Thursday, November 29, 2012

Tougher standards sought for ‘Made in America’ label; be prepared for a ‘Made in World’ label coming to a product near you!



This process, which critics call deeply deceptive, can leave American consumers assuming they are buying from primarily domestic sources, when, in fact, most of their money is going overseas.
“Companies are gaming these rules,” said Alan Uke, owner of a specialty lighting manufacturer and author of “Buying America Back,” which lays out a strategy that he is hoping lawmakers on Capitol Hill will consider.
Under his proposal, American manufacturers would be able to distinguish genuine “Made in America” products – which are produced entirely in the U.S. – from those that are not. He proposes a redesigned country-of-origin label on all consumer goods listing where its components originate, what is the balance of trade between that country and the United States, and the location of the main offices of the company that sells the product.
Currently, U.S.-made parts and content must be disclosed for only a few specific categories of goods, including automobiles and textile, wool and fur products. There is no law that other products disclose the amount of U.S. content, but those that want to be labeled “Made in USA” must meet standards set forth by the Federal Trade Commission.
The agency in the 1990s considered a regulation that would have set a standard that U.S. manufacturing costs equal at least 75 percent of the total manufacturing cost and that final work to prepare the product for market be done in the United States, but the proposal did not become part of the final guidelines.
Mr. Uke is working with Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, California Republican, to update the label laws, so consumers have a much better sense where their products come from. He expects the legislation to be introduced early next year.
“The whole idea is to help U.S. businesses by helping consumers make an informed decision,” Mr. Bilbray said. “I think there are a lot of consumers who would be willing to pay more, but they wouldn’t necessarily have to.”
This isn’t the first time Mr. Uke and Mr. Bilbray have worked together. In the 1990s, they pioneered a plan, known as the Smog Index, that required auto manufacturers to list emissions the same way they informed drivers of the mileage rates. The idea became law as an amendment to the Clean Air Act.Read more: 

ARE YOU READY FOR ‘MADE IN THE WORLD’?

Country-of-origin labels being targeted by World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization is moving closer to eliminating country-of-origin labels and replacing them with “Made in the World” initiative labels because they say we need to “reduce public opposition to free trade” and “re-engineer global governance.”
An America that prides itself on independence and celebrates that independence every year on July 4 should want absolutely no part in allowing the advancement of global governance that aims to eliminate the one thing that allows American consumers to know from where the products they buy originate: The “Made in USA” label.MORE

“Made in the World”

The “Made in the World” initiative has been launched by the WTO to support the exchange of projects, experiences and practical approaches in measuring and analysing trade in value added.

Today, companies divide their operations across the world, from the design of the product and manufacturing of components to assembly and marketing, creating international production chains. More and more products are “Made in the World” rather than “Made in the UK” or “Made in France”. The statistical bias created by attributing the full commercial value to the last country of origin can pervert the political debate on the origin of the imbalances and lead to misguided, and hence counter-productive, decisions. The challenge is to find the right statistical bridges between the different statistical frameworks and national accounting systems to ensure that international interactions resulting from globalization are properly reflected and to facilitate cross border dialogue between national decision makers.

No comments: