From a recent speech:
In the 19th Century, when Ricardo developed what was to become the foundations of international trade theory, countries exported what they produced. In fact, the industrial revolution took root in countries that had coal mines and iron ore. A Portuguese entrepreneur importing a steam engine from England would know that everything from the steel of the wheels to the boiler pressure gauge came from the United Kingdom. Similarly, an English club importing Port wine for its members could be sure that it came from Portugal.
Today, Port wine is still of Portuguese origin. Thanks to progress on registered designations of origin, the English importer today is in fact more certain of this than his 19th Century counterpart. However, the concept of country of origin for manufactured goods has gradually become obsolete as the various operations, from the design of the product to the manufacture of the components, assembly and marketing have spread across the world, creating international production chains. Nowadays, more and more products are “Made in the World” rather than “Made in the UK” or “Made in France”.
So with manufacturing, we have an integrated production system, in which products are made all over the world. That is an improvement, right? As Lamy says, the old concept of country of origin has become "obsolete." We are becoming more integrated, and losing touch with our old nationalist impulses. It has not yet happened for people, but at least our products are truly "citizens of the world."
And yet with "designations of origin," the old ways remain. Products come from one country only; production is not integrated. I know he refers to "progress" on registered designations of origin, but was the larger point intended as a subtle dig at the idea of designations of origin and the 19th century mentality they reflect?
Probably not, but still, the contrast between the two situations is noticeable.
Some problems to come in this area:
Rep. Tom Petri has joined with other members of the Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus in sending a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk expressing concerns about the European Union's increased use of "geographic indicator" protections for cheese products.
"A lot of people know the French have long insisted that only champagne which actually comes from the Champagne region of France has the right to be called 'champagne,' and they enforce that definition wherever they can," Petri explained. "Now Europe is trying to broaden the use of so-called 'geographic indicators' in ways which threaten our dairy industry."
The European Union recently signed a free trade agreement with South Korea which includes provisions asserting geographic indicator protections for many generic cheese names, including Provolone, Parmesan, Romano, Feta, Asiago, Gorgonzola, Grana and Fontina.
If implemented fully, these restrictions could mean that, within the South Korean market, U.S. exporters would be restricted from using those generic cheese names for their cheese products.
"Obviously, the Europeans would like to stifle U.S. competition in cheese products all over the world, and South Korea is just an opening shot," Petri said.
The letter Petri sent to Trade Representative Ron Kirk asks him to work with the Koreans to ensure that concessions granted for U.S. dairy exports in the proposed U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement are not undermined by the geographic indicator protections asserted by Europeans.
How will an EU-Korea FTA, a U.S.-Korea FTA, and the WTO agreements interact on this issue?
