I love how we're now complaining about countries efforts to maintain domestic food production which is actually a justifiable security concern.
I don't have a problem with the US supporting dairy production either but when we start talking about exporting that heavily subsidized product it's an entirely other thing. Really we should have excise taxes to recoup those subsidies and then we could happily send some stuff to Canada at those inflated prices. Canada would probably be way more cool with that to boot.
I am confused as to what sort of "climate" is required to raise cows.
Most dairy cows do not do that well when it gets too cold. It is why wisconsin has a ton of dairy cows and MN which used to be a big dairy producer in the northern part of the state wound up with most of the dairy farms closing shop or moving south. My grandpa was a dairy farmer in upper MN and the conditions for it get pretty marginal up there.
It also is not that you can't have dairy cows in northern MN or canada but generally your milk yields will be less and it is more expensive and harder to maintain the herds. In MN the farms there just could not match the production yields that were being seen in places like wisconsin and california. Without the tariffs in canada on dairy their whole industry likely evaporates as I don't think canada could compete for dairy production and costs with wisconsin let alone the entire USA.
It also is not that you can't have dairy cows in northern MN or canada but generally your milk yields will be less and it is more expensive and harder to maintain the herds. In MN the farms there just could not match the production yields that were being seen in places like wisconsin and california. Without the tariffs in canada on dairy their whole industry likely evaporates as I don't think canada could compete for dairy production and costs with wisconsin let alone the entire USA.
I'm sorry what? You're saying Wisconsin doesn't have a cold winter climate? You do know where Wisconsin is right? Compare that to where the bottom chunk of Ontario is.
The whole canadian dairy tarrifs seems to be like the US sugar ones. Trying to maintain a commodity with locally available production in a climate barely able to sustain it. Wisconsin has more cows than canada does. Without tariffs the local dairy production in canda likely shuts down almost over night as they simply can't be competitive.
1. Not relevant. What is relevant is that the US has about 9 million dairy cows and Canada 900k which is roughly in proportion to the populations
2. Wisconsin is roughly at the same latitude as parts of ON and QC, which not so coincidentally is where 2/3rds of Canadian cows are located, and is in the same climate group so I'm not sure how you can say the climate has that much to do with it
Relative production isn't even all that different either. A cow in the US produces just over 9 tons of milk, in Canada it's 8 tons (still top 10 globally)
The whole canadian dairy tarrifs seems to be like the US sugar ones. Trying to maintain a commodity with locally available production in a climate barely able to sustain it. Wisconsin has more cows than canada does. Without tariffs the local dairy production in canda likely shuts down almost over night as they simply can't be competitive.
1. Not relevant. What is relevant is that the US has about 9 million dairy cows and Canada 900k which is roughly in proportion to the populations
2. Wisconsin is roughly at the same latitude as parts of ON and QC, which not so coincidentally is where 2/3rds of Canadian cows are located, and is in the same climate group so I'm not sure how you can say the climate has that much to do with it
Relative production isn't even all that different either. A cow in the US produces just over 9 tons of milk, in Canada it's 8 tons (still top 10 globally)
If the two bolded statements are true, how is it that the US overproduces milk so dramatically whereas Canada doesn't? (Or does Canada, and we don't know about it?) Is it a consumption difference? A processing difference?
From what I can find, it appears that Canadians and Americans consume very similar amounts of milk butter & cheese per capita (with Americans having 3kg cheese/year more). Meanwhile the US has ~15% more production per capita, so I suppose the extra either has to go somewhere or drive prices down
Dairy is a bit weird in that virtually every processing method removes tons of volume so I don't know how to compare export numbers
From what I can find, it appears that Canadians and Americans consume very similar amounts of milk butter & cheese per capita (with Americans having 3kg cheese/year more). Meanwhile the US has ~15% more production per capita, so I suppose the extra either has to go somewhere or drive prices down
Dairy is a bit weird in that virtually every processing method removes tons of volume so I don't know how to compare export numbers
Yeah that's why I asked about processing. I can easily imagine American cheese being made with less milk, or whatever. I do remember that a lot of American chocolate is made with rancid milk, using more sugar and less cocoa, and I could imagine that overall that could result in less milk being used in consumer products. Weird though.
From what I can find, it appears that Canadians and Americans consume very similar amounts of milk butter & cheese per capita (with Americans having 3kg cheese/year more). Meanwhile the US has ~15% more production per capita, so I suppose the extra either has to go somewhere or drive prices down
Dairy is a bit weird in that virtually every processing method removes tons of volume so I don't know how to compare export numbers
Yeah that's why I asked about processing. I can easily imagine American cheese being made with less milk, or whatever. I do remember that a lot of American chocolate is made with rancid milk, using more sugar and less cocoa, and I could imagine that overall that could result in less milk being used in consumer products. Weird though.
Just cause we make shit flavored chocolate doesn't mean our cheese is bad too.
I think some of you are getting things mixed up. We have some processed abomination that is called American cheese, this is a type of a 'cheese," not the entire US cheese industry.
So I'm wondering when Trump's bullshit is going to force the check that states he doesn't get to pull us out of treaty because he is a petty little shit because it looks like that is about to be triggered. Dude doesn't want this to succeed. He seems to keep finding shit to use as excuses, that isn't really popular. I mean both the US and Canada subsidize their milk industries. I generally have a ton of problems with the amount of subsidiaries some countries, namely the US give out because it's often a handout to rich assholes that don't deserve, that then turn around to shit on the poor, while accusing them of being moochers. Food though is one of those things where I'm not opposed to any government taking some steps to ensure a certain amount of their major food stables stay in house because shit happens.
The whole canadian dairy tarrifs seems to be like the US sugar ones. Trying to maintain a commodity with locally available production in a climate barely able to sustain it. Wisconsin has more cows than canada does. Without tariffs the local dairy production in canda likely shuts down almost over night as they simply can't be competitive.
1. Not relevant. What is relevant is that the US has about 9 million dairy cows and Canada 900k which is roughly in proportion to the populations
2. Wisconsin is roughly at the same latitude as parts of ON and QC, which not so coincidentally is where 2/3rds of Canadian cows are located, and is in the same climate group so I'm not sure how you can say the climate has that much to do with it
Relative production isn't even all that different either. A cow in the US produces just over 9 tons of milk, in Canada it's 8 tons (still top 10 globally)
If the two bolded statements are true, how is it that the US overproduces milk so dramatically whereas Canada doesn't? (Or does Canada, and we don't know about it?) Is it a consumption difference? A processing difference?
I believe at least part of this stemmed from the US allowing the use of rBGH to increase production of milk per dairy cow, as well - it came up a few years back as part of the TPP talks, where I believe Canada and NZ and the EU don't allow the use of the hormones to increase production, citing food safety and animal welfare, while the US does allow it. It was pretty extensively marketed to US farmers by Monsanto, but it was banned elsewhere in the early 2000s, I think.
American cheese is just a combination of two cheeses. It is called a cheese product because a combination of two cheeses can't be called cheese.
Why can't it?
Because money. Processed cheese was cheaper and had a longer shelf life because they pasteurized it. I suspect you could still otherwise call your hybrid cheese "cheese"
Wholesalers and distributors of natural cheese found themselves sidelined by Kraft and its competitors, and they accused the processors of fraud for passing off their products as cheese. They beseeched the Wisconsin legislature and the federal government to regulate the products, sometimes suggesting that the stuff be called “embalmed” or “renovated” cheese. Federal guidelines ultimately embraced a more appealing appellation: process cheese. By law, the fat and moisture content of pasteurized process cheese must match that of natural cheese. “Process cheese foods,” such as Kraft’s everpopular Velveeta (introduced in 1928), and “processed cheese spreads,” such as Cheez Whiz (1952), have a higher moisture content and may contain whey, skim or powdered milk, and other ingredients to alter taste and consistency.
American cheese is just a combination of two cheeses. It is called a cheese product because a combination of two cheeses can't be called cheese.
Why can't it?
Because money. Processed cheese was cheaper and had a longer shelf life because they pasteurized it. I suspect you could still otherwise call your hybrid cheese "cheese"
Wholesalers and distributors of natural cheese found themselves sidelined by Kraft and its competitors, and they accused the processors of fraud for passing off their products as cheese. They beseeched the Wisconsin legislature and the federal government to regulate the products, sometimes suggesting that the stuff be called “embalmed” or “renovated” cheese. Federal guidelines ultimately embraced a more appealing appellation: process cheese. By law, the fat and moisture content of pasteurized process cheese must match that of natural cheese. “Process cheese foods,” such as Kraft’s everpopular Velveeta (introduced in 1928), and “processed cheese spreads,” such as Cheez Whiz (1952), have a higher moisture content and may contain whey, skim or powdered milk, and other ingredients to alter taste and consistency.
That seems different though. That's not mixing two things that are cheese, that's making something new that doesn't meet a different definition of what cheese is.
edit: I've been googling this to try and find and example, but the prevalence of mixed milk cheeses makes it surprisingly tricky. First example I could find was something called Colby-Jack cheese.
American cheese is just a combination of two cheeses. It is called a cheese product because a combination of two cheeses can't be called cheese.
Why can't it?
Because money. Processed cheese was cheaper and had a longer shelf life because they pasteurized it. I suspect you could still otherwise call your hybrid cheese "cheese"
Wholesalers and distributors of natural cheese found themselves sidelined by Kraft and its competitors, and they accused the processors of fraud for passing off their products as cheese. They beseeched the Wisconsin legislature and the federal government to regulate the products, sometimes suggesting that the stuff be called “embalmed” or “renovated” cheese. Federal guidelines ultimately embraced a more appealing appellation: process cheese. By law, the fat and moisture content of pasteurized process cheese must match that of natural cheese. “Process cheese foods,” such as Kraft’s everpopular Velveeta (introduced in 1928), and “processed cheese spreads,” such as Cheez Whiz (1952), have a higher moisture content and may contain whey, skim or powdered milk, and other ingredients to alter taste and consistency.
That seems different though. That's not mixing two things that are cheese, that's making something new that doesn't meet a different definition of what cheese is.
edit: I've been googling this to try and find and example, but the prevalence of mixed milk cheeses makes it surprisingly tricky. First example I could find was something called Colby-Jack cheese.
Because of lobbying. The same reason certain chocolate cannot be called “chocolate” if it doesn’t have enough % of cocoa in certain places.
Cooking cheese (that is what pasturizing means) doesn’t make it not cheese in the same way that cooking a steak doesn’t make it pork.
“My job, my mission, was to send a very strong signal of strength. And this was particularly important on the eve of a far more important summit, in Korea. And the problem is, in conveying that message I used language that was inappropriate and basically lost the power of that message,” Navarro said at a Tuesday conference in Washington hosted by the Wall Street Journal. “I own that, that was my mistake, those were my words.
“When you make a mistake, you should admit it, learn from it, don’t repeat it,” Navarro said. Asked if he was apologizing to Trudeau, Navarro said, “Yeah, absolutely.”
He did not mention Trudeau’s name himself or directly address the prime minister.
Navarro said on Fox that his words came “straight from Air Force One.” He delivered them the day after Trump himself criticized Trudeau and shortly after Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, insulted Trudeau himself. ...
Kudlow explained on CNN that the administration was lashing out at Trudeau to show Kim that Trump was not weak.
:rotate:
hippofant on
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Hopefully Trudeau never accepts the apology. The harsh language isn't even the worst of it. Accusing a nation's leader of "backstabbing" the US President simply for explaining how Canada plans to respond to tariffs in direct response to a question from the press is nonsense and completely out of line. Saying "oh I shouldn't have said Hell" is a half-assed apology at best.
WASHINGTON – High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning by inflammatory secret remarks from President Donald Trump, after the remarks were obtained by the Toronto Star.
In remarks Trump wanted to be “off the record,” Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday, according to a source, that he is not making any compromises at all in the talks with Canada — but that he cannot say this publicly because “it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”
“Here’s the problem. If I say no — the answer’s no. If I say no, then you’re going to put that, and it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal...I can’t kill these people,” he said of the Canadian government.
In another remark he did not want published, Trump said, according to the source, that the possible deal with Canada would be “totally on our terms.” He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs.
“Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to the source. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario.
Trudeau’s team believed the remarks to be accurate, and it saw them as confirmation of its suspicions that Trump’s team has not been truly planning to compromise. Earlier on Friday morning, before becoming aware of the remarks, a Canadian official told the Star the U.S. side was not offering “any movement” on the issues most important to Canada.
So at the outset of the Friday meeting — which was expected to involve Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and senior Trudeau adviser Gerald Butts among others on the Canadian side and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and senior Trump aide Jared Kushner among others on the U.S. side — Trudeau’s officials unveiled the quotes to their U.S. counterparts.
On the record, Trump told Bloomberg that a deal was “close,” that it could happen by Friday but might take longer, and that Canada ultimately has “no choice” but to make a deal. Bloomberg quoted these remarks.
But then he said, “Off the record: totally on our terms. Totally.”
“Again off the record, they came knocking on our doors last night. ‘Let’s make a deal. Please,’” he said.
How is anybody going to argue an impasse is Canada being unreasonable?
WASHINGTON – High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning by inflammatory secret remarks from President Donald Trump, after the remarks were obtained by the Toronto Star.
In remarks Trump wanted to be “off the record,” Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday, according to a source, that he is not making any compromises at all in the talks with Canada — but that he cannot say this publicly because “it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”
“Here’s the problem. If I say no — the answer’s no. If I say no, then you’re going to put that, and it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal...I can’t kill these people,” he said of the Canadian government.
In another remark he did not want published, Trump said, according to the source, that the possible deal with Canada would be “totally on our terms.” He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs.
“Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to the source. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario.
Trudeau’s team believed the remarks to be accurate, and it saw them as confirmation of its suspicions that Trump’s team has not been truly planning to compromise. Earlier on Friday morning, before becoming aware of the remarks, a Canadian official told the Star the U.S. side was not offering “any movement” on the issues most important to Canada.
So at the outset of the Friday meeting — which was expected to involve Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and senior Trudeau adviser Gerald Butts among others on the Canadian side and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and senior Trump aide Jared Kushner among others on the U.S. side — Trudeau’s officials unveiled the quotes to their U.S. counterparts.
On the record, Trump told Bloomberg that a deal was “close,” that it could happen by Friday but might take longer, and that Canada ultimately has “no choice” but to make a deal. Bloomberg quoted these remarks.
But then he said, “Off the record: totally on our terms. Totally.”
“Again off the record, they came knocking on our doors last night. ‘Let’s make a deal. Please,’” he said.
How is anybody going to argue an impasse is Canada being unreasonable?
Easy: By being intellectually dishonest. Which is the cornerstone of the modern conservative movement.
WASHINGTON – High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning by inflammatory secret remarks from President Donald Trump, after the remarks were obtained by the Toronto Star.
In remarks Trump wanted to be “off the record,” Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday, according to a source, that he is not making any compromises at all in the talks with Canada — but that he cannot say this publicly because “it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”
“Here’s the problem. If I say no — the answer’s no. If I say no, then you’re going to put that, and it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal...I can’t kill these people,” he said of the Canadian government.
In another remark he did not want published, Trump said, according to the source, that the possible deal with Canada would be “totally on our terms.” He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs.
“Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to the source. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario.
Trudeau’s team believed the remarks to be accurate, and it saw them as confirmation of its suspicions that Trump’s team has not been truly planning to compromise. Earlier on Friday morning, before becoming aware of the remarks, a Canadian official told the Star the U.S. side was not offering “any movement” on the issues most important to Canada.
So at the outset of the Friday meeting — which was expected to involve Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and senior Trudeau adviser Gerald Butts among others on the Canadian side and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and senior Trump aide Jared Kushner among others on the U.S. side — Trudeau’s officials unveiled the quotes to their U.S. counterparts.
On the record, Trump told Bloomberg that a deal was “close,” that it could happen by Friday but might take longer, and that Canada ultimately has “no choice” but to make a deal. Bloomberg quoted these remarks.
But then he said, “Off the record: totally on our terms. Totally.”
“Again off the record, they came knocking on our doors last night. ‘Let’s make a deal. Please,’” he said.
How is anybody going to argue an impasse is Canada being unreasonable?
Basically this tells us that Trump thinks he can extort Canada and get whatever he wants. He still doesn't understand the situation at all except in mob-boss/sleazy real-estate-developer terms.
Off the record is an informal agreement between a reporter and a source to not disclose a conversation. The traditional ethics of the practice are that it needs to be agreed upon ahead of time - an interviewee can’t say something then say its off-the-record like its take-backsies.
Of course, being an informal agreement, the exact practice comes down to the reporter.
Setting aside doomsaying "he'll just ignore the law" predictions, isn't NAFTA legislatively baked into the US and would require 60 senate votes to repeal?
Setting aside doomsaying "he'll just ignore the law" predictions, isn't NAFTA legislatively baked into the US and would require 60 senate votes to repeal?
Yup. Oddly by pulling out he might put the US in a position where exports are screwed but imports are the same as always.
Also this overlaps with the immigration thread because NAFTA also provides for a type of immigration visa >.<
Posts
I don't have a problem with the US supporting dairy production either but when we start talking about exporting that heavily subsidized product it's an entirely other thing. Really we should have excise taxes to recoup those subsidies and then we could happily send some stuff to Canada at those inflated prices. Canada would probably be way more cool with that to boot.
Between 25 and 65 degrees f?
Most dairy cows do not do that well when it gets too cold. It is why wisconsin has a ton of dairy cows and MN which used to be a big dairy producer in the northern part of the state wound up with most of the dairy farms closing shop or moving south. My grandpa was a dairy farmer in upper MN and the conditions for it get pretty marginal up there.
The Canadian industry is worth around 20 billion, the American industry is worth over 100 billion.
And our dairy farms still sell milk for 1/3 of its production cost.
How dare Canada not let use destroy their dairy economy with our shitty cheap milk.
Do not confuse American made cheese with the garbage that is processed cheese also made in America.
I'm sorry what? You're saying Wisconsin doesn't have a cold winter climate? You do know where Wisconsin is right? Compare that to where the bottom chunk of Ontario is.
Hint: Wisconsin is more north/about equal.
1. Not relevant. What is relevant is that the US has about 9 million dairy cows and Canada 900k which is roughly in proportion to the populations
2. Wisconsin is roughly at the same latitude as parts of ON and QC, which not so coincidentally is where 2/3rds of Canadian cows are located, and is in the same climate group so I'm not sure how you can say the climate has that much to do with it
Relative production isn't even all that different either. A cow in the US produces just over 9 tons of milk, in Canada it's 8 tons (still top 10 globally)
If the two bolded statements are true, how is it that the US overproduces milk so dramatically whereas Canada doesn't? (Or does Canada, and we don't know about it?) Is it a consumption difference? A processing difference?
Dairy is a bit weird in that virtually every processing method removes tons of volume so I don't know how to compare export numbers
Yeah that's why I asked about processing. I can easily imagine American cheese being made with less milk, or whatever. I do remember that a lot of American chocolate is made with rancid milk, using more sugar and less cocoa, and I could imagine that overall that could result in less milk being used in consumer products. Weird though.
Just cause we make shit flavored chocolate doesn't mean our cheese is bad too.
So I'm wondering when Trump's bullshit is going to force the check that states he doesn't get to pull us out of treaty because he is a petty little shit because it looks like that is about to be triggered. Dude doesn't want this to succeed. He seems to keep finding shit to use as excuses, that isn't really popular. I mean both the US and Canada subsidize their milk industries. I generally have a ton of problems with the amount of subsidiaries some countries, namely the US give out because it's often a handout to rich assholes that don't deserve, that then turn around to shit on the poor, while accusing them of being moochers. Food though is one of those things where I'm not opposed to any government taking some steps to ensure a certain amount of their major food stables stay in house because shit happens.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I believe at least part of this stemmed from the US allowing the use of rBGH to increase production of milk per dairy cow, as well - it came up a few years back as part of the TPP talks, where I believe Canada and NZ and the EU don't allow the use of the hormones to increase production, citing food safety and animal welfare, while the US does allow it. It was pretty extensively marketed to US farmers by Monsanto, but it was banned elsewhere in the early 2000s, I think.
Double Cheese sounds more cheese than cheese product.
It's the hotdog of cheese, basically. It doesn't have to be shit, but it is allowed to be.
A cheese filled hotdog on an "enriched" flour bun is the turducken of processed food.
Why can't it?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
https://web.archive.org/web/20060719152753/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2001/1/2001_1_8.shtml
That seems different though. That's not mixing two things that are cheese, that's making something new that doesn't meet a different definition of what cheese is.
edit: I've been googling this to try and find and example, but the prevalence of mixed milk cheeses makes it surprisingly tricky. First example I could find was something called Colby-Jack cheese.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Because of lobbying. The same reason certain chocolate cannot be called “chocolate” if it doesn’t have enough % of cocoa in certain places.
Cooking cheese (that is what pasturizing means) doesn’t make it not cheese in the same way that cooking a steak doesn’t make it pork.
Processed cheese is a combination of cheeses
Cheese food/product is one or more cheeses plus additives
Also, pink slime is meat. (N.b. most countries are pretty wary of the US getting to define food categories/labels for them.)
Also, Peter Navarro has kinda sorta apologized for insulting Trudeau, but not for being a feckless Trump shill: Trump adviser apologizes for saying Trudeau has ‘special place in hell’:
:rotate:
https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html How is anybody going to argue an impasse is Canada being unreasonable?
Easy: By being intellectually dishonest. Which is the cornerstone of the modern conservative movement.
Off the record doesn't mean other publications can't publish it if they get their hands on a leak somehow.
Basically this tells us that Trump thinks he can extort Canada and get whatever he wants. He still doesn't understand the situation at all except in mob-boss/sleazy real-estate-developer terms.
Off the record is an informal agreement between a reporter and a source to not disclose a conversation. The traditional ethics of the practice are that it needs to be agreed upon ahead of time - an interviewee can’t say something then say its off-the-record like its take-backsies.
Of course, being an informal agreement, the exact practice comes down to the reporter.
Yup. Oddly by pulling out he might put the US in a position where exports are screwed but imports are the same as always.
Also this overlaps with the immigration thread because NAFTA also provides for a type of immigration visa >.<