U.S. victory for beef importers

Press, 1 September 1977, Page 3

U.S. victory for beef importers

Beef-exporting nations, scored a victory yesterday when the United States In-I ternational Trade Commission! (1.T.C.) ruled that imports! had not damaged the domestic cattle industry, reports Max Lambert, an NZPA! staff correspondent in Wash-1 ington. New Zealand and Australia together supply threequarters of all United States beef imports, the rest being shipped by Canada, Mexico, and Latin American countries. The unanimous 4-0 vote rejected arguments of the South Dakota-based National Association of Meat Promoters (N.A.M.P.), a small regional organisation of

ranchers, that imports are the prime cause of the United! States cattle industry's present woes. The association successfully petitioned the I.T.C. for in investigation earlier this year, and a series of hearings in four states followed. If the commission had : ound in favour of N.A.M.P. t would have proposed tigher tariffs or lower imports quotas to President barter. “This is good news for New Zealand cattle farmers,” said New Zealand’s senior ;rade commissioner in North America (Mr Don Walker) ifter the vote. “It clears away one potenial obstacle to the develop-1

ment of New Zealand’s beef] | market in the United States.”) The North American director of the Meat Board (Mr! Maurice Jones) called the' decision a break for imports) and said it was a first vic-l tory against groups opposed to imports. But he said that New Zealand and other beef exporters still could not ignore the dangers inherent in the second part of the I.T.C.’s investigations, which is continuing. Yesterday’s decision was under the umbrella of the Trade Act but the I.T.C. is charged, at the request of Congress, to examine the domestic industry and imports under the Tariff Act as I well.

) The recent hearings were )held in tandem under both acts but only the Trade Act ) section has been dealt with | so far. The I.T.C. will hold another I session in Washington on September 20 to hear evidence for the Tariff Act, inquiry, and late this year will report to Congress. The report will not contain any recommendation for action but could be used by Congress as a basis for future laws. Mr Jones said he agreed with observers that the board-based Tariff Act inquiry held dangers for importers. “The report could open up | many avenues that could | worry us,” he said. Observers have noted that

witnesses at the 1.1. C. hearings proposed that imported beef products should be labelled as imports even in shops, and have alleged that foreign meat inspection systems are below American standards.

The Meat Board's vicechairman (Mr Adam Begg), who gave evidence at the Kansas City hearing in July, denied this vigorously, saying that New Zealand’s meatinspection system was at least as good as, and possibly better than, those in the United States.

Moves on labelling and charges against meat inspection overseas are examples of further oblique ways of attacking imports that could be developed in Congress by anti-import forces.