Per quarta vegada en els darrers tres anys, l'OMC ha rebutjat el Reglament de desenvolupament del país obligatori de carn de la Llei d'origen (REFREDAR) aprovada per l'u. Congrés. The Appellate Body ruled the U.S. Legislació fresc, com va passar en 2002 i modificat en 2008 i a 2013, viola l'Article 2.1 del Conveni sobre comerç barreres tècniques (TBT), que requereix membres WTO tractar productes importats “no menys favorable que concedia com productes d'origen nacional i com productes originaris de qualsevol altre país.” The Body also upheld the earlier finding that COOL did not violate Article 2.2 de l'acord TBT, que requereix la normativa tècnica “no ser més comerç-restrictius que cal complir un objectiu legítim.”

Normativa estatal fresc són una confluència de govern nacional compromisos regles WTO mercats obert al comerç internacional, national political influences in response to open markets and economic forces that are constantly changing comparative advantages in markets. All three of these policies need to be in alignment with each other to avoid the policy conflicts that have occurred in recent years. The immediate outlook is that a more harmonious alignment may be developing.

What has not changed is the WTO commitment to open trade. Within the workings of the WTO policy process is an institutional bias in favor of trade and against subsidized production that competes in trade. The so-called ‘national treatment’ issue that tripped up COOL is a basic rule of open trade. While that ruling was made under WTO commitments, it is also consistent with open trade under NAFTA. The ruling sets somewhat of a bright line on what is permissible under WTO commitments. That line had become rather blurred in the last ten years of debate on COOL. La 36-8 votació en la Comissió d'Agricultura dels diputats derogar fresc per carn vermella i aviram pot ser una indicació de què havia estat una divisió de consens bastant estrets en u. política per i contra fresc pot haver desplaçat a la contra part, com a mínim per ara.

Independentment de com els EUA. política s'ha desplaçat, Els canadencs i Mexicans han guanyat repetidament sobre el cas fresc a l'OMC i tenen dret a indemnització. While the House Agriculture Committee has made a good first step, there are some indications the Senate may not follow. As long as there is not complete repeal, retaliation remains on the table. Com l'u. es troba en el cotó brasiler i exportar crèdit cas, working out a compensation agreement can be a long process. The winning party controls the process. One encouraging sign is that Senate Agricultural Committee Chair Roberts (KS-R) va dir, “Vaig a considerar qualsevol solució – incloent-hi la derogació quant a carn-que permetrà als Estats Units ser compatible amb WTO i evitar represàlies de Canadà i Mèxic."

Que surt de l'economia de canvis en la producció ramadera i processament com l'última part del procés, i el més difícil, to influence the outcome. Some Canadian interests give the impression that repealing COOL will automatically roll the production clock back seven years. Changes have occurred because of COOL and for other reasons that will not be reversed. The drought in the southern plains and west has shrunk the total beef cow herd in the three countries and forced the closure of beef slaughter and processing plants. The beef herd may be rebuilt, però no en els mateixos llocs.

There was not something particularly right or wrong about the livestock industries in the three countries in 2008. It was a snapshot at one point in time. Some thought the sow herd in Canada had expanded too rapidly. That is why it was hard to measure the impact of COOL because it was hard to measure a beginning point. This may cause problems in the compensation negotiations, però no és una raó per retardar el procés.

Those who are calling for a delay in the process of resolving the WTO dispute are taking the wrong approach. Appealing the initial ruling was defending a law passed by Congress and some members of the President’s party thought they could fix it with new regulations. Now even U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack agrees that it cannot be implemented within WTO commitments. Continuing to disagree with two of our biggest trading partners in that case clearly serves no useful purpose for the U.S.

The supply/demand balance in the North American pork and beef markets is probably better than in 2008. Com es va assenyalar anteriorment, the beef herd has shrunk due to drought. Pork production has been hurt by disease. China has been added to the market on the demand side, tot i que l'u. no tenen accés a aquest mercat.

The Obama Administration’s support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) i el comerç transatlàntic i Associació d'inversió (TTIP) trade agreements has called more attention to the benefits of more open trade. It is counter-productive to try to lead on new trade agreements while continuing to deal with past disagreements with major trading partners.

COOL is clearly now in the political arena where it should be. S.g. política comercial, com més política econòmica, is under the control of Congress. The WTO decisions show what is inconsistent with our trade policies. Economic forces will drive production and use whether or not Congress is paying attention. Between those two is a fertile middle ground where political forces can operate. Many things could go wrong in finding the agreeable middle ground. It is the current interest in overall trade policy that will lead to an acceptable political outcome.

Ross Korves és un comerç i analista de política econòmica de veritat sobre comerç & Tecnologia (www.truthabouttrade.org). Segueix-nos: @TruthAboutTrade i @World_Farmers a Twitter | Veritat sobre comerç & Tecnologia en Facebook.