Sort & Cull
The WTO, Free Trade, and Fair-Weather Friends
We're a fickle bunch when it comes to the WTO, championing its authority and free-trade mission when it serves our purpose, ignoring its rulings and directives when it does not.
Such fair-weather friendship is embarrassingly clear in the wake of Thursday's lame effort by the USDA to "fix" the country-of-origin-labeling law.
Actually, given how the new MCOOL (M for mandatory) regs released call for even greater detail in labeling, thereby increasing the discriminatory costs for Canadian and Mexican livestock producers (i.e., the exact component of the program that the WTO found unacceptable early last summer), "lame" may be too kind a word.
How about "oblivious," "confrontational," or "irresponsible?"
In fairness, the WTO's original judgment of MCOOL was not free from ambiguity. On one hand, the international trade body affirmed the United States' right to adopt labeling requirements that provide information to American consumers about the meat they buy. On the other, the WTO ruled that the specific way MCOOL was implemented creates an unfair competitive environment for imported Canadian and Mexican cattle and hogs.
P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
But advanced degrees in international law and economics were hardly necessary to understand the WTO's true emphasis.
Since evolving out of GATT in the late 1990s, the WTO has been the world's lonely policeman of free trade, working to reduce tariffs and trade barriers wherever possible. On paper, the U.S. is a big supporter of both the WTO and the principle of free trade.
Of course, papers often get lost in the wash of domestic politics and the perception of short-term market advantage.
If U.S. packers found it necessary to bid lower on Canadian and Mexican livestock in order to offset the expense of complying with old MCOOL specs (e.g., sorting, separating, labeling), how much more will they be forced to minimize the cost of foreign cattle and hogs in order to live with the demands of even tougher specs?
Let me be clear. While I think a healthy packing sector is as crucial to overall market vitality as a robust cow/sow sector and a hearty feeding sector, I have no interest in paving the way of processors per se.
Making MCOOL easy on packers is hardly the point.
The critical point is that MCOOL (emphasis on "M" as in mandatory) puts our export-hungry livestock industry on the wrong side of free trade. Future growth in the beef and pork industries absolutely depends on a non-stop war against unjustified tariff and trade barriers around the globe.
Frankly, anyone who thinks the mysterious prompting of patriotic appetites through red, white, and blue labeling can somehow unleash a home-grown surge in consumption that is larger and more promising than the potential of foreign demand has simply not been reading the hard data.
Apparently the politicos at the USDA are right in the middle of this illiterate crowd.
(AG)
© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
Comments
To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .