Unenforced antidumping tarrifs

[Ian]

Just got my January ABJ, and was skimming the Honey Market prices when this frase cought my eyes.

"wholesale honey market has been furthered weakened by a flood of inported honey which appears to be flowing into this country unimpeded by unenforced antidumping tarrif laws"

How can these exporters get away with this? Is there or isnt there a terrif imposed? If so then why isnt it implemented?

I sure know every other tarrif implemented on exports to the US has been held to its meaning!! And regardless of its legal standing! So how can this one be ignored?

Someone please explain to me what I am missing here...

[loggermike]

The Chinese found a loophole in the law and maybe because the USA is so dependant on the Chinese financing our Gov debt,maybe no one is pushing it that hard.There is talk of a voluntary agreement being worked on.......

[Jim Fischer]

The statement in ABJ is simple pandering to the protectionist views of ill-informed and under-educated beekeepers who refuse to admit that the price paid for honey by packers is a world price, based upon world-wide availability.

In Nov 2001 the International Trade Commission ruled that honey imported from Argentina and China was harming US honey producers, and imposed duties of 184% on honey imports, raising the wholesale price to $0.75 a pound. China is considered a "non-market economy" under US trade law, so the US extrapolates the actual cost of production in China by researching the cost of production in a similar country, usually India. (India has higher labor costs than China, so this comparison is not really all that fair to China. On the other hand there is no argument about the massive level of government subsidies provided by China to all producers of export goods.)

The problem is that none of this mattered in the least. Even the outright ban of Chinese honey in 2002 due to chloramphenicol contamination did not stop the ongoing flow of Chinese honey into the USA. They simply shipped it to brokers in other countries, which then (illegally) claimed that the honey was a product of their country. The dead-give away was the sudden massive increase in honey exports from places like Singapore. (Ever been to Singapore? Imagine Manhattan, except newer and without the dirt or crime.) To the knowledge of experts, there are no beekeepers at all on the entire island. Funny how they exported so much honey, isn't it?

Regardless, in the world market for honey, honey banned or tariffed out of one county simply displaces honey elsewhere. For example, in 1996, China agreed to restrict their honey exports to the US. China simply sent honey to willing importers in Europe, so it displaced honey imports from Argentina. Argentina, having been undercut by China in Europe, realized that their honey prices would seem attractive to US importers and packers, and sold their honey to them, pushing down US prices by 20 cents a pound and prompting the dumping charges against Argentina and China that led to the 2001 tariffs.

It is a complicated little game, played with real money. Its not for amateurs, and not at all a game for the patriotic. It appears to be best played by those with no concern for anything but their own personal profit.

[Trevor Mansell]

The real problem lies in the American public. Nobody cares where there food comes from.

[Jim Fischer]

> The real problem lies in the American public.
> Nobody cares where there food comes from.

If you look up news reports on "Country Of Origin
Labeling" (COOL) you will find that there is
overwhelming support from the US consumer for it,
and a real desire to know exactly where their
food comes from. The problem is the meat packers,
honey packers, and other food middlemen, who make
large donations to political election funds, and
expect the politicians that they buy to stay
bought.

There is also a real problem with some foods,
for example beef. What do you say about a cow
born in Mexico, raised in the US, and then
moved to a feedlot in Canada? Where did that
cow "come from"? Which country is the country
or origin? Given that this happens all the
time, meat needs some special consideration.
Other foods don't have that problem, certainly
not honey.

COOL will happen, it is only a matter of time.

[franc]

no argument about the massive level of government subsidies provided by China to all producers of export goods.)


Id say that the USA goverment probably subsidizes the USA honey industry more than the Chinese Goverment subsidizes its honey industry.The Chinese are smart they sell high end products like honey to the USA and buy corn for 3.00 a bushel knowing its costings 15.00 a bushel to produce when you add in all the sudsidies.The Chinese probably wonder how we can sell grain so cheap.JMO

[Trevor Mansell]

"cool" was actually passed on one of the last spending bills I believe. According to a lady at commisioners Bronsons office. In Florida we already have Country Of Origin Labeling required on all food products. Im sure there is support for it ,it sounds like a great idea. But people still dont care all they want is whats cheap.

[Ian]

I take it the tarrif on the "flood of imported honey" is on Chinese honey. So, that meaning a tarrif has to be paid to the govnt on the honey comming directly from China. So is the honey is entering the US "unimpeded by unenforced antidumping tarrif laws", then there is no tarrif being collected. Why even have the tarrif in place to begin with?

Obviously honey will be trading hands abroad, and marketed back the the US with a different orgin, there is nothing stopping that, and there has never been anything to stop that. Not illegal in the least. Done with more than just honey to overstep these unfair tarrifs imposed on other countries, as long as it makes sence on paper, all apart of the world marketing strategy.

But if the stop of trade is to do with health concerns, then problems arise. But also tracers can be used.

I wish I could get away with not paying the tarrif on my wheat, which is illegal you know... Oh well, the Chinese market is a much bigger market for my products anyway.

[JBJ]

"The statement in ABJ is simple pandering to the protectionist views of ill-informed and under-educated beekeepers who refuse to admit that the price paid for honey by packers is a world price, based upon world-wide availability."
Jim, perhaps this is only pandering to those who want to keep American beekeeping profitable so as to assure a steady supply of pollinators and attract new blood to a dying industry. I strive to be versed in the in and outs of international economics and understand the potential virtues (comparative advantages & resource allocation) of free trade, but there are many liabilities also; including but not limited to so called externalities, reliance on foreign food supplies, and national security.
As to the collection of the antidumping tarriffs, this is a topic that should be pursued. Why tariffs are not enforced for honey, and are enforced for other products astounds me. Perhaps beekeepers are easy to walk on and exploit. We should be proactive and use all the leverage we can muster.
There have been several studies that show, in terms of elasticity of demand, the demand curve for honey is relatively inelastic. This should work to the advantage of beekeepers, the price charged will not greatly alter demand, so when the price is higher the consumer will still pay for and consume the same amount, up to a point. I have definitely found that people will pay more for a locally produced premium product. IÂ’ll bet the demand curve for pollinators is interesting also; there are very few substitutes.
I firmly believe that one should buy locally as much as possible, and that profit as oneÂ’s only motive is the definition of true Evil.
JBJ

[Knoefler]

What has happend to the enforcement bill before congress HR1039?

[Jim Fischer]

> What has happend to the enforcement bill
> before congress HR1039?

HR1039 Status:
Introduced by Rep. Charles Pickering [R-MS]
Introduced: Mar 2, 2005
Last Action: Mar 2, 2005: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

So, for the moment, there it sits, in committee.

> Jim, perhaps this is only pandering to those
> who want to keep American beekeeping profitable

Keep???
Dubbaya Tee Eff?
You mean it actually WAS profitable as a business
segment? Pray tell, when was that?

> so as to assure a steady supply of pollinators

You mean like the thousands of packages brought
in from Australia this winter to work the almonds?
That kind of "steady supply"?

> and attract new blood

There's plenty of blood now. Blood in streets,
as beekeepers find themselves squeezed by things
like "ultra-filtered" Chinese honey (formerly
known as Chinese honey contaminated with
antibiotics) sold to 3rd-country middlemen, who
use false flag paperwork to claim that honey
came from places like Singapore, and then to US
packers willing to pretend that places like
Singapore have any beehives at all (they don't).

By things like a price per hive for almond
pollination that dares to creep above $40
generating an "emergency", even though $100
per hive is a tiny faction of the total costs
of or producing a high-profit crop like almonds.
Yeah, sure. A price that still is less that the
1970s price of pollination corrected for inflation
is an "emergency" and a "drastic shortage".

Quick, use your knowledge of international
economics to find ANYTHING that can be bought
today for the same price as it sold for in 1970s,
corrected for inflation.

By things like an apathetic view towards any
form of biosecurity and port-of-entry testing
of the aforementioned imported bees, even though
Canada, Europe, and the UK use exactly that
approach to protect themselves from the NEXT
pest or disease to wander in from the warmer
places on the planet where they all hang out.

By things like fellow beekeepers who can't seem
to understand that "no beekeepers" means that
much of our food would suddenly see price
increases to make gas prices look like a bargain.
(Remember, everyone is going to charge whatever
the market will bear, and a lack of domestic
crops means that we start paying what Japan does
for their imported food crops.) Worse yet, most
of seed production can't happen, which means
that even seeds have to be imported.

> to a dying industry.

You are either part of the problem, or part
of the solution.

> profit as oneÂ’s only motive is the definition
> of true Evil.

Survival is the primary goal, but profitability
would be nice, for a change. If that's evil,
please give every penny you have in the bank
to the poor tomorrow, and THEN you can preach
about profit being "true evil".

[Ian]

>>Quick, use your knowledge of international
economics to find ANYTHING that can be bought
today for the same price as it sold for in 1970s,
corrected for inflation.


Well, beer and smokes,.. and some other fun stuff,..
although, I think the smokes are mostly tax up here,

>>"no beekeepers" means that
much of our food would suddenly see price
increases...
>> lack of domestic
crops means that we start paying what Japan does
for their imported food crops.)

So, Jim. What do you suggest the answer is. Subsidies? Stricter import regulations >> tarrifs?
Otherwise, false market conditions for the producers? Am I hearing protectionism?

If so, then I agree with your veiws. I do believe govnt has a role in supporting the small primary producer,

But when countries open themselves to further trade thruogh out the world, all the countries have to follow the same rules. Otherwise, market prices begin to be dictated by polotics, and not supply and demand conditions

[Jim Fischer]

> So, Jim. What do you suggest the answer is.
> Subsidies? Stricter import regulations
> tarrifs?

The first step would be to crack down on the
overtly criminal "false flag" honey exports.
The second step would be to admit that the US
is a net importer of honey no matter what
improvement might be made in the "beekeeping
industry", and implement Country of Origin
Labeling (COOL) for honey, with percentage
listings required for those who blend the
products of various countries.

Both retail data and consumer surveys clearly show
that when consumers go to the market, they
prefer "local" over "from my country", and
prefer "form my country" over "from far away".
They are even willing to pay a premium for
food produced closer to the point of sale.

> Am I hearing protectionism?

Not a bit. What you are hearing is a demand
for an end to the fraud and half-truths, which
start with "Honey Nut Cheerios" having a
negligible amount of honey and a whole bunch
of High-Fructose Corn Syrup, and end with
retail store brand honey sold under the
store brand "America's Best", but containing
only a tiny fractional percentage of honey
from anywhere in the area called "The Americas"
(South American, Central America, North America).

> I do believe govnt has a role in supporting the
> small primary producer,

There is a line between "support" and "subsidy",
and the rules are being re-written all the time.
I'm not sure any country can really nail down this
sort of a moving target and be sure that they
are NOT subsidizing their producers, but there
are some things that clearly go beyond any
definition of mere "support".

> But when countries open themselves to further
> trade thruogh out the world, all the countries
> have to follow the same rules.

There really never has been "free trade" since
the first ships set sail between the city-states
of the Mediterranean. The current version of
"free trade" is nothing but "trade above all
other priorities". The WTO treaties only
give lip-service to biosecurity, environmental
protection, and other "social concerns", as
should be expected from a group calling itself
the "World Trade Organization". It is not called
the "Fair Trade Organization" or the "Ethical
Trade Organization" for very good reasons.

> Otherwise, market prices begin to be dictated
> by polotics, and not supply and demand
> conditions

Well, the EU Countries have become very adept
at gaming the system to their own advantage,
preventing many imports outright due to "health
and safety" concerns. The real losers are the
smallest countries that cannot afford to put
much effort into WTO negotiations, and the USA,
who feels somehow honor bound to "play strictly
by the rules" when absolutely no one else is.

[Ian]

>>"Honey Nut Cheerios" having a
negligible amount of honey and a whole bunch
of High-Fructose Corn Syrup, and end with
retail store brand honey sold under the
store brand "America's Best", but containing
only a tiny fractional percentage of honey
from anywhere in the area called "The Americas"
(South American, Central America, North America).


I think everyone here stands behind that statement,

I just got my April ABJ, and they were mentioning the gonvnt has begun, or has already taken the appropriate actions to close the loop hole. They elaberated on the issue a bit, and now I understand what was happening. Well, no, I still dont understand but it refered to my question on why the tarrif wasnt being paid..

>>There really never has been "free trade"
The current version of
"free trade" is nothing but "trade above all
other priorities". The WTO treaties only
give lip-service to biosecurity, environmental
protection, and other "social concerns", as
should be expected from a group calling itself
the "World Trade Organization".

When one or a few countries participate in trade with other contries across the globe, restrict trade back into their own counties because of alligations of market damaging subidies, and participate in those same alligations themselves,,, I call that dirty pool!!

>>d the USA,
who feels somehow honor bound to "play strictly
by the rules" when absolutely no one else is.

Sure thing there Jim. I was seriously following your post till you ended it with that. Good thing you didnt start with it. :confused: [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Hillbillynursery]

Politictians are the same world round. They all look out for their best interest and not always the best for their country. Just like me falling at work and the company finding a loop hole to get me off work comp and after 120 day of me not being able to return to work I was fired. The law states what they did is illegal. They still got away with it as the state said the best they could do was send me back to work with that company but since I can no longer do that job they told me to settle it in court along with my medical bills. There are loop holes everywhere(at times I think the politians put them in on purpose). Laws have to be rewriten to get rid of a loop hole then there are normally a few more loop holes that show up. Our economy world wide runs on proffit. If finding a way around a tariff make money they will use the loop hole. If you close the loop holes enough that the cost of making the hole out ways paying the tariff they will pay the tariff.

[Jim Fischer]

> Sure thing there Jim. I was seriously following
> your post till you ended it with that. Good thing
> you didnt start with it

Well then, look at the Canadian approach to
importing queens and packages versus the
US approach.

We are told by our own trade people that we
cannot demand more than "shipper certification",
but somehow, Canada can inspect bees at port of
entry.

Somehow Canada gets away with it. So do the
EU members. Why can't we? Our own people tell
us that it would result in complaints from the
exporting countries.

Scoff if you like, but there it is.
I just call 'em as I see 'em.

[Ian]

How is it that the Canadian govnt's fault that ?

We inspect American Queens into Canada, at port of entery, but dont allow packages across yet. And this is due to pest concerns. You can loop trade into the arguement if you want, but as far as I see it, non restrictive trate of bees into Canada is good for Canadian beekeepers and is wanted by many. But trade has stopped for nearly 10 years now due to concerns of disease and pest transfer. We both mingle with the same mites, but its the rAFB, small hive beetle, and Afercanized bees that pose the threat.

As time goes on, I think we are going to learn the limits and boundries on small hive beetle and AHB. I do believe they are saying put in the southern states.

Jim, I do have to ask. I read your article ( I forget if it were Bee culture, or ABJ). I enjoyed you perspective and I encourage you to keep writing to them.
However, you know alot about honeybee trade within the world, how is Alstralia allowed to export package bees, while at the same time holding the small hive beetle pest?


If you want me to elaberate on my pervious post, I can get into delail with egamples of "unfair" arguebaly illegal trade restriction with wheat, pork, and cattle if you want.

[Jim Fischer]

My point was that Canada (and many other countries)
seem to feel no obligation to follow the WTO rules,
while the USA tells us that they "must follow"
the strict letter of the rules.

You scoffed at that.

I provided some detail to help you understand the
specifics.

> how is Alstralia allowed to export package bees,
> while at the same time holding the small hive
> beetle pest?

Good question - they can "certify" that the yards
from which the exported bees came had no SHB,
and were so many miles from the nearest known SHB
infestation. SHB is not everywhere in Oz, so
there are areas that clearly are not at risk.

My problem is that to block the import of bees
that are merely "certified", the receiving
country must both prove where SHB exist and
do not exist, and set up internal quarantines,
with the net effect of blocking "imports" of
any bees with SHB, regardless of their origin,
domestic or imported. The US does exactly that,
but we do it at the state level, rather than
at the federal level, and the WTO does not recognize
the efforts and actions of states.

This gets really messy, but in essence, the WTO
agreements assume a "strong federal government"
model, and a weak or non-existent state government.
The US Constitution simply does not allow the
federal government to usurp the rights of the
states in many areas, so we have a mess - we
are liable to an agreement that may force us
to change our Constitution to comply with the
terms of the treaty???

People are working on how to fix this, but it
is a real mess.

Meanwhile, Canada and Europe appear to be
"getting away with" what they are doing, and
our own people say "we can't do that".

[Ian]

>>we do it at the state level, rather than
at the federal level, and the WTO does not recognize
the efforts and actions of states.


I can see how that is frustrating, but nessicary. You must understand the latter.

How do you expect the WTO, or any other country for that matter to recognize state by state modles? We are talking global trade, not cross contiential trade of bees. The WTO must work at the top, otherwise there will be alot of wasted time and make for a burocratic nighmare. Keep thing together, unified and consistant. You simply cant accomplish that with a state by state agenda.

And if they are trying to fix it, it should be easy to change over to cover it federally. If it is so cut and dry b/w states, complyance should be easy. And if not, then the WTO has saved themselves alot of head acke.

>>, Canada and Europe appear to be
"getting away with" what they are doing, and
our own people say "we can't do that"

I still dont see how Canada is getting away with anything that will affect the US ability to trade bees. Becasue we dont recognize state trade modles?


>>You scoffed at that.

Yes I did scoff, but not at what you are implying.

I scoffed at our previous focus, subsidies and generalized refferals to global trade.
Your statement reffered to European imports, I generalized it meaning. And to that I scoffed.

[Knoefler]

HR1039 STILL IN hOUSE WAYS AND MEANS