Archive

ShareThis Page
Trade retaliation could cost U.S. $2B | TribLIVE.com
News

Trade retaliation could cost U.S. $2B

Tribune-Review
| Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:45 p.m

WASHINGTON — Mexico would seek “hundreds of millions” of dollars in trade retaliation against the United States if Washington does not change meat labeling laws, a Mexican official said, as Mexico and Canada kept up pressure on the United States to act.

The World Trade Organization ruled last month that the United States had failed to bring its meat labeling regulations fully in line with international fair trading rules after a complaint by its two neighbors. The ruling would be a step toward potential retaliation if packaging laws are not changed.

Canada estimates rules requiring retailers to list country of origin on meat cost its farmers and processors $1 billion a year in lost sales and lower prices, and warned on Friday.

Studies on the damage to Mexico would run into the “hundreds of millions,” the Mexican official said on Tuesday.

This could take total retaliation from Canada and Mexico to as much as $2 billion.

“Neither Mexico nor Canada will accept anything less than a full solution,” said the official. Acceptable options include scrapping the labeling law or replacing labels such as “Born in Mexico, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States” with a generic “North American” source, the official said.

The United States has said it may appeal the decision on country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, and in that case a final WTO ruling is likely between April and June 2015.

Under WTO rules, retaliation is linked to the level of damage done by the offending actions, with the exact amount worked out in negotiation with the parties.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association said Wednesday the COOL law forced Canadian and Mexican cattle to be segregated, adding costs along the supply chain.

“For the U.S. to come into compliance it has to make a legislative change and that legislative change has to be significant enough to eliminate the need to segregate,” CCA counsel Edward Farrell said at a Heritage Foundation event on Wednesday.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.