Re:How the food lobby fights sugar regulation in the EU [pdf]
by tzs on Sunday July 31, 2016 @01:56AM
(#12195909)
Wouldn't that tax also favor U.S. sugar producers over Mexican producers of HFCS, and favor Mexican sugar producers over Mexican HFCS producers, and favor U.S. sugar producers over U.S. HFCS producers?
It does unlevel the playing field, but the tilt is on the sugar/HFCS axis, not the US/Mexico axis. I don't see why that should not be allowed, unless it can be shown that the US has more HFCS producers and Mexico more sugar producers so that it will disproportionately favor Mexicans AND it was enacted to accomplish that rather for some geographically neutral purpose.
>The dispute centered on Mexico's adoption of a 20 percent tax on the use of high-fructose corn syrup in soft drinks, Mayer Brown said. The financial impact was significant because Mexico is the world's second-largest market for soft drinks.
>The tax illegally favored Mexico's domestic sugar producers over U.S.-owned producers of high-fructose corn syrup, the firm said.
It doesn't seem totally unreasonable. One of the principles of trade deals is there is a level playing field rather than passing laws to advantage the locals. http://www.law360.com/articles/123636/cargill-wins-77m-from-...