Die Obama-Regierung scheint eine WTO zur Bewältigung entscheidet, dass die US-einen Regulierungsansatz zu verfolgen. Land-Ursprungskennzeichnung (COOL) 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. die US-. verlor ein November 2011 WTO-Entscheidung zu Fall gebracht durch Kanada und Mexiko, dass COOL einen Rekord halte Belastung für Fleischverpacker platziert Kauf kanadische und mexikanisches Viehs.
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.
Ein Schiedsrichter für das WTO-Streitbeilegungsgremium entschied am Dezember 4 of last year on a request by Canada and Mexico for a ‘reasonable period of time’ that the U.S. has to establish how it will comply with the ruling. The WTO Appellate Body had ruled on June 29 über eine Beschwerde des November 2011 Urteil gegen den US-. Gesetz, 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 Monate. Canada had requested a compliance date of late January and Mexico a March date. die US-. fordert 15 Monate. The arbitrator chose May 23, 10 Monate nach der Entscheidung angenommen wurde.
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 und 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. If the U.S. ist nicht in Erfüllung von Mai 23, Kanada und Mexiko können Verfahren beginnen Vergeltungsmaßnahmen gegen die US-nehmen.
Einige Führer der kanadischen Viehwirtschaft haben, dass die US-Vorschlag. das COOL Gesetz ändern alle lebenden Tiere in der US-geschlachtet zu ermöglichen. to be eligible for a U.S.-origin label. That is not going to happen. Under current law, dass Fleisch Produkt der US-markierte. und Kanada und vorbehaltlich der Einhaltung Kosten, die Führung zu den gemeldeten verloren Einkommen für die kanadischen Hersteller.
Roger Johnson, der Präsident der US-. National Farmers Union (Verlust) und Unterstützer des aktuellen COOL Gesetz, erzählte In uns. Handel 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.
Der NFU hilft auch Senatoren Mike Enzi (O-R) und Jon Tester (MT-D) einen Entwurf eines Schreibens an US-zirkulieren. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. While the authors disagree with the WTO ruling, sie glauben, dass die Verwaltung, um es drei kritische Prinzipien in Reaktion annehmen sollte. These are a regulatory fix, die Verbraucher genaue Informationen über den Ursprung aller Fleisch, und die Arbeit mit den Beteiligten über neue Regelungen. 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 Milliarde, plus einer zusätzlichen $442 Millionen reduziert Schweinefleisch Sendungen und unterdrückt die Preise für Feeder Schweine. Compensation rights are estimated at $500 Millionen pro Jahr. Any actual retaliation would be determined by the WTO, nicht die kanadischen Hersteller.
Es gibt andere Faktoren neben COOL, die Bewegung von Schlachtschweinen und Feeder Schweine auf die US-wirkt haben. Canadian hog inventories declined by over 20 Prozent aus 2006 zu 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.
Die WTO kann die US-erzwingen. 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. Schweinefleisch Produkt, 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, nicht zu lassen, sie an ihrem Platz bleiben.
Es ist in der US-. 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. If that cannot be achieved, dann in dem Gesetz eine Änderung ist das beste Ergebnis.
Ross Korves ist eine Wirtschaftspolitik Analyst mit Wahrheit über Handel & Technologie (www.truthabouttrade.org). Folge uns: @TruthAboutTrade auf Twitter | Wahrheit über den Handel & Technologie auf Facebook.