尋求原產國標籤裁定的監管解決方案

奧巴馬政府似乎正在尋求一種監管方法來解決WTO對美國的裁決. 原產國標籤 (涼) 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. 美國. 輸了一個十一月 2011 世貿組織對加拿大和墨西哥提起的一案作出裁決，稱COOL給購買加拿大和墨西哥牲畜的肉類包裝商造成了創紀錄的負擔.

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.

世貿組織爭端解決機構的一名仲裁員於12月裁決 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 在十一月的呼籲 2011 對美國的裁決. 法, 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 個月. Canada had requested a compliance date of late January and Mexico a March date. 美國. 要求的 15 個月. The arbitrator chose May 23, 裁定被接受十個月後.

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 和 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. 如果美國. 到五月份還沒有達到要求 23, 加拿大和墨西哥可能開始對美國採取報復行動的程序.

加拿大畜牧業的一些領導人建議美國. 更改COOL法律，以允許在美國屠宰的所有活體動物. to be eligible for a U.S.-origin label. That is not going to happen. Under current law, 肉被標記為美國產品. 和加拿大，並要遵守法規規定的費用，導致加拿大生產者的收入損失.

羅傑·約翰遜, 美國總統. 全國農民聯盟 (國家大學) 現行COOL法的支持者, 告訴 美國內部. 貿易 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.

NFU還幫助參議員Mike Enzi (要么) 和Jon Tester (MT-D) 向美國散發一封信草稿. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. While the authors disagree with the WTO ruling, 他們認為政府應採取三項重要原則來應對. These are a regulatory fix, 向消費者提供有關所有肉類來源的準確信息, 並與利益相關者合作制定新法規. 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 十億, 再加上一個 $442 豬肉運輸量減少百萬美元，飼餵豬價格下跌. Compensation rights are estimated at $500 million per year. Any actual retaliation would be determined by the WTO, 不是加拿大的生產者.

除了COOL之外，還有其他因素影響了屠宰豬和飼養豬到美國的運輸. Canadian hog inventories declined by over 20 來自的百分比 2006 至 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.

世貿組織不能強迫美國. 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. 豬肉製品, 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, 不要讓他們留在原地.

在美國. 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, 那麼改變法律是最好的結果.

羅斯Korves是一個經濟政策分析師真相關於貿易 & 技術 (www.truthabouttrade.org). 跟著我們: @TruthAboutTrade在Twitter | 真相關於貿易 & 技術在Facebook上.