Building a Producer Organization for American Origin Products Dr Building a Producer Organization for American Origin Products Dr. Elizabeth Barham University of Arkansas Executive Director, AOPA

“Local food” not the same as Origin Products

some characteristics: They share some characteristics: Strengthen local and regional food system and economy Part of regional foodways

But not others: Create jobs that depend on export (within US, abroad) Carry reputation of the region driving sales and tourism

AOPs can potentially: Preserve local culture/heritage Maintain biodiversity in-situ Increase local collaborations Promote rural tourism

marginalized by globalization AOPs can also potentially: increase employment to prevent loss of rural population Maintain regions otherwise marginalized by globalization

But in the U.S., no AOP concept or category: no US product list not mapped consistently producers not organized research/government not well linked to them

Most importantly, their intellectual property status is unclear: No special legal category for them in U.S. treated as collective certification marks

International Trade Agreements Intellectual Property Written Works Inventions Place-based Products Brands

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Patents, Trade Secrets, Industrial Designs Copyright Geographial Indicatons Trademarks

a separate category of IP? Why give GIs a separate category of IP? do not belong to individuals cannot be bought, sold, inherited collective property of the region only IP referencing territory

Department of Commerce / Patent & Trademarks Office (“PTO”) collective certification marks “buy,” renew, in each country producers must police globally producers must defend globally

European Union / “global registry” authentication process “sui generis” systems good in all signatory countries do not renew can potentially help protect

European Union / “global registry” government involvement research funding promote territorial development ease trade restrictions

U of Arkansas USDA Project Ag Economics and Agribusiness Ctr. for Agri. and Rural Sustainability National Agricultural Law Center Applied Sustainability Center Center for Applied Spatial Technologies Food Service and Hospitality Program

“Hub” Universities Participating Pennsylvania State University Michigan State University University of California-Davis Texas A & M Clemson University North Carolina State University

Goals of Project Establish AOP guidelines Inventory “nominee” products and identify producer group representatives

Create an AOP website for research and interaction Evaluate possibility of an eXtension website

Long-range: Help producers organize nationally Raise visibility and support for AOPs Improve IP status of products Grow AOP markets (esp. export) Promote regional rural development

Objections to Project from “stakeholders” US Trade Representative US Patent and Trademarks US Treasury (“American Viticultural Areas”) US Dept. of State USDA (Foreign Agri. Service

a national trade association: “American Origin Products Association” Producers form a national trade association: “American Origin Products Association” Idaho Potato Kona Coffee Missouri Northern Pecan

First National Meeting October 13, 2012 Napa Valley Vintners Assoc. Intertribal Agriculture Counsel Ginseng Board of Wisconsin Maine Lobstermen’s Assoc.

Other new members who could not attend: California Dried Plum Board New Mexico Native Chiles Vermont Maple Sugar Makers Georgia Peach Council

Key Goals: Protect from IP abuse and fraud both domestically and in trade Promote – increase revenues Define certification criteria

Now working to form “American Origin Products Foundation” Research / education Hold collective certification mark Define certification criteria Carry out controls

Weaknesses of Private Approach less authority than government less funding than government more vulnerable to “trade wars” less credibility

Strengths of Private Approach more flexibility than government potentially steady funding less public burden (taxes) more producer “ownership”