L'Administració Obama sembla estar cursant un enfocament normatiu per abordar un WTO governant que l'u. país d'origen de l'etiquetatge (REFREDAR) law for meat discriminates against hogs and cattle imported from Canada and Mexico. Meat retailers are required to put labels on cuts of beef, pork and ground meat or to post signs in display cases that list the origin. L'u. perdut un novembre 2011 Sentència WTO en un cas de Canadà i Mèxic que fresc situades una càrrega de registre de manteniment en empaquetadors de carn compra bestiar de Canadà i Mèxic.
At the heart of the case is a simple principle known as ‘national treatment’ under the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. The laws of a country must treat imported products the same way as domestic products are treated so they are not disadvantaged in the marketplace. The issue is not about labeling laws; the federal government has the right to require labels stating sources of origin. It is the market impact of the law on imported products that is in question.
L'àrbitre per al cos de liquidació OMC disputa governat el desembre 4 l'any passat a una petició per Canadà i Mèxic per un "període raonable de temps" que l'u. has to establish how it will comply with the ruling. The WTO Appellate Body had ruled on June 29 el recurs de la novembre 2011 sentència contra l'u. Llei, but had not set a date for compliance. The Dispute Settlement Body officially accepted the ruling on July 23. The general guideline is that the time needed for compliance should not exceed 15 mesos. Canada had requested a compliance date of late January and Mexico a March date. L'u. sol·licitat 15 mesos. The arbitrator chose May 23, deu mesos després de la sentència va ser acceptada.
The WTO process is indifferent to a legislative correction or a regulatory one as long as the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the impacted countries. The COOL law was legislated in the 2002 i 2008 farm bills and went into effect in March 2009. Attempts were made last year in the House and Senate to pass a new farm bill, but changes in COOL to address the WTO ruling were not part of the bills or the general debate. A new farm bill is not likely to be enacted by the May 23 deadline for action and there is no other legislation that is expected to move before then to attach COOL changes. A regulatory solution appears to be the default option. Si l'u. no és en compliment de maig 23, Canadà i Mèxic pot començar tràmits per emprendre les accions represàlia contra els EUA.
Alguns líders de la indústria ramadera Canadà han proposat que l'u. canviar la llei per permetre que tots els animals vius sacrificats en la EUA fresc. to be eligible for a U.S.-origin label. That is not going to happen. Under current law, que la carn s'etiqueta producte dels EUA. i Canadà i subjecte a costos de compliment que condueixen a la comunicats perdudes rendes per productors canadencs.
Roger Johnson, el President dels EUA. Unió Nacional de pagesos (NFU) i defensor de la llei actual fresc, va dir U dins. Comerç his organization believes USDA can adjust its labeling regulations and be in compliance with the WTO ruling. His organization will provide specific recommendation for regulatory changes.
La NFU també està ajudant a senadors Mike Enzi (WY-R) i Jon Tester (MT-D) circular una carta esborrany a u. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. While the authors disagree with the WTO ruling, creuen que l'administració haurien d'adoptar tres principis crítics en resposta a la mateixa. These are a regulatory fix, proporcionar als consumidors informació precisa sobre l'origen de tota carn, i treballar amb grups d'interès sobre noves regulacions. These are good principles, but do not provide the kinds of specific actions the Canadians and Mexicans expect. Canadian industry officials are already complaining that they see little effort on regulatory changes.
The Canadian are preparing for retaliation. The Canadian Pork Council has an analysis that shows accumulated direct costs of COOL to Canadians at $2 milions de dòlars, a més un addicional $442 milions en reduir els enviaments de carn de porc i suprimida preus per porcs alimentador. Compensation rights are estimated at $500 milions l'any. Any actual retaliation would be determined by the WTO, no els productors canadencs.
Hi ha altres factors que han impactat moviment de sacrifici de porcs i porcs alimentador a l'u al costat de fred. Canadian hog inventories declined by over 20 per cent de 2006 a 2011 after expanding rapidly the previous ten years. The value of the Canadian dollar has also become much stronger and achieved parity with the U.S. dollar after being undervalued for years. Iowa State Economist Dermot Hayes says that Asia has become a much larger market for pork meat and has led Canadian pig producer to feed pigs at home rather than ship them to the U.S. A WTO analysis would sort out all of these issues to arrive at an appropriate compensation amount.
L'OMC no pot obligar els EUA. Congress to change the COOL law. The Dispute Settlement Body has already ruled the regulations are not consistent with U.S. commitments to the WTO. The USDA has three options. It can comply by changing regulations as suggested by the Canadians. If that requires a change in law, the Congress would need to decide to make that change. USDA could negotiate with the Canadians for some alternative compliance that would address their concerns while being less burdensome for the U.S. The third option is to take no action and have Canadian and Mexican governments return to the WTO Appellate Body to establish the level of compensation. That could be tariffs on U.S. producte de porc, other food products or general goods and services. These would continue indefinitely if the regulations are not changed.
The best options are to fully comply with the ruling under the current COOL law or change the law and then the regulations. Simply paying compensation is meant to only be used when the losing country believes that the ruling is clearly wrong or complying would place an inordinate burden on the country. The goal of the WTO dispute settlement process is to work out differences, per no deixar que es mantingui en el lloc.
És en l'u. government’s best interest to find a solution as it expects other countries to do so when they lose cases. A regulatory solution without a change in the law is the best option. Si que no es pot aconseguir, llavors un canvi en la llei és el millor resultat.
Ross Korves és analista de política econòmica de la veritat sobre comerç & Tecnologia (www.truthabouttrade.org). Segueix-nos: @TruthAboutTrade a Twitter | Veritat sobre comerç & Tecnologia a Facebook.