Introduction
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with preventing deception and unfairness in the marketplace. The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading claims that a product is of U.S. origin. Traditionally, the Commission has required that a product advertised as Made in USA be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. After a comprehensive review of Made in USA and other U.S. origin claims in product advertising and labeling, the Commission announced in December 1997 that it would retain the “all or virtually all” standard. The Commission also issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims to provide guidance to marketers who want to make an unqualified Made in USA claim under the “all or virtually all” standard and those who want to make a qualified Made in USA claim.
This publication provides additional guidance about how to comply with the “all or virtually all” standard. It also offers some general information about the U.S. Customs Service’s requirement that all products of foreign origin imported into the U.S. be marked with the name of the country of origin.
This publication is the Federal Trade Commission staff’s view of the law’s requirements. It is not binding on the Commission. The Enforcement Policy Statement issued by the FTC is at the end of the publication.
Basic Information About Made In USA Claims
Must U.S. content be disclosed on products sold in the U.S.?
U.S. content must be disclosed on automobiles and textile, wool, and fur products. There’s no law that requires most other products sold in the U.S. to be marked or labeled Made in USA or have any other disclosure about their amount of U.S. content. However, manufacturers and marketers who choose to make claims about the amount of U.S. content in their products must comply with the FTC’s Made in USA policy.
What products does the FTC’s Made in USA policy apply to?
The policy applies to all products advertised or sold in the U.S., except for those specifically subject to country-of-origin labeling by other laws. Other countries may have their own country-of-origin marking requirements. As a result, exporters should determine whether the country to which they are exporting imposes such requirements.
What kinds of claims does the Enforcement Policy Statement apply to?
The Enforcement Policy Statement applies to U.S. origin claims that appear on products and labeling, advertising, and other promotional materials. It also applies to all other forms of marketing, including marketing through digital or electronic mechanisms, such as Internet or e-mail.
A Made in USA claim can be express or implied.
Examples of express claims: Made in USA. “Our products are American-made.” “USA.”
In identifying implied claims, the Commission focuses on the overall impression of the advertising, label, or promotional material. Depending on the context, U.S. symbols or geographic references (for example, U.S. flags, outlines of U.S. maps, or references to U.S. locations of headquarters or factories) may convey a claim of U.S. origin either by themselves, or in conjunction with other phrases or images.
Example: A company promotes its product in an ad that features a manager describing the “true American quality” of the work produced at the company’s American factory. Although there is no express representation that the company’s product is made in the U.S., the overall — or net — impression the ad is likely to convey to consumers is that the product is of U.S. origin.
Brand names and trademarks
Ordinarily, the Commission will not consider a manufacturer or marketer’s use of an American brand name or trademark by itself as a U.S. origin claim. Similarly, the Commission is not likely to interpret the mere listing of a company’s U.S. address on a package label in a non-prominent way as a claim of U.S. origin.
Example: A product is manufactured abroad by a well-known U.S. company. The fact that the company is headquartered in the U.S. also is widely known. Company pamphlets for its foreign-made product prominently feature its brand name. Assuming that the brand name does not specifically denote U.S. origin (that is, the brand name is not “Made in America, Inc.”), using the brand name by itself does not constitute a claim of U.S. origin.
Representations about entire product lines
Manufacturers and marketers should not indicate, either expressly or implicitly, that a whole product line is of U.S. origin (“Our products are made in USA”) when only some products in the product line are made in the U.S. according to the “all or virtually all” standard.
Does the FTC pre-approve Made in USA claims?
The Commission does not pre-approve advertising or labeling claims. A company doesn’t need approval from the Commission before making a Made in USA claim. As with most other advertising claims, a manufacturer or marketer may make any claim as long as it is truthful and substantiated.
The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims
What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?
For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. The term “United States,” as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.
What does “all or virtually all” mean?
“All or virtually all” means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.
What substantiation is required for a Made in USA claim?
When a manufacturer or marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is Made in USA, it should have — and rely on — a “reasonable basis” to support the claim at the time it is made. This means a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.
What factors does the Commission consider to determine whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.?
The product’s final assembly or processing must take place in the U.S. The Commission then considers other factors, including how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U
.S.
parts and processing, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. In some instances, only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs are attributable to foreign processing, but that processing represents a significant amount of the product’s overall processing. The same could be true for some foreign parts. In these cases, the foreign content (processing or parts) is more than negligible, and, as a result, unqualified claims are inappropriate.
Example: A company produces propane barbecue grills at a plant in Nevada. The product’s major components include the gas valve, burner and aluminum housing, each of which is made in the U.S. The grill’s knobs and tubing are imported from Mexico. An unqualified Made in USA claim is not likely to be deceptive because the knobs and tubing make up a negligible portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs and are insignificant parts of the final product.
Example: A table lamp is assembled in the U.S. from American-made brass, an American-made Tiffany-style lampshade, and an imported base. The base accounts for a small percent of the total cost of making the lamp. An unqualified Made in USA claim is deceptive for two reasons: The base is not far enough removed in the manufacturing process from the finished product to be of little consequence and it is a significant part of the final product.
What items should manufacturers and marketers include in analyzing the percentage of domestic content in a particular product?
Manufacturers and marketers should use the cost of goods sold or inventory costs of finished goods in their analysis. Such costs generally are limited to the total cost of all manufacturing materials, direct manufacturing labor, and manufacturing overhead.
Should manufacturers and marketers rely on information from American suppliers about the amount of domestic content in the parts, components, and other elements they buy and use for their final products?
If given in good faith, manufacturers and marketers can rely on information from suppliers about the domestic content in the parts, components, and other elements they produce. Rather than assume that the input is 100 percent U.S.-made, however, manufacturers and marketers would be wise to ask the supplier for specific information about the percentage of U.S. content before they make a U.S. origin claim.
Example: A company manufactures food processors in its U.S. plant, making most of the parts, including the housing and blade, from U.S. materials. The motor, which constitutes 50 percent of the food processor’s total manufacturing costs, is bought from a U.S. supplier. The food processor manufacturer knows that the motor is assembled in a U.S. factory. Even though most of the parts of the food processor are of U.S. origin, the final assembly is in the U.S., and the motor is assembled in the U.S., the food processor is not considered “all or virtually all” American-made if the motor itself is made of imported parts that constitute a significant percentage of the appliance’s total manufacturing cost. Before claiming the product is Made in USA, this manufacturer should look to its motor supplier for more specific information about the motor’s origin.
Example: On its purchase order, a company states: “Our company requires that suppliers certify the percentage of U.S. content in products supplied to us. If you are unable or unwilling to make such certification, we will not purchase from you.” Appearing under this statement is the sentence, “We certify that our ___ have at least ___% U.S. content,” with space for the supplier to fill in the name of the product and its percentage of U.S. content. The company generally could rely on a certification like this to determine the appropriate country-of-origin designation for its product.
How far back in the manufacturing process should manufacturers and marketers look?
To determine the percentage of U.S. content, manufacturers and marketers should look back far enough in the manufacturing process to be reasonably sure that any significant foreign content has been included in their assessment of foreign costs. Foreign content incorporated early in the manufacturing process often will be less significant to consumers than content that is a direct part of the finished product or the parts or components produced by the immediate supplier.
Example: The steel used to make a single component of a complex product (for example, the steel used in the case of a computer’s floppy drive) is an early input into the computer’s manufacture, and is likely to constitute a very small portion of the final product’s total cost. On the other hand, the steel in a product like a pipe or a wrench is a direct and significant input. Whether the steel in a pipe or wrench is imported would be a significant factor in evaluating whether the finished product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.
Are raw materials included in the evaluation of whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.?
It depends on how much of the product’s cost the raw materials make up and how far removed from the finished product they are.
Example: If the gold in a gold ring is imported, an unqualified Made in USA claim for the ring is deceptive. That’s because of the significant value the gold is likely to represent relative to the finished product, and because the gold — an integral component — is only one step back from the finished article. By contrast, consider the plastic in the plastic case of a clock radio otherwise made in the U.S. of U.S.-made components. If the plastic case was made from imported petroleum, a Made in USA claim is likely to be appropriate because the petroleum is far enough removed from the finished product, and is an insignificant part of it as well.
Qualified Claims
What is a qualified Made in USA claim?
A qualified Made in USA claim describes the extent, amount or type of a product’s domestic content or processing; it indicates that the product isn’t entirely of domestic origin.
Example: “60% U.S. content.” “Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts.” “Couch assembled in USA from Italian Leather and Mexican Frame.”
When is a qualified Made in USA claim appropriate?
A qualified Made in USA claim is appropriate for products that include U.S. content or processing but don’t meet the criteria for making an unqualified Made in USA claim. Because even qualified claims may imply more domestic content than exists, manufacturers or marketers must exercise care when making these claims. That is, avoid qualified claims unless the product has a significant amount of U.S. content or U.S. processing. A qualified Made in USA claim, like an unqualified claim, must be truthful and substantiated.
Example: An exercise treadmill is assembled in the U.S. The assembly represents significant work and constitutes a “substantial transformation” (a term used by the U.S. Customs Service). All of the treadmill’s major parts, including the motor, frame, and electronic display, are imported. A few of its incidental parts, such as the handle bar covers, the plastic on/off power key, and the treadmill mat, are manufactured in the U.S.
Together, these parts account for approximately three percent of the total cost of all the parts. Because the value of the U.S.-made parts is negligible compared to the value of all the parts, a claim on the treadmill that it is “Made in USA of U.S. and Imported Parts” is deceptive. A claim like “Made in U.S. from Imported Parts” or “Assembled in U.S.A.” would not be deceptive.
U.S. origin claims for specific processes or parts
Claims that a particular manufacturing or other process was performed in the U.S. or that a particular part was manufactured in the U.S. must be truthful, substantiated, and clearly refer to the specific process or part, not to the general manufacture of the product, to avoid implying more U.S. content than exists.
Manufacturers and marketers should be cautious about using general terms, such as “produced,” “created” or “manufactured” in the U.S. Words like these are unlikely to convey a message limited to a particular process. Additional qualification probably is necessary to describe a product that is not “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.
In addition, if a product is of foreign origin (that is, it has been substantially transformed abroad), manufacturers and marketers also should make sure they satisfy Customs’ markings statute and regulations that require such products to be marked with a foreign country of origin. Further, Customs requires the foreign country of origin to be preceded by “Made in,” “Product of,” or words of similar meaning when any city or location that is not the country of origin appears on the product.
Example: A company designs a product in New York City and sends the blueprint to a factory in Finland for manufacturing. It labels the product “Designed in USA — Made in Finland.” Such a specific processing claim would not lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the whole product was made in the U.S. The Customs Service requires the product to be marked “Made in,” or “Product of” Finland since the product is of Finnish origin and the claim refers to the U.S. Examples of other specific processing claims are: “Bound in U.S. — Printed in Turkey.” “Hand carved in U.S. — Wood from Philippines.” “Software written in U.S. — Disk made in India.” “Painted and fired in USA. Blanks made in (foreign country of origin).”
Example: A company advertises its product, which was invented in Seattle and manufactured in Bangladesh, as “Created in USA.” This claim is deceptive because consumers are likely to interpret the term “Created” as Made in USA — an unqualified U.S. origin claim.
Example: A computer imported from Korea is packaged in the U.S. in an American-made corrugated paperboard box containing only domestic materials and domestically produced expanded rigid polystyrene plastic packing. Stating Made in USA on the package would deceive consumers about the origin of the product inside. But the company could legitimately make a qualified claim, such as “Computer Made in Korea — Packaging Made in USA.”
Example: The Acme Camera Company assembles its cameras in the U.S. The camera lenses are manufactured in the U.S., but most of the remaining parts are imported. A magazine ad for the camera is headlined “Beware of Imported Imitations” and states “Other high-end camera makers use imported parts made with cheap foreign labor. But at Acme Camera, we want only the highest quality parts for our cameras and we believe in employing American workers. That’s why we make all of our lenses right here in the U.S.” This ad is likely to convey that more than a specific product part (the lens) is of U.S. origin. The marketer should be prepared to substantiate the broader U.S. origin claim conveyed to consumers viewing the ad.
Comparative Claims
Comparative claims should be truthful and substantiated, and presented in a way that makes the basis for comparison clear (for example, whether the comparison is to another leading brand or to a previous version of the same product). They should truthfully describe the U.S. content of the product and be based on a meaningful difference in U.S. content between the compared products.
Example: An ad for cellular phones states “We use more U.S. content than any other cellular phone manufacturer.” The manufacturer assembles the phones in the U.S. from American and imported components and can substantiate that the difference between the U.S. content of its phones and that of the other manufacturers’ phones is significant. This comparative claim is not deceptive.
Example: A product is advertised as having “twice as much U.S. content as before.” The U.S. content in the product has been increased from 2 percent in the previous version to 4 percent in the current version. This comparative claim is deceptive because the difference between the U.S. content in the current and previous version of the product are insignificant.
Assembled in USA Claims
A product that includes foreign components may be called “Assembled in USA” without qualification when its principal assembly takes place in the U.S. and the assembly is substantial. For the “assembly” claim to be valid, the product’s last “substantial transformation” also should have occurred in the U.S. That’s why a “screwdriver” assembly in the U.S. of foreign components into a final product at the end of the manufacturing process doesn’t usually qualify for the “Assembled in USA” claim.
Example: A lawn mower, composed of all domestic parts except for the cable sheathing, flywheel, wheel rims and air filter (15 to 20 percent foreign content) is assembled in the U.S. An “Assembled in USA” claim is appropriate.
Example: All the major components of a computer, including the motherboard and hard drive, are imported. The computer’s components then are put together in a simple “screwdriver” operation in the U.S., are not substantially transformed under the Customs Standard, and must be marked with a foreign country of origin. An “Assembled in U.S.” claim without further qualification is deceptive.
The FTC and The Customs Service
What is the U.S. Customs Service’s jurisdiction over country-of-origin claims?
The Tariff Act gives Customs and the Secretary of the Treasury the power to administer the requirement that imported goods be marked with a foreign country of origin (for example, “Made in Japan”).
When an imported product incorporates materials and/or processing from more than one country, Customs considers the country of origin to be the last country in which a “substantial transformation” took place. Customs defines “substantial transformation” as a manufacturing process that results in a new and different product with a new name, character, and use that is different from that which existed before the change. Customs makes country-of-origin determinations using the “substantial transformation” test on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, Customs uses a “tariff shift” analysis, comparable to “substantial transformation,” to determine a product’s country of origin.
What is the interaction between the FTC and Customs regarding country-of-origin claims?
Even if Customs determines that an imported product does not need a foreign country-of-origin mark, it is not necessarily permissible to promote that product as Made in USA. The FTC considers additional factors to decide whether a product can be advertised or labeled as Made in USA.
Manufacturers and marketers should check with Customs to see if they need to mark their products with the foreign country of origin. If they don’t, they should look at the FTC’s standard to check if they can properly make a Made in USA claim.
The FTC has jurisdiction over foreign origin claims on products and in packaging that are beyond the disclosures required by Customs (for example, claims that supplement a required foreign origin marking to indicate where additional processing or finishing of a product occurred).
The FTC also has jurisdiction over foreign origin claims in advertising and other promotional materials. Unqualified U.S. origin claims in ads or other promotional materials for products that Customs requires a foreign country-of-origin mark may mislead or confuse consumers about the product’s origin. To avoid misleading consumers, marketers should clearly disclose the foreign manufacture of a product.
Example: A television set assembled in Korea using an American-made picture tube is shipped to the U.S. The Customs Service requires the television set to be marked “Made in Korea” because that’s where the television set was last “substantially transformed.” The company’s World Wide Web page states “Although our televisions are made abroad, they always contain U.S.-made picture tubes.” This statement is not deceptive. However, making the statement “All our picture tubes are made in the USA” — without disclosing the foreign origin of the television’s manufacture — might imply a broader claim (for example, that the television set is largely made in the U.S.) than could be substantiated. That is, if the statement and the entire ad imply that any foreign content or processing is negligible, the advertiser must substantiate that claim or net impression. The advertiser in this scenario would not be able to substantiate the implied Made in USA claim because the product was “substantially transformed” in Korea.
Other Statutes
What are the requirements of other federal statutes relating to country-of-origin determinations?
Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Wool Products Labeling Act — Require a Made in USA label on most clothing and other textile or wool household products if the final product is manufactured in the U.S. of fabric that is manufactured in the U.S., regardless of where materials earlier in the manufacturing process (for example, the yarn and fiber) came from. Textile products that are imported must be labeled as required by the Customs Service. A textile or wool product partially manufactured in the U.S. and partially manufactured in another country must be labeled to show both foreign and domestic processing.
On a garment with a neck, the country of origin must be disclosed on the front of a label attached to the inside center of the neck — either midway between the shoulder seams or very near another label attached to the inside center of the neck. On a garment without a neck, and on other kinds of textile products, the country of origin must appear on a conspicuous and readily accessible label on the inside or outside of the product.
Catalogs and other mail order promotional materials for textile and wool products, including those disseminated on the Internet, must disclose whether a product is made in the U.S., imported or both.
The Fur Products Labeling Act requires the country of origin of imported furs to be disclosed on all labels and in all advertising. For copies of the Textile, Wool or Fur Rules and Regulations, or the new business education guide on labeling requirements, call the FTC’s Consumer Response Center (202-382-4357). Or visit the FTC online at www.ftc.gov Click on Consumer Protection.
American Automobile Labeling Act
Requires that each automobile manufactured on or after October 1, 1994, for sale in the U.S. bear a label disclosing where the car was assembled, the percentage of equipment that originated in the U.S. and Canada, and the country of origin of the engine and transmission. Any representation that a car marketer makes that is required by the AALA is exempt from the Commission’s policy. When a company makes claims in advertising or promotional materials that go beyond the AALA requirements, it will be held to the Commission’s standard. For more information, call the Consumer Programs Division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (202-366-0846).
Buy American Act — Requires that a product be manufactured in the U.S. of more than 50 percent U.S. parts to be considered Made in USA for government procurement purposes. For more information, review the Buy American Act at 41 U.S.C. §§ 10a-10c, the Federal Acquisition Regulations at 48 C.F.R. Part 25, and the Trade Agreements Act at 19 U.S.C. §§ 2501-2582.
What To Do About Violations
What if I suspect noncompliance with the FTC’s Made in USA standard or other country-of-origin mislabeling?
Information about possible illegal activity helps law enforcement officials target companies whose practices warrant scrutiny. If you suspect noncompliance, contact the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-2996 or send an e-mail to MUSA@ftc.gov. If you know about import or export fraud, call Customs’ toll-free Commercial Fraud Hotline, 1-800-ITS-FAKE. Examples of fraudulent practices involving imports include removing a required foreign origin label before the product is delivered to the ultimate purchaser (with or without the improper substitution of a Made in USA label) and failing to label a product with a required country of origin.
You also can contact your state Attorney General and your local Better Business Bureau to report a company. Or you can refer your complaint to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus by calling (212) 754-1320. NAD handles complaints about the truth and accuracy of national advertising. You can reach the Council of Better Business Bureaus on the web at adweb.com/adassoc17.html.
Finally, the Lanham Act gives any person (such as a competitor) who is damaged by a false designation of origin the right to sue the party making the false claim. Consult a lawyer to see if this private right of action is an appropriate course of action for you.
For More Information
The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and i
nvestigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
Your Opportunity to Comment
The National Small Business Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards collect comments from small businesses about federal compliance and enforcement activities. Each year, the Ombudsman evaluates the conduct of these activities and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small businesses. Small businesses can comment to the Ombudsman without fear of reprisal. To comment, call toll-free 1-888-REGFAIR (1-888-734-3247) or go to www.sba.gov/ombudsman.
December 1998 –
{Made in America Movement Note} Cleary this needs to be updated.
A Banner Year For The U.S. Wind Industry
by MAM TeamAssistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
In the United States, domestic clean energy production and manufacturing competitiveness work hand-in-hand. The report finds total U.S. wind power capacity grew to 47,000 megawatts by the end of 2011 and has since grown to 50,000 megawatts, enough to power 12 million homes annually — as many homes as in the entire state of California. And as wind energy capacity has grown, more and more wind turbines and components like towers, blades, gears, and generators are “Made in America.” Nearly 70 percent of all of the equipment installed at U.S. wind farmslast year came from domestic manufacturers, doubling from 35 percent in 2005.
This summer, Energy Department leaders have traveled across the country and seen first hand how American workers and businesses are helping maintain U.S. leadership in the growing wind energy industry. In Iowa, Keystone Electrical Manufacturing Company has seen orders from the wind industry grow from almost nothing a decade ago to nearly 22 percent of gross sales, while, at ACCIONA Windpower’s West Branch assembly plant more than 100 workers are making wind turbines to sell here in the U.S. and around the world. Near Minneapolis, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 343 Union facility features a 60-foot turbine tower to help train union members for new construction, installation, and maintenance jobs.
In addition to strong gains in domestic wind manufacturing and capacity, the report finds that as wind technology improves, costs are coming down. Technological innovations are helping make longer and lighter wind turbine blades, while improving turbine performance and increasing the efficiency of power generation. At the same time, wind project capital and maintenance costs have continued to decline.
Smart investments are paying dividends across the U.S. wind industry. From Des Moines to Amarillo to Denver, the American clean energy economy is hard at work – creating jobs right now and ensuring our global competitiveness in the clean energy technologies of the future. We can’t afford to break this momentum.
This is why the Obama Administration is calling for the extension of the production tax credit (PTC). Our continued support of clean energy policies like the PTC are mission critical for America’s thriving, competitive wind industry — and shows, more than ever, the promise to create the high-paying American jobs and nationwide economic growth our country needs.
Reshoring Success: AirGuide moving manufacturing from Mexico to Clarksdale
by MAM TeamAugust 14, 2012
The project represents a company investment of $720,000, according to the Mississippi Development Authority.
AirGuide, a manufacturer of aluminum grilles, registers and diffusers for the HVAC industry and energy efficient lighting products, is consolidating its Mexico and Houston operations into the Clarksdale facility.
AirGuide said in a press statement that Ron Hudson, Hugh Jack Stubbs, Hartley Kittle and Trisha Webber as well as many other peoples from the Clarksdale-area business community “have been instrumental in AirGuide making the decision to locate in Clarksdale.”
Doug Marty, president of AirGuide, said the company thinks the new location will enable AirGuide Manufacturing and Arcalux “to better serve our customers and further improve our competitiveness manufacturing our HVAC and energy efficient lighting products.”
The Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) provided assistance for improvements to the publicly-owned building AirGuide will occupy, along with support through the Momentum Mississippi Incentives program. Coahoma County is also assisting with this project.
AirGuide manufactures a variety of products, as well as a broad range of custom-designed original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products that can be modified to suit most applications. AirGuide has been in operation for nearly 50 years.
7 Reasons to Expect US Manufacturing Resurgence
by MAM TeamYaleGlobal, 7 August 2012
It’s true that the share of manufacturing in the US GDP is now only 12 to15 percent, and the country is predominantly a service economy. But the nation is still the world’s biggest manufacturer, with unrivaled productivity in terms of manufacturing value-added per employee or per hour worked (Table 1). American manufacturing wages average $34 an hour, some 21 times the average in China at $1.60 an hour. But each US worker adds $145,000 in value, far more than German, French or Japanese employees, and more than 10 times that of the Chinese worker who contributes $13,700.
The predominant explanation is US manufacturers’ investment in automated equipment. Also, American labor is better trained than the Chinese. Similar productivity rankings can be seen in dollar value-added per hour: The US worker is on top with $73 in value-added per hour worked; the Chinese worker adds only $7.19 of value per hour; Japanese, German and French workers contribute up to $63. China outperforms the US and Europe only in “value added per dollar wages paid” – but only because hourly wages are so low in China.
> Wages of the bottom half of American workers have significantly declined in real terms over the past decade, as well as in comparison with other nations, while those of US manufacturing rivals, including China and Japan, have risen.
> American workers are working longer, faster, with greater anxiety,than ever before. Because of greater automation, flexibility, domestic US outsourcing and the fear of being laid-off, surviving US manufacturing workers have seen little or no increases in wages in the past eight years, and their output has increased with productivity in output per employee at an all-time high. Americans put in 1800 hours per year, about the same as Japanese workers (Table 2). Top is South Korea, with its corporate culture that prevents employees going home until the last boss has departed. The French and Germans, by comparison, put in 19 percent less time than Americans.
> The dollar has weakened against several major currencies over the past decade, making imports more expensive and producing in or exporting from the US more competitive, by comparison. The US is not just the world’s biggest importer but also the second largest exporter of merchandise goods (Table 3). In 2001 – the year China joined the World Trade Organization – the renminbi yuan, RMB, was 8.27 per dollar. By 2012 the currency had appreciated by more than 30 percent to 6.3 RMB per dollar. For many Chinese exporters, a breakeven exchange rate, when their exports to the US are no longer competitive, is between 5.5 to 5.8 yuan per dollar. As the RMB continues to appreciate against the dollar, more Chinese firms will abandon exports and focus on their domestic market, growing at 8 percent per annum.
> Fuel prices have more than doubled. For products with significant transportation costs, the rise in energy costs can add significantly to the cost of imports. Shipping large appliances is expensive, so Haier, a leading white goods manufacturer based in China, opened a South Carolina plant where components, shipped across the Pacific Ocean, are assembled by American workers.
> Delivery and Flexibility Pressures. For products requiring flexibility in the face of fickle fashion changes or assembly operations that require components shipped within a few days to accommodate schedules, such pressures have driven component producers to co-locate near US assembly operations.
> Natural disasters and disruptions in recent years have spooked global supply chains: Volcanoes in Iceland, overflowing rivers in Thailand and tsunamis in the Pacific Ocean idled assembly plants in the US and Europe because parts from affected regions could not be shipped. Years of cost savings at Toyota, from sourcing components from faraway locations, were wiped out by a few weeks of losses from assembly operations idled by 2011 floods in Thailand.
Of course, all indicators are not positive. Three factors could inhibit the US resurgence:
> The culture devalues science or engineering education. “Nerds,” “geeks” or “wonks” are at the bottom of the social totem pole compared to sports, film and media celebrities. A culture that emphasizes quick results and instant gratification deters students from tackling math, engineering and other challenging subjects.
> US companies lack an apprenticeship system. In other OECD nations like Germany, alternative paths in education lead to diplomas or cer
tificates in techn
ical areas, with employees trained by the company in a particular technology and then retained in well-paying careers. Some US companies are trying this approach, highlighted by G. Bussey in an April Wall Street Journal article. For example, General Electric is sending new employees for crash courses in hands-on manufacturing or sponsoring two-week summer camps at universities on lean manufacturing for high-school students.
But don’t hold your breath. Few American companies are providing apprenticeships and only in selected areas of the country. Unlike Germany, the US is a very mobile society. The average household moves every five years. In an environment where companies can easily sack workers and where workers leave for better opportunities, firms are loath to invest in worker training, only to see skilled workers leave for competing companies. The current economic slowdown, which is reducing such churn in American society and jobs, could lead to a better appreciation for the benefits of apprenticeship programs for both companies and workers.
The time is propitious for a resurgence of manufacturing in the US. Unlike the exuberance of the bubble years, new economic conditions, which may persist for years to come, suggest more sober social attitudes, more career-focused college majors, more buckling down to learn harder subjects, less churn in jobs, and greater willingness to settle for somewhat lower wages in return for company investment in worker training and greater job security. In short, some aspects of the future may look like the old days when Detroit was king and skilled technical jobs meant reasonably secure careers with a moderate middle-class living standard.
Farok J. Contractor is a professor of management and global business with Rutgers Business School.
———-
The US may be a service economy, but it’s still the world’s largest manufacturer. There are many reasons to remain bullish on US manufacturing and the American worker, suggests Farok Contractor, professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School. US firms invest in high-tech equipment, and the US worker is tops in adding value per hour on products. Recent economic difficulties also help fuel a manufacturing resurgence: falling wages allow the US to compete with low-cost China; anxious Americans work long hours; high energy prices and an uptick in natural disasters could prompt multinationals to relocate factories closer to the big US market. Contractor also points to factors that could stall the resurgence: US students show little interest in science or engineering. And because American workers enjoy great mobility, US manufacturers hesitate to provide apprenticeships that provide state-of-the-art training. Tough economic conditions could usher in new serious attitudes on career and education choices.
– YaleGlobal
Manufacturing in America: Start of a Renaissance?
by MAM Team08/12/2012
Wages in China are rising so rapidly that the insourcing vs. outsourcing calculus has changed. In 2000, U.S. wages were almost 22 times larger than those in China. By 2015, U.S. wages will be only four times larger. Adjusted for productivity, the differential shrinks even more. In the Yangzi River Delta, the epicenter of China’s skilled manufacturing workforce, the effective wage rate will be about 61 percent of U.S. wages in 2015.
At those levels, it makes sense to return manufacturing of a wide range of goods , with moderate levels of labor content and high logistics costs, to the U.S. For an automotive part, where labor contributes one quarter of total cost, the total cost advantage for China shrivels to less than 10 percent.
Ten percent is a key threshold. When you factor in the risks and realities of doing business in China–weak intellectual property protection and rule of law, long lead times, and lack of proximity to key customers, among others–companies are willing to bring manufacturing back when the cost difference is in the single digits.
Within the next three or four years, that threshold will be crossed for seven key categories of goods: computers and electronics; appliances and electrical equipment; transportation goods; plastics and rubber; machinery; furniture; and fabricated metals. These goods account for about two-thirds of the annual $325 billion in imports from China.
The upcoming insourcing revolution is not just about rising wages in China but also the often-unheralded productivity of the U.S. The U.S. economy is 33 percent more productive than Japan and 25 percent more productive than Germany. This helps explain why Siemens is exporting gas power turbines, made in the U.S., to Saudi Arabia and Toyota has announced it would export cars made in Kentucky and Indiana to South Korea.
Economics is driving insourcing but government policy can facilitate it. Here are seven helpful steps that the U.S. government can take to create good jobs for our children and ensure the long-term success of the economy.
First, adjust tax policy to favor insourcing rather than outsourcing by providing a targeted tax credit for job creation in the U.S. and for the repatriation of funds to the U.S. that foster job creation. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal has proposed legislation to create tax credits for re-shoring.
Second, level the playing field by addressing key trade-agreement violations and insisting on stronger IP protection and an end to currency management by the Chinese government.
Third, secure and train critical talent: retain foreign students by issuing six-month green cards in selected disciplines that become permanent upon employment; subsidize job training for new and expanded manufacturing facilities; and create “vocational colleges” that combine liberal arts education with training in such trades as welding, plumbing, electrical, and computer-assisted manufacturing.
Fourth, rethink regulations that impair competitiveness without corresponding benefit.
Fifth, facilitate the creation of industry clusters — such as Silicon Valley or, in an earlier era, Detroit — that bring together competitors, suppliers, schools, and talent to create a winning ecosystem.
Sixth, encourage foreign manufacturers to locate facilities in the U.S., the largest domestic market and one of the lowest-cost in the developed world.
Seventh, change the perception that China is low cost and the U.S. is high cost and uncompetitive. Companies should “do the math” rather than just assume China is cheaper.
More than any major economy, the U.S. responds quickly to threats. We do not curl up in a ball or complain. We adapt and we thrive. We faced down a similar threat from Japan in the 1970s and 1980s, and we are doing it again.
Hal Sirkin is Senior partner and managing director, The Boston Consulting Group (Chicago)
Manufacturing is Returning to America
by MAM TeamBy Vivek Wadhwa
But Ralph Lauren berets aside, the larger trends show that the tide has turned, and it is China’s turn to worry. Many CEOs, including Dow Chemicals’ Andrew Liveris, have declared their intentions to bring manufacturing back to the United States.
What is going to accelerate the trend isn’t, as people believe, the rising cost of Chinese labor or a rising yuan. The real threat to China comes from technology. Technical advances will soon lead to the same hollowing out of China’s manufacturing industry that they have to U.S industry over the past two decades.
Several technologies advancing and converging will cause this.
Robotics
The robots of today aren’t the androids or Cylons that we are used to seeing in science fiction movies, but specialized electromechanical devices run by software and remote control. As computers become more powerful, so do the abilities of these devices. Robots are now capable of performing surgery, milking cows, doing military reconnaissance and combat, and flying fighter jets. Several companies, such as Willow Garage, iRobot and 9th Sense, sell robot-development kits for which university students and open-source communities are developing ever-more sophisticated applications.
The factory assembly that China is currently performing is child’s play compared to the capabilities of the next generation of robots — which will soon become cheaper than human labor. One of China’s largest manufacturers, Taiwan-based Foxconn Technology Group, announced last August that it plans to install one million robots within three years to do the work that its workers in China presently do. It has found even low-cost Chinese labor to be too expensive and demanding.
Artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence is software that makes computers, if not intelligent in the human sense, at least good enough to fake it. This is the basic technology that IBM’s Deep Blue computer used to beat chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov in 1997 and that enabled IBM’s Watson to beat TV-show Jeopardy champions in 2011. AI is making it possible to develop self-driving cars, voice-recognition systems such as the iPhone’s Siri and Face.com, the face-recognition software Facebook recently acquired.
Neil Jacobstein, who chairs the AI track at the Silicon Valley-based graduate program Singularity University, says that AI technologies will find their way into manufacturing and make it “personal”: We will be able to design our own products at home with the aid of AI design assistants. He predicts a “creator economy” in which mass production is replaced by personalized production, with people customizing designs they download from the Internet or develop themselves.
3D printing
How will we turn these designs into products? By “printing” them at home or at modern-day Kinko’s using shared public manufacturing facilities such as TechShop, a membership-based manufacturing workshop featuring manufacturing technologies now on the horizon.
“Additive manufacturing” is making it possible to cost-effectively “print” products. In conventional manufacturing, parts are produced by humans using power-driven machine tools, such as saws, lathes, milling machines and drill presses, to physically remove material until you’re left with the shape desired. This is a cumbersome process that becomes more difficult and time-consuming with increasing complexity. The more complex the product, the more labor is required and the greater the effort.
In additive manufacturing, parts are produced by melting successive layers of materials based on three-dimensional models — adding materials rather than subtracting them. The “3D printers” that produce these parts use powdered metal, droplets of plastic and other materials — much like the toner cartridges that go into laser printers. This allows the creation of objects without tools or fixtures. The process doesn’t produce waste material and there is no additional cost for complexity. Just as, thanks to laser printers, a page filled with graphics doesn’t cost much more than one with text (other than the cost of toner), with 3D printers we can print a sophisticated 3D structure for what it would cost to print something simple.
Three-D printers can already create mechanical devices, medical implants, jewelry and even clothing. The cheapest ones, which print rudimentary objects, currently sell for between $500 and $1,000. Soon, we will have printers for this price that can print toys and household goods. By the end of this decade, we will see 3D printers doing the small-scale production of previously labor-intensive crafts and goods.
It is entirely conceivable that, in the next decade, manufacturing will again become a local industry and it will be possible to 3D print electronics and use giant 3D-printing scaffolds to print entire buildings. Why would we ship raw materials all the way to China and then ship completed products back to the United States when they can be manufactured more cheaply locally, on demand?
• • •
Other advances in the next decade will likely affect manufacturing, particularly advances in nanotechnology that change the equation further. Engineers and scientists are today developing new types of materials, such as carbon nanotubes, ceramic-matrix nanocomposites and new carbon fibers. These materials make it possible to create products that are stronger, lighter, more energy-efficient and more durable than existing manufactured goods.
A new field — “molecular manufacturing” — will take this one step further and make it possible to program molecules inexpensively, with atomic precision. “Over the next two decades,” Mr. Jacobstein says, “molecular manufacturing will do for our relationship with molecules and matter what the computer did for our relationship with bits and information — make the precise control of molecules and matter inexpensive and ubiquitous.”
All of these advances play well into America’s ability to innovate, demolish old industries and continually reinvent itself. The Chinese are still busy copying technologies we built over the past few decades. They haven’t cracked the nut on how to innovate yet.
It’s a near certainty that robotics, AI and 3D-printing technologies will advance rapidly and converge. American companies already find the rising cost of labor, shipping costs and time lags, and intellectual-property protection to be major issues in doing business in China. And the Chinese government has done itself no favor by hoarding key raw materials, such as rare-earth minerals, forcing Western manufacturers to start looking for alternatives.
The mo
st advanced automobile of today — the Tesla Roadster — is already being manufactured in the United States using robotic and AI technologies. Google just announced that it will produce its highly-acclaimed Nexus 7 tablet in the United States. This is just the beginning of the trend.
So, let me predict a future headline: “Protests break out in China over 2020 Summer Olympic uniforms, 3D-printed with U.S.-made technology.”
Vivek Wadhwa is director of research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University and a fellow at the Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University.
For Some U.S. Companies, ‘Reshoring’ Jobs from China Makes 'Cents'
by MAM TeamAugust 10, 2012
“We just kind of got kicked right in the teeth dealing with China. It wasn’t any fun by any means. But it helped us learn to bring stuff back to the United States,” said Calibur11 owner Coy Christmas.
The hassle of operating abroad has triggered some companies to move production stateside, a move called “reshoring” by some. Coming home not only bolsters the speed, quality and simplicity of doing business, it’s also more economical than it used to be. Average wages in China have jumped 10 to 25 per cent a year, hitting $4 to $6 an hour in some plants. Add in shipping and high fuel costs, and offshore manufacturing is no longer such a bargain.
The return of offshore production to America has emerged as a surprising silver lining in the U.S. economic recovery. The government doesn’t track corporate reshoring efforts, but experts say they are hearing of more companies bringing work back to the States.
“Lots of very encouraging anecdotes, and obviously the more of that we see, the better off we all are,” said Alan Tonelson, researcher for the U.S. Industry and Business Council.
Since 2002, about 3.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost nationwide. Returning jobs could create opportunities for thousands of U.S. workers.
Mark Phillips, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, said companies that have moved jobs back to the U.S., such as Calibur11 and 3M Co., have different reasons for the change. But all have discovered that operating in China, Mexico, Poland and other countries is not always rosy.
“When you are dealing across the ocean, there are logistical issues and language issues,” Phillips said. “It’s not perfect.”
Christmas called Calibur11’s experience in China a nightmare, with one vendor losing $700,000 in tooling equipment and another demanding a $150,000 “fee” to release his product.
“And then we found out our product was being sold on the black market. It’s been a horror story,” Christmas said. The company, which makes cases for popular consoles such as the Xbox 360, will now add a few employees in Duluth and many more in Chicago, where it plans to hire contractors to handle molding, assembling and packaging.
Ryan Kanne, director of the U.S. Commercial Service Office in Minneapolis, said the obstacles overseas are rising and many companies are bringing manufacturing back because of quality concerns. While it is sometimes cheaper to do business abroad, companies can keep a tighter rein on how products are made if manufacturing is done in the U.S.
“Some were subsidiaries (overseas) while others were contract manufacturing, but (companies) are bringing it back to the U.S. for quality control,” Kanne said.
Darlene Miller, owner of Permac Industries, a high-precision machine shop based in Burnsville, Minn., said her company always had quality issues in China. In 2006, she hired a Chinese contractor to make machine blades with exacting specs. But each shipment turned up flawed, with some blades not uniform, made of the wrong material, or falsely labelled “certified.” What complicated matters is that she had to buy a year’s worth of blades at a time.
Miller spent thousands on an outside testing lab, but was at her wit’s end after three years.
“We found a Wisconsin company to make the blades. And without the shipping, testing and reject costs, they actually beat the price in China,” she said.
For Dan Shimek, owner of the Outdoor GreatRoom Co. in Eagan, Minn., it became too inefficient to lean on offshoring. Shimek used to buy all his wooden pergolas from China, and fibreglass fire pits and pergolas from India. But minor problems on hardware orders created major issues, because reshipping took six weeks. And sometimes reorders on a hot product arrived too late, causing him to miss an entire season’s worth of sales.
“The impact, for sure, is tens of thousands of dollars. And the impact to cash flow for a small business can be even more dramatic than that,” Shimek said.
Today, his company makes most of its firepit and grill tables in Eagan, or orders from Minnesota firms. The change, carried out in the past two years, helped Shimek become more nimble and has added about a dozen jobs to Minnesota’s economy, either at his site or at contractors.
Some economists say reshoring will continue to add U.S. jobs, but others, including Tonelson, worry that the reshoring trend could remain largely anecdotal. “I think the offshoring craze is still going on,” he said.
Certainly conglomerates like 3M Co. continue to operate globally. But even it has brought divisions home, when it has made sense. The Maplewood, Minn.-based company said it consolidated production of its Littmann stethoscope from 14 domestic and foreign contractors to just one 3M factory in Columbia, Mo., a move that will improve efficiency for its operations.
“What we are doing is trying to shorten the supply chain,” said 3M spokeswoman Jackie Berry. “We were making pieces around the world and then consolidated, so our supply cycle fell to 50 days from 165 days.”
Calibur11’s Christmas is expecting to increase its business. The company made and sold $4.5 million worth of gaming cases last year, and this year it will make $5 million to $8 million “and we will do it right here in the United States,” Christmas said.
“I’m pumped up,” he said. “I’m looking forward to bringing us back to the United States.”
We Don't Cotton to Tax Cuts for the Rich
by MAM TeamAUG 09, 2012
North Carolina is the nation’s third-largest producer of cotton. We formed Cotton of the Carolinas with other manufacturers and farmers to promote the use of locally grown cotton in a supply chain that keeps jobs, investment and tax dollars right here in our own communities.
Our supply chain is completely transparent, from Ronnie Burleson’s farm in Richfield to his nephew’s cotton gin down the street in New London. From Hill Spinning in Thomasville to Mortex Apparel in Middlesex and back west to Statesville to MoCaro Dyeing and Finishing then back to Mortex before ending up at our company to be printed and dyed.
Years ago, I studied to be an economist at UNC-Chapel Hill, the nation’s first public university. Our public schools, colleges and universities are among the important places we can see our tax dollars at work.
When the first Bush tax cuts passed in 2001, our nation had a budget surplus and we were told the tax cuts would pay for themselves by boosting economic growth and job creation. Many people like myself thought that was bunk. You’d think the economic meltdown and large budget deficit would have shown that giving tax breaks for the best-off Americans makes them richer – it doesn’t pay for itself, it doesn’t trickle down and it doesn’t create jobs, at least not in America.
I know first-hand that investment is the key to keeping my business healthy. I know that the taxes I pay allow the government to reinvest in teachers, roads, clean water and other infrastructure and services that my business depends on to succeed.
North Carolina benefits significantly from government investment. For every tax dollar we send to Washington, we get $1.08 back in everything from supports for our cotton farmers, jobs at our military bases, investments in our national parks that bring tourists to our state, and research and education investments that support the Research Triangle.
The Senate recently passed a bill extending the Bush tax cuts on income below the $250,000 level for households. Almost everyone – 98 percent of Americans including small business owners – have income below that. The richest 2 percent would keep their tax cuts on their income below $250,000 but not their extra tax cuts above that level.
On Aug.1, the House passed a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2.7 million high-income earners and pay for these tax breaks by raising taxes on Americans with less income – reducing the child tax credit, college tuition tax credit and earned income tax credit, which help 13 million working families, with 26 million children. North Carolina is home to more than half a million of these working families who would be hurt.
Taking money from the budgets of families struggling to make ends meet and giving it to the most prosperous families won’t help my business or our economy. Instead it will continue us down the path of subsidizing the already well-off instead of making the investments in our economy and our people that truly strengthen our nation and our homegrown jobs.
Eric Henry is president of TS Designs of Burlington
Manufacturing in U.S. and Nation's Future Depend on Attracting Skilled People into Field
by MAM TeamBy: By Troy A. Mills
While I could go on and on about how we got ourselves in this position, I think that most don’t need, or want, the refresher course. The good news is, that it’s not too late.
It takes about 10 years to develop into a top-level tradesman. This means we have to start now. All American manufacturers need to get involved. We need to develop or continue the development of a skilled trades “campaign.” We have to attract new people in to the industry by showing them how fascinating and exciting it is and also how important they are to the success of our nation. This could be accomplished through radio, television and print advertisements as well as job fairs.
But our job fairs need to be different than the same old folding tables, handouts and sample parts. Some companies have already started kids programs, but I think this can be expanded upon by creating summer programs and mini-programs that teach a different discipline at each session. These programs need to be geared toward our middle and high school age children.
We are only in the early stages of this and could use all the help we can get. In addition to ideas, I am also asking every company discuss this on a regular basis and decide, not if, but how much you are willing to contribute to the survival of American manufacturing.
I cannot express the importance of doing something. All of us have experienced over the past year the difficulty in finding qualified candidates. This will get worse every year, until each of us can no longer staff our companies.
This is about more than just the survival of our industry. It’s about survival of our nation, the one our great grandparents and grandparents worked so hard to build. It’s about the legacy of American manufacturing.
Let’s rebuild American manufacturing. I believe our best is yet to come.
Troy A. Mills is Vice President of Albion Machine & Tool Co. The family-owned business opened in 1927.
Original Sin: Complying with Country of Origin Laws
by MAM Team8/10/2012
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) requires that products and packaging imported into the United States be marked “legibly, indelibly, and permanently” to indicate to the “ultimate purchaser the English name of [its] country of origin…” When an imported product involves elements or processes from more than one country, the country of origin is the last country in which a “substantial transformation” took place. A “substantial transformation” is defined as any “manufacturing process that results in a new and different product with a new name, character, and use that is different from that which existed before the change.” Meeting this test is decided by Customs on a case-by-case basis, and Customs issues letters of guidance to manufacturers on the interpretation and application of the regulations it enforces. The FTC’s jurisdiction over foreign origin claims relating to products and packaging extends beyond that of Customs, even covering marketing materials related to foreign and domestically produced goods. Promotional materials for textile and wool products, such as catalogs and Internet copy, must state whether a product is made domestically, abroad, or both.
For a product to bear a U.S. country of origin label without limitations or qualifications, the product and all of its constituent parts must entirely originate, or substantially originate, in the U.S. Any company claiming that its product originates in the U.S. must be able to provide reasonable and reliable evidence for the claim. In examining a U.S. origin claim, the FTC will look at the percentage of manufacturing costs that are attributable to U.S. materials and processes, and also the extent to which any foreign countries played a role in the product’s manufacture. Additionally, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Wool Products Labeling Act require that a textile include a “Made in the U.S.A.” label if the final product is “manufactured in the U.S. of fabric that is manufactured in the U.S.” By contrast, a textile or wool product partially manufactured in the U.S. and partially manufactured in another country must be labeled to identify foreign and domestic countries of origin.
Regulations similarly focus on the location of manufacture when determining country of origin for labeling purposes. Consider the example of a T-shirt that is made from American-grown cotton, but assembled in the Dominican Republic. Pursuant to Customs Regulation § 10.22, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.22), assembled articles are products of the country where the assembly occurs. Therefore the T-shirt’s country of origin is the Dominican Republic, although the company could affix a label to the T-shirt claiming that the T-shirt’s materials originate in the U.S.
The consequence of improperly labeling products is considerable. Failing to label a product correctly is considered fraudulent activity by the FTC. The FTC recommends that consumers contact their respective state’s Attorney General or Better Business Bureau to report mislabeling, and courts have found that state law claims for false labeling are not preempted by Federal law. Additionally, the Lanham Act enables a company’s competitors to assert claims against the company for false designations of a product’s origin.
With this newfound focus on promoting American-made products, it is important to note that the identification of a product’s country of origin to consumers is a well-regulated area. Moreover, there has been a resurgence of public interest in domestic textile manufacturing, as evidenced by the recent crowd funding success of “Flint & Tinder”, a startup retail company that promises consumers a quality American-made line of men’s underwear. The startup aimed to raise $30,000 and has received nearly $300,000 from donors to date. The Team U.S.A. Made in America Act and the crowd funding phenomenon both demonstrate that making apparel in the U.S. resonates with consumers. Studies have repeatedly verified the relationship between consumer perception of product quality and the perceived country of origin, and many consumer activist groups in the U.S. exist specifically to promote the purchase of domestically made products.
Therefore, whether the retailer is a startup funded by online investors or a major apparel brand, the specter of overlapping liability under Federal law and general U.S. consumer perception regarding products’ origination ensures that compliance with Federal regulations concerning the labeling of clothing is a sound investment.
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Complying with the Made in USA Standard
by MAM Team(Copied in its entirety from the FTC page. Nothing has been edited)
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with preventing deception and unfairness in the marketplace. The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading claims that a product is of U.S. origin. Traditionally, the Commission has required that a product advertised as Made in USA be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. After a comprehensive review of Made in USA and other U.S. origin claims in product advertising and labeling, the Commission announced in December 1997 that it would retain the “all or virtually all” standard. The Commission also issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims to provide guidance to marketers who want to make an unqualified Made in USA claim under the “all or virtually all” standard and those who want to make a qualified Made in USA claim.
This publication provides additional guidance about how to comply with the “all or virtually all” standard. It also offers some general information about the U.S. Customs Service’s requirement that all products of foreign origin imported into the U.S. be marked with the name of the country of origin.
This publication is the Federal Trade Commission staff’s view of the law’s requirements. It is not binding on the Commission. The Enforcement Policy Statement issued by the FTC is at the end of the publication.
Basic Information About Made In USA Claims
Must U.S. content be disclosed on products sold in the U.S.?
U.S. content must be disclosed on automobiles and textile, wool, and fur products. There’s no law that requires most other products sold in the U.S. to be marked or labeled Made in USA or have any other disclosure about their amount of U.S. content. However, manufacturers and marketers who choose to make claims about the amount of U.S. content in their products must comply with the FTC’s Made in USA policy.
What products does the FTC’s Made in USA policy apply to?
The policy applies to all products advertised or sold in the U.S., except for those specifically subject to country-of-origin labeling by other laws. Other countries may have their own country-of-origin marking requirements. As a result, exporters should determine whether the country to which they are exporting imposes such requirements.
What kinds of claims does the Enforcement Policy Statement apply to?
The Enforcement Policy Statement applies to U.S. origin claims that appear on products and labeling, advertising, and other promotional materials. It also applies to all other forms of marketing, including marketing through digital or electronic mechanisms, such as Internet or e-mail.
A Made in USA claim can be express or implied.
Examples of express claims: Made in USA. “Our products are American-made.” “USA.”
In identifying implied claims, the Commission focuses on the overall impression of the advertising, label, or promotional material. Depending on the context, U.S. symbols or geographic references (for example, U.S. flags, outlines of U.S. maps, or references to U.S. locations of headquarters or factories) may convey a claim of U.S. origin either by themselves, or in conjunction with other phrases or images.
Example: A company promotes its product in an ad that features a manager describing the “true American quality” of the work produced at the company’s American factory. Although there is no express representation that the company’s product is made in the U.S., the overall — or net — impression the ad is likely to convey to consumers is that the product is of U.S. origin.
Brand names and trademarks
Ordinarily, the Commission will not consider a manufacturer or marketer’s use of an American brand name or trademark by itself as a U.S. origin claim. Similarly, the Commission is not likely to interpret the mere listing of a company’s U.S. address on a package label in a non-prominent way as a claim of U.S. origin.
Example: A product is manufactured abroad by a well-known U.S. company. The fact that the company is headquartered in the U.S. also is widely known. Company pamphlets for its foreign-made product prominently feature its brand name. Assuming that the brand name does not specifically denote U.S. origin (that is, the brand name is not “Made in America, Inc.”), using the brand name by itself does not constitute a claim of U.S. origin.
Representations about entire product lines
Manufacturers and marketers should not indicate, either expressly or implicitly, that a whole product line is of U.S. origin (“Our products are made in USA”) when only some products in the product line are made in the U.S. according to the “all or virtually all” standard.
Does the FTC pre-approve Made in USA claims?
The Commission does not pre-approve advertising or labeling claims. A company doesn’t need approval from the Commission before making a Made in USA claim. As with most other advertising claims, a manufacturer or marketer may make any claim as long as it is truthful and substantiated.
The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims
What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?
For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. The term “United States,” as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.
What does “all or virtually all” mean?
“All or virtually all” means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.
What substantiation is required for a Made in USA claim?
When a manufacturer or marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is Made in USA, it should have — and rely on — a “reasonable basis” to support the claim at the time it is made. This means a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.
What factors does the Commission consider to determine whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.?
The product’s final assembly or processing must take place in the U.S. The Commission then considers other factors, including how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be assigned to U
.S.
parts and processing, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. In some instances, only a small portion of the total manufacturing costs are attributable to foreign processing, but that processing represents a significant amount of the product’s overall processing. The same could be true for some foreign parts. In these cases, the foreign content (processing or parts) is more than negligible, and, as a result, unqualified claims are inappropriate.
Example: A company produces propane barbecue grills at a plant in Nevada. The product’s major components include the gas valve, burner and aluminum housing, each of which is made in the U.S. The grill’s knobs and tubing are imported from Mexico. An unqualified Made in USA claim is not likely to be deceptive because the knobs and tubing make up a negligible portion of the product’s total manufacturing costs and are insignificant parts of the final product.
Example: A table lamp is assembled in the U.S. from American-made brass, an American-made Tiffany-style lampshade, and an imported base. The base accounts for a small percent of the total cost of making the lamp. An unqualified Made in USA claim is deceptive for two reasons: The base is not far enough removed in the manufacturing process from the finished product to be of little consequence and it is a significant part of the final product.
What items should manufacturers and marketers include in analyzing the percentage of domestic content in a particular product?
Manufacturers and marketers should use the cost of goods sold or inventory costs of finished goods in their analysis. Such costs generally are limited to the total cost of all manufacturing materials, direct manufacturing labor, and manufacturing overhead.
Should manufacturers and marketers rely on information from American suppliers about the amount of domestic content in the parts, components, and other elements they buy and use for their final products?
If given in good faith, manufacturers and marketers can rely on information from suppliers about the domestic content in the parts, components, and other elements they produce. Rather than assume that the input is 100 percent U.S.-made, however, manufacturers and marketers would be wise to ask the supplier for specific information about the percentage of U.S. content before they make a U.S. origin claim.
Example: A company manufactures food processors in its U.S. plant, making most of the parts, including the housing and blade, from U.S. materials. The motor, which constitutes 50 percent of the food processor’s total manufacturing costs, is bought from a U.S. supplier. The food processor manufacturer knows that the motor is assembled in a U.S. factory. Even though most of the parts of the food processor are of U.S. origin, the final assembly is in the U.S., and the motor is assembled in the U.S., the food processor is not considered “all or virtually all” American-made if the motor itself is made of imported parts that constitute a significant percentage of the appliance’s total manufacturing cost. Before claiming the product is Made in USA, this manufacturer should look to its motor supplier for more specific information about the motor’s origin.
Example: On its purchase order, a company states: “Our company requires that suppliers certify the percentage of U.S. content in products supplied to us. If you are unable or unwilling to make such certification, we will not purchase from you.” Appearing under this statement is the sentence, “We certify that our ___ have at least ___% U.S. content,” with space for the supplier to fill in the name of the product and its percentage of U.S. content. The company generally could rely on a certification like this to determine the appropriate country-of-origin designation for its product.
How far back in the manufacturing process should manufacturers and marketers look?
To determine the percentage of U.S. content, manufacturers and marketers should look back far enough in the manufacturing process to be reasonably sure that any significant foreign content has been included in their assessment of foreign costs. Foreign content incorporated early in the manufacturing process often will be less significant to consumers than content that is a direct part of the finished product or the parts or components produced by the immediate supplier.
Example: The steel used to make a single component of a complex product (for example, the steel used in the case of a computer’s floppy drive) is an early input into the computer’s manufacture, and is likely to constitute a very small portion of the final product’s total cost. On the other hand, the steel in a product like a pipe or a wrench is a direct and significant input. Whether the steel in a pipe or wrench is imported would be a significant factor in evaluating whether the finished product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.
Are raw materials included in the evaluation of whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.?
It depends on how much of the product’s cost the raw materials make up and how far removed from the finished product they are.
Example: If the gold in a gold ring is imported, an unqualified Made in USA claim for the ring is deceptive. That’s because of the significant value the gold is likely to represent relative to the finished product, and because the gold — an integral component — is only one step back from the finished article. By contrast, consider the plastic in the plastic case of a clock radio otherwise made in the U.S. of U.S.-made components. If the plastic case was made from imported petroleum, a Made in USA claim is likely to be appropriate because the petroleum is far enough removed from the finished product, and is an insignificant part of it as well.
Qualified Claims
What is a qualified Made in USA claim?
A qualified Made in USA claim describes the extent, amount or type of a product’s domestic content or processing; it indicates that the product isn’t entirely of domestic origin.
Example: “60% U.S. content.” “Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts.” “Couch assembled in USA from Italian Leather and Mexican Frame.”
When is a qualified Made in USA claim appropriate?
A qualified Made in USA claim is appropriate for products that include U.S. content or processing but don’t meet the criteria for making an unqualified Made in USA claim. Because even qualified claims may imply more domestic content than exists, manufacturers or marketers must exercise care when making these claims. That is, avoid qualified claims unless the product has a significant amount of U.S. content or U.S. processing. A qualified Made in USA claim, like an unqualified claim, must be truthful and substantiated.
Example: An exercise treadmill is assembled in the U.S. The assembly represents significant work and constitutes a “substantial transformation” (a term used by the U.S. Customs Service). All of the treadmill’s major parts, including the motor, frame, and electronic display, are imported. A few of its incidental parts, such as the handle bar covers, the plastic on/off power key, and the treadmill mat, are manufactured in the U.S.
Together, these parts account for approximately three percent of the total cost of all the parts. Because the value of the U.S.-made parts is negligible compared to the value of all the parts, a claim on the treadmill that it is “Made in USA of U.S. and Imported Parts” is deceptive. A claim like “Made in U.S. from Imported Parts” or “Assembled in U.S.A.” would not be deceptive.
U.S. origin claims for specific processes or parts
Claims that a particular manufacturing or other process was performed in the U.S. or that a particular part was manufactured in the U.S. must be truthful, substantiated, and clearly refer to the specific process or part, not to the general manufacture of the product, to avoid implying more U.S. content than exists.
Manufacturers and marketers should be cautious about using general terms, such as “produced,” “created” or “manufactured” in the U.S. Words like these are unlikely to convey a message limited to a particular process. Additional qualification probably is necessary to describe a product that is not “all or virtually all” made in the U.S.
In addition, if a product is of foreign origin (that is, it has been substantially transformed abroad), manufacturers and marketers also should make sure they satisfy Customs’ markings statute and regulations that require such products to be marked with a foreign country of origin. Further, Customs requires the foreign country of origin to be preceded by “Made in,” “Product of,” or words of similar meaning when any city or location that is not the country of origin appears on the product.
Example: A company designs a product in New York City and sends the blueprint to a factory in Finland for manufacturing. It labels the product “Designed in USA — Made in Finland.” Such a specific processing claim would not lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the whole product was made in the U.S. The Customs Service requires the product to be marked “Made in,” or “Product of” Finland since the product is of Finnish origin and the claim refers to the U.S. Examples of other specific processing claims are: “Bound in U.S. — Printed in Turkey.” “Hand carved in U.S. — Wood from Philippines.” “Software written in U.S. — Disk made in India.” “Painted and fired in USA. Blanks made in (foreign country of origin).”
Example: A company advertises its product, which was invented in Seattle and manufactured in Bangladesh, as “Created in USA.” This claim is deceptive because consumers are likely to interpret the term “Created” as Made in USA — an unqualified U.S. origin claim.
Example: A computer imported from Korea is packaged in the U.S. in an American-made corrugated paperboard box containing only domestic materials and domestically produced expanded rigid polystyrene plastic packing. Stating Made in USA on the package would deceive consumers about the origin of the product inside. But the company could legitimately make a qualified claim, such as “Computer Made in Korea — Packaging Made in USA.”
Example: The Acme Camera Company assembles its cameras in the U.S. The camera lenses are manufactured in the U.S., but most of the remaining parts are imported. A magazine ad for the camera is headlined “Beware of Imported Imitations” and states “Other high-end camera makers use imported parts made with cheap foreign labor. But at Acme Camera, we want only the highest quality parts for our cameras and we believe in employing American workers. That’s why we make all of our lenses right here in the U.S.” This ad is likely to convey that more than a specific product part (the lens) is of U.S. origin. The marketer should be prepared to substantiate the broader U.S. origin claim conveyed to consumers viewing the ad.
Comparative Claims
Comparative claims should be truthful and substantiated, and presented in a way that makes the basis for comparison clear (for example, whether the comparison is to another leading brand or to a previous version of the same product). They should truthfully describe the U.S. content of the product and be based on a meaningful difference in U.S. content between the compared products.
Example: An ad for cellular phones states “We use more U.S. content than any other cellular phone manufacturer.” The manufacturer assembles the phones in the U.S. from American and imported components and can substantiate that the difference between the U.S. content of its phones and that of the other manufacturers’ phones is significant. This comparative claim is not deceptive.
Example: A product is advertised as having “twice as much U.S. content as before.” The U.S. content in the product has been increased from 2 percent in the previous version to 4 percent in the current version. This comparative claim is deceptive because the difference between the U.S. content in the current and previous version of the product are insignificant.
Assembled in USA Claims
A product that includes foreign components may be called “Assembled in USA” without qualification when its principal assembly takes place in the U.S. and the assembly is substantial. For the “assembly” claim to be valid, the product’s last “substantial transformation” also should have occurred in the U.S. That’s why a “screwdriver” assembly in the U.S. of foreign components into a final product at the end of the manufacturing process doesn’t usually qualify for the “Assembled in USA” claim.
Example: A lawn mower, composed of all domestic parts except for the cable sheathing, flywheel, wheel rims and air filter (15 to 20 percent foreign content) is assembled in the U.S. An “Assembled in USA” claim is appropriate.
Example: All the major components of a computer, including the motherboard and hard drive, are imported. The computer’s components then are put together in a simple “screwdriver” operation in the U.S., are not substantially transformed under the Customs Standard, and must be marked with a foreign country of origin. An “Assembled in U.S.” claim without further qualification is deceptive.
The FTC and The Customs Service
What is the U.S. Customs Service’s jurisdiction over country-of-origin claims?
The Tariff Act gives Customs and the Secretary of the Treasury the power to administer the requirement that imported goods be marked with a foreign country of origin (for example, “Made in Japan”).
When an imported product incorporates materials and/or processing from more than one country, Customs considers the country of origin to be the last country in which a “substantial transformation” took place. Customs defines “substantial transformation” as a manufacturing process that results in a new and different product with a new name, character, and use that is different from that which existed before the change. Customs makes country-of-origin determinations using the “substantial transformation” test on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, Customs uses a “tariff shift” analysis, comparable to “substantial transformation,” to determine a product’s country of origin.
What is the interaction between the FTC and Customs regarding country-of-origin claims?
Even if Customs determines that an imported product does not need a foreign country-of-origin mark, it is not necessarily permissible to promote that product as Made in USA. The FTC considers additional factors to decide whether a product can be advertised or labeled as Made in USA.
Manufacturers and marketers should check with Customs to see if they need to mark their products with the foreign country of origin. If they don’t, they should look at the FTC’s standard to check if they can properly make a Made in USA claim.
The FTC has jurisdiction over foreign origin claims on products and in packaging that are beyond the disclosures required by Customs (for example, claims that supplement a required foreign origin marking to indicate where additional processing or finishing of a product occurred).
The FTC also has jurisdiction over foreign origin claims in advertising and other promotional materials. Unqualified U.S. origin claims in ads or other promotional materials for products that Customs requires a foreign country-of-origin mark may mislead or confuse consumers about the product’s origin. To avoid misleading consumers, marketers should clearly disclose the foreign manufacture of a product.
Example: A television set assembled in Korea using an American-made picture tube is shipped to the U.S. The Customs Service requires the television set to be marked “Made in Korea” because that’s where the television set was last “substantially transformed.” The company’s World Wide Web page states “Although our televisions are made abroad, they always contain U.S.-made picture tubes.” This statement is not deceptive. However, making the statement “All our picture tubes are made in the USA” — without disclosing the foreign origin of the television’s manufacture — might imply a broader claim (for example, that the television set is largely made in the U.S.) than could be substantiated. That is, if the statement and the entire ad imply that any foreign content or processing is negligible, the advertiser must substantiate that claim or net impression. The advertiser in this scenario would not be able to substantiate the implied Made in USA claim because the product was “substantially transformed” in Korea.
Other Statutes
What are the requirements of other federal statutes relating to country-of-origin determinations?
Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Wool Products Labeling Act — Require a Made in USA label on most clothing and other textile or wool household products if the final product is manufactured in the U.S. of fabric that is manufactured in the U.S., regardless of where materials earlier in the manufacturing process (for example, the yarn and fiber) came from. Textile products that are imported must be labeled as required by the Customs Service. A textile or wool product partially manufactured in the U.S. and partially manufactured in another country must be labeled to show both foreign and domestic processing.
On a garment with a neck, the country of origin must be disclosed on the front of a label attached to the inside center of the neck — either midway between the shoulder seams or very near another label attached to the inside center of the neck. On a garment without a neck, and on other kinds of textile products, the country of origin must appear on a conspicuous and readily accessible label on the inside or outside of the product.
Catalogs and other mail order promotional materials for textile and wool products, including those disseminated on the Internet, must disclose whether a product is made in the U.S., imported or both.
The Fur Products Labeling Act requires the country of origin of imported furs to be disclosed on all labels and in all advertising. For copies of the Textile, Wool or Fur Rules and Regulations, or the new business education guide on labeling requirements, call the FTC’s Consumer Response Center (202-382-4357). Or visit the FTC online at www.ftc.gov Click on Consumer Protection.
American Automobile Labeling Act
Requires that each automobile manufactured on or after October 1, 1994, for sale in the U.S. bear a label disclosing where the car was assembled, the percentage of equipment that originated in the U.S. and Canada, and the country of origin of the engine and transmission. Any representation that a car marketer makes that is required by the AALA is exempt from the Commission’s policy. When a company makes claims in advertising or promotional materials that go beyond the AALA requirements, it will be held to the Commission’s standard. For more information, call the Consumer Programs Division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (202-366-0846).
Buy American Act — Requires that a product be manufactured in the U.S. of more than 50 percent U.S. parts to be considered Made in USA for government procurement purposes. For more information, review the Buy American Act at 41 U.S.C. §§ 10a-10c, the Federal Acquisition Regulations at 48 C.F.R. Part 25, and the Trade Agreements Act at 19 U.S.C. §§ 2501-2582.
What To Do About Violations
What if I suspect noncompliance with the FTC’s Made in USA standard or other country-of-origin mislabeling?
Information about possible illegal activity helps law enforcement officials target companies whose practices warrant scrutiny. If you suspect noncompliance, contact the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-2996 or send an e-mail to MUSA@ftc.gov. If you know about import or export fraud, call Customs’ toll-free Commercial Fraud Hotline, 1-800-ITS-FAKE. Examples of fraudulent practices involving imports include removing a required foreign origin label before the product is delivered to the ultimate purchaser (with or without the improper substitution of a Made in USA label) and failing to label a product with a required country of origin.
You also can contact your state Attorney General and your local Better Business Bureau to report a company. Or you can refer your complaint to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus by calling (212) 754-1320. NAD handles complaints about the truth and accuracy of national advertising. You can reach the Council of Better Business Bureaus on the web at adweb.com/adassoc17.html.
Finally, the Lanham Act gives any person (such as a competitor) who is damaged by a false designation of origin the right to sue the party making the false claim. Consult a lawyer to see if this private right of action is an appropriate course of action for you.
For More Information
The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and i
nvestigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
Your Opportunity to Comment
The National Small Business Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards collect comments from small businesses about federal compliance and enforcement activities. Each year, the Ombudsman evaluates the conduct of these activities and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small businesses. Small businesses can comment to the Ombudsman without fear of reprisal. To comment, call toll-free 1-888-REGFAIR (1-888-734-3247) or go to www.sba.gov/ombudsman.
December 1998 –
{Made in America Movement Note} Cleary this needs to be updated.