down December 9, 2008, Ontario’s Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal found that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) did not carry out its public duty to administer milk-production quota transfers in a “just and fair” manner. At issue was the implementation without notice of a 15% transfer assessment (tax) on quota transfers between producers. The most contentious aspect of this new “tax” was that it was implemented without notice and with no phase-in period. Milk quota currently sells for about $30,000 per cow.

The cases of three producers were considered at the tribunal. In all three case, the producers had followed every available avenue to protest the DFO’s tax “assessment” and to request exemptions. As a result of the Tribunal’s decision, the DFO was ordered to refund all the assessments that had been collected on the sale of quota by these three producers — an amount totaling more than $800,000. The Tribunal’s report states: “…The appellants [producers] testified that as a result of the DFO’s actions, they had lost faith and trust in their governing body and, therefore, decided to exit the industry despite facing a large financial loss in doing so…”