Harmonization or New World Order?

I am a big proponent of the harmonization of international standards. This is mainly because I am cheap and believe in efficient, practical solutions to problems. I have always thought that the U.S., Canada, and the EU, for example, could merge their drug approval processes making for a one-stop shop. Once approved by this international body, the drug would be approved for sale in all three jurisdictions. I realize that is far easier said than done. The problem is that every country wants to be able to protect the health and safety of its citizens. And, at a very detailed level, the different organizations may have different approaches. Those details can become stumbling blocks and eventually stymie the whole thing. But, it can be done.

Another objection to this is that the U.S. will be giving up sovereignty and allowing "foreign bureaucrats" to make decisions about the medicines (or foods, or whatever) Americans can use. This, to me, is a red herring. As long as the United States retains a way out of the pact and there is adequate opportunity for judicial or other independent review, I don't think there is much of a sovereignty issue. Even if there is, we trade sovereignty for other benefits all the time. If the decision is reversible and we get a benefit, that is OK with me.

I am thinking about this because of this news item that the U.S. and EU have agreed to accept each other's certifications that products are "organic." This opens the way for companies on either side of the Atlantic to market their products as organic without having to go through re-certification and labeling on the opposite side. According to the report:

“This agreement comes with a double added value. On the one hand, organic farmers and food producers will benefit from easier access, with less bureaucracy and less costs, to both the U.S. and the EU markets, strengthening the competitiveness of this sector. In addition, it improves transparency on organic standards, and enhances consumers' confidence and recognition of our organic food and products,” stated the EU Commissioner responsible for agriculture and rural development, Dacian Cioloş. "This partnership marks an important step, taking EU-U.S. agricultural trade relations to a new level of cooperation"


Of course, this is not the merging of two independent programs. Rather, it is just mutual recognition. Still, it strikes me as a good example of a long term strategy to harmonize standards.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more