Do you want to know what country your food comes from?

We think you do and an overwhelming 92% of American’s say -YES in a recent Boston Consulting Group survey of consumers.

Sadly, the WTO (World Trade Organization) doesn’t see it that way.  The WTO has ruled that U.S. producers of beef, poultry, lamb and other agriculture products must remove the current legislated Country of Origin Labeling from their packages by May 23rd. (less then 2 short months away)
So, now consumers will lose the transparency in their food supply that for years they have fought for.  Scary, but true.
What is even scarier is that mainstream media hasn’t picked up on this story in a major way so, many consumers don’t even know what is about to happen in May to the packaging of the goods they buy everyday for themselves and their families.
So, what can you do about it.

1st Let your Grocer, Retailer and Producer know this is important and you want to know where your food comes from
2nd tell them we have an independent solution for you to know and you want to see the label “Product of USA Certified”.

Our company is the  leader in independent, 3rd party certification of the Product of USA Certified claim.  We are a voluntary certification that producers can use on their product and packaging to let consumers know –that they are proudly – PRODUCT OF USA CERTIFIED.

U.S. consumers have the right to now where their food comes from and producers have the right to voluntary market their products with our trademarked certification.

We are the solution that consumers and producers are looking for.

Contact us today for more information.

Product of USA Certified

Please get the word out and follow us on
Facebook Twitter Website

“Trust but Certify”

WTO hands Obama victory in U.S.-China steel case

Reuters/Reuters – A worker checks on coils of steel at a factory in Dalian, Liaoning province

GENEVA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The World Trade Organization barred China on Thursday from imposing duties on certain U.S. steel exports, siding with U.S. President Barack Obama in a dispute with Beijing over a type of steel made in two election battleground states.

The case involved duties imposed by China on “grain-oriented electrical steel,” which is used in the cores of high-efficiency transformers, electric motors and generators. The steel is made by AK Steel Corp of Ohio and ATI Allegheny Ludlum of Pennsylvania.

Although the specialty steel case is tiny compared with other trade disputes with Beijing, the WTO ruling gave Obama a timely win as he defends himself against accusations by his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, that he is soft on China.

“Today we are again plainly stating that we will continue to take every step necessary to ensure that China plays by the rules and does not unfairly restrict exports of U.S. products,” Obama administration trade representative Ron Kirk said in a statement.

China’s Ministry of Commerce had no immediate comment on the ruling, which arrived late in the evening in Beijing.

When the Obama administration filed the case, the volume of specialty steel trade with China was in the range of $250 million. That pales in comparison with the auto and auto-parts trade at issue in the most recent case Washington filed against China in September. The volume of auto parts trade alone amounted to about $12 billion in 2011, according to the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

Read more of this post

U.S. Imposes Anti-Dumping Duties On Chinese Solar Imports

Employees assemble photovoltaic panels at Suntech Power Holdings Co.’s factory in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China, in 2011.

The U.S. Commerce Department imposed tariffs of 31 percent to 250 percent on Chinese solar-product imports, siding with companies including SolarWorld AG (SWV) in the U.S. that said the items were sold below the cost of production.

The fees, announced today in an e-mailed statement, add to duties as high as 4.73 percent imposed earlier for getting unfair subsidies from China’s government. SolarWorld had asked for levies of more than 100 percent. Aaron Chew, a New York- based analyst at Maxim Group LLC, said before the decision that tariffs higher than 10 percent would be considered a victory for the U.S. companies.

“Commerce today put importers and purchasers on notice about the consequences of importing illegally subsidized and dumped products from China,” Gordon Brinser, the SolarWorld unit’s president, said in a statement.

The Commerce Department said a final determination on the tariffs would be made in early October. U.S. customs agents will collect a deposit or bond on solar cells made in China in the 90 days before today’s decision.

SolarWorld said its Hillsboro, Oregon-based U.S. unit can’t compete with Chinese exporters, including Suntech Power Holdings Co. (STP), the world’s largest solar-panel maker, and Trina Solar Ltd. (TSL) unless tariffs are imposed. Suntech was told to pay 31.22 percent, Trina’s levies were set at 31.14 percent and others were told to pay duties ranging from 31.18 percent to 249.96 percent.

Shares Rise

U.S.-based solar-product companies rose in New York trading after the announcement. First Solar Inc. (FSLR) climbed 94 cents, or 6.7 percent, to $14.92, and SunPower Corp. (SPWR)added 51 cents, or 10 percent, to $5.59.

Opponents of the punitive tariffs, such as the Washington- based Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy, which includes Westinghouse Solar Inc. (WEST) and more than 100 other companies, claim the levies would cost U.S. jobs.

Read more of this post

U.S. to appeal WTO ruling against meat labels

Reuters
By Doug Palmer and Rod Nickel | Reuters

WASHINGTON/WINNIPEG (Reuters) – The United States said on Friday it would appeal a World Trade Organization ruling against a law requiring country-of-origin labels on all meat sold in grocery stores, a move that disappointed Canada and Mexico, both of which want the law changed.

The meat labels became mandatory in March 2009 after years of debate. U.S. consumer and mainline farm groups supported the requirement, saying consumers should have information to distinguish between U.S. and foreign products.

Big meat processors opposed the provision, which they said would unnecessarily boost costs and disrupt trade.

Read more of this post

Come On, China, Buy Our Stuff!

A Gap Inc. store in Shanghai, China.

A Gap Inc. store in Shanghai, China.

By NYT ADAM DAVIDSON    Published: January 25, 2012

The first time I visited China, in 2005, an American businessman living there told me that the country was so huge and was changing so fast that everything you heard about it was true, and so was the opposite. That still seems to be the case. China is the fastest-growing consumer market in the world, and American companies have made billions there. At the same time, Chinese consumers aren’t spending nearly as much as American companies had hoped. China has simultaneously become the greatest boon and the biggest disappointment.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. In 2000, the United States forged its current economic relationship with China by permanently granting it most-favored-nation trade status and, eventually, helping the country enter the World Trade Organization. The unspoken deal, though, went something like this: China could make a lot of cheap goods, which would benefit U.S. consumers, even if it cost the country countless low-end manufacturing jobs. And rather than, say, fight for an extra bit of market share in Chicago, American multinationals could offset any losses because of competition by entering a country with more than a billion people — including the fastest-growing middle class in history — just about to buy their first refrigerators, TVs and cars. It was as if the United States added a magical 51st state, one that was bigger and grew faster than all the others. We would all be better off.

More than a decade later, many are waiting for the payoff. Certainly, lots of American companies have made money, but many actual workers have paid a real price. What went wrong? In part, American businesses assumed that a wealthier China would look like, well, America, says Paul French, a longtime Shanghai-based analyst with Access Asia-Mintel. He notes that Chinese consumers have spent far less than expected, and the money they do spend is less likely to be spent on American goods. Read more of this post

%d bloggers like this: