Thread: US and the WTO
View Single Post
Old 12-21-2004, 04:30 PM   #1 (permalink)
Mephisto2
Junkie
 
US and the WTO

Quote:
US claims victory in EU trade dispute
December 22, 2004 - 9:34AM

The United States claimed victory in a trade fight with the European Union over the right of US exporters to use geographic food names such as Florida oranges or Idaho potatoes to describe their products in European markets.

US officials said a ruling from the World Trade Organisation upheld US claims that the EU was discriminating against American products and producers by not granting them the right to use "geographical indications" for their products.

"This is a big win for American farmers and food processors," US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said in a statement.

"We brought this case because we believed that, under WTO rules, US farmers, ranchers and other food producers should have the same access to protection for 'geographical indications' as European food producers. Europe clearly failed to provide this access."

EU officials took issue with that claim, saying they had not impeded geographic registrations from producers outside of Europe.

"We did not impede the registration of third countries' GI's. We even welcome it," Claude Veron-Reville, an EU spokeswoman on trade issues, said in Brussels. "The panel has vindicated our GI system."

The US and European officials were commenting on a WTO report that was provided Tuesday to the parties in the dispute but has not yet been made public.

The ruling will not be adopted officially by the WTO for several more months. At that point, the losing side can appeal against the case to a WTO appeals panel.

US officials said if the EU accepts the WTO decision it will force European countries to accept petitions from American companies for "geographical indications."

They said the ruling will help US producers of such products as oranges and other citrus products from Florida, Texas and California, potatoes from Idaho and onions from Vidalia, Georgia.

© 2004 AP
REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/...391804315.html
I have a couple of comments on this.

First and foremost, I'm with the US on this one. It does seem unfair practice to prevent the use of geographical names to differentiate products. So, well done to the US Trade Department (correct term?) and the WTO for making the right decision.

Secondly, I find it intriquing that the US can and regularly does embrace international organizations like the WTO (part of the UN) when it suits its interests. As you Americans say, "Go figure"...

Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360