1. 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

2. “Local food” not the same as Origin Products

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

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

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

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

7. 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

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

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

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

11. 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

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

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

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

15. 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

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

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

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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