U.S. loses meat labeling case; trade war looms
Source: Reuters
Canada and Mexico are readying trade sanctions against the United States after they won a meat labeling dispute on Monday, increasing pressure on the U.S. Congress to scrap the laws.
The World Trade Organization upheld a complaint by Canada and Mexico about U.S. laws requiring retailers to label meat with the country where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered, saying they discriminated against imported livestock.
Republicans, who have a majority in Congress, have signaled they may act to repeal the laws as early as this week, but consumer groups and many Democrats say they provide essential information for shoppers.
Canadian beef and pork industries say the rules add to expenses and have cut livestock exports, driving some farmers out of business and costing them more than $1 billion a year.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/18/us-usa-meat-idUSKBN0O31G820150518
Didn't Senator Warren say this could happen with TPP and The wall street reform and consumer protection act?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)stuff you don't want to eat.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)get a picture of a mad cow and put your words on there for a top notch meme.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Can't have that! Nobody wants a trade war because.....Trade for trade's sake is good!
pa28
(6,145 posts)I keep hearing how it can't or won't be done under TPP. Facts show otherwise.
Hope this post gets many rec's because we are about to make a generational mistake with TPP and the time to build opposition is now.
Auggie
(31,230 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)From the article in the OP:
And here's proof that not all U.S. producers can get behind the TPP.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)American meat processors,the losers,American consumer.
PSPS
(13,635 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)origin labelling laws to cast another net of gloom and doom over the TPP is illogical.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)And to hell what you or mega corporate meat processors have to say about it ...
If they stop labeling, then I stop buying ...
And the marginally Liberal DUers ? ... we are not going to get along very well ... we will fight this nonsense and those who promote it ...
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)see both sides of the issue.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Um, no. That's entirely logical. What's illogical is pretending that the TPP will produce different results from the same systems.
mindem
(1,580 posts)To hell with what the consumer wants, it's all about marketing and money, money, money.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)Next it'll be some trade-partner under the TPP suing because the USDA won't approve their "Jungle"-quality (As in the book by Upton Sinclair) embalmed-beef for human consumption.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Ilsa
(61,712 posts)I don't know if you're a pescatarian or vegetarian or vegan, but there are asian fish farms with fish growing in animal shit.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)That is nasty beyond belief.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)appalachiablue
(41,199 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I'm near Houston, we have lots of invasive species that thrive in our polluted water.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I read the COOL for all food I buy. I don't buy Melissa's brand organic frozen veggies because they come from China (can't seem to forget melamine laced formula and lax oversite there)
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)etc. I want it.
840high
(17,196 posts)Lodestar
(2,388 posts)origins/processing info isn't available. I currently only eat grass fed and organic meat products anyway and those, at least for now,
ARE labeled.
Historic NY
(37,460 posts)where its from and if it farm raised or otherwise. I don't buy Asian farm raised fish/shell fish products.
appalachiablue
(41,199 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Fla Dem
(23,875 posts)International courts/tribunals overriding US regulations and laws that keep our food safe. What next, disputing automobile manufacturing regulations?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... since we signed up to it, and since we benifit by it, shouldn't we obide by it?
All agreements require ajudication and enforcement mechanisms - otherwise they aren't binding agreements.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)We are gonna to fight you on this ... everyone fucking step of the way ...
NAFTA needs to be reversed, not enhanced ...
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... one of those libertarians who complain that they didn't consent, personally, to be governed and that they didn't sign any dang social contract.
You have every right to your opinion and to advocate for your policy preferences , but repealing NAFTA sounds a lot like repealing Obamacare - it ain't gonna happen. The reality seems to be that you can't block TPP, let alone roll back NAFTA.
The world moves forward - with or without you.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)who's employed by 270 Strategies.
How's them apples?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... grown? I only eat apples that were grown within walking distance of my apartment. By someone I personally know. And then only if they are organic.
Come to think of it, I haven't had an apple in, gee, decades. Wonder why,,,
Fla Dem
(23,875 posts)Do we really want to abdicate our legislative process to a world court? Whatever benefits we may garner, and I'm not sure anyone knows what they are, are they worth our sovereigncy?
sarisataka
(18,895 posts)To support your local farmers and butchers. Buy locally produced food.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...I'd pretty much starve to death. I'm on the east coast and pretty much all of my fruits and vegetables come from California. How is that much different from getting my meat from Mexico ?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)indirectly accountable to me. Mexican regulatory bodies? Not so much.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)The dispute is over source labeling.......not production standards. Why do you think that Canadian and Mexican ranchers might use steroids more than American ranchers ?
This isn't a health and safety issue ; it's just about protectionist labeling.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)with me being able to make an informed decision?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... generally speaking, source labeling is just a petty protectionist ploy. It is low to no information, and in the case of health and safety issues it just serves to play on consumer's fear, uncertainty and doubt about other countries and other peoples. In actual fact, the beef is inspected and produced according to the same standards as American sourced beef.
That being the case, it's the proper subject of a trade deal in which we get advantages and they get reciprocal advantages.
If it were strictly a health and safety issue I would support informative labeling. In fact, we have it... the FDA organic certification. So you can get organic meat without being concerned about country of origin.
It's also possible for suppliers to label their meet "made in the usa". If people are concerned about that, there will be a market for it.
Outside of a trade deal it is a legitimate protectionist tactic - maybe ineffective but legitimate . In the context of a trade deal where terms and conditions have been agreed to, it may not be.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)As expressed on just this particular thread:
1) You oppose the local food movement
2) On the other hand, you support -- and defend -- the corporate factory farm meat industry, i.e. Big Agribusiness
3) You oppose point-of-origin labeling, and call it a "protectionist ploy"
4) Those opposed to TPP (and NAFTA) are "protectionists"
5) You seem to like the word "protectionist", and use it as a derogatory term
You are on this site because...?
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Well done
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... in a bit more detail.
1) I oppose the local food movement ....
I don't oppose the local food movement, I just don't support it, and I don't want to be part of it. I don't think there is anything wrong with a preference for local food, and I'm glad there are folks who are able to serve a need in their community and to profit from it. I don't think it will ever be anything other than a niche market, but I've got nothing against it.
2) I support and defend the corporate factory farm meat industry....
Yes, I support it in so far as it puts food on the table. I put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. In a country of 322 million people, 81% of whom live in large urban areas, large scale industrialized agriculture is a necessity. And providing larger, global markets for our country's agricultural products drives our costs down by allowing economics of scale.
3) I oppose point-of-origin labeling, and call it a protectionist ploy.
No, I don't oppose it in an absolute sense. I oppose it being advocated for reasons of "health and safety". It isn't a health and safety issue, its an issue of solidarity with our fellow citizens as opposed to citizens of another country. That is, it is a protectionist policy.
Is there anything wrong with promoting solidarity with your fellow citizens? No, not in general. In the specific context of a trade agreement that is of mutual benefit to both "us and them", however, there may be. If that was the deal (apparently it was) then it is reasonable to protest it if the deal isn't kept up by both sides.
4) Those opposed to TPP (and NAFTA) are "protectionists"
"Protectionist" is the proper, normal, technical term for those who support trade barriers and oppose their reduction. Trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP tend to reduce and attenuate those barriers. Those who oppose them are, in fact, protectionists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism
5) You seem to like the word "protectionist", and use it as a derogatory term
I don't believe that "protectionist" is a pejorative term. It's purely descriptive and appropriate to use in the context of discussing trade agreements. Protectionism is a tactic, and may be a useful tactic in some circumstances while not being so in others. For instance, copyright and patent laws can be protectionist. The TPP is, in this regard, protectionist in our favor. Generally, protectionism is a useful tactic for second-tier, struggling economies, and more disadvantageous for top-tier, global economies. Since we are a top-tier, global economy, protectionism does not tend to be to our advantage.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...I'm a liberal, progressive Democrat. And you?
sarisataka
(18,895 posts)for your area. You'll be surprised how much food you can buy that is locally grown.
As for meat, I prefer to know what I am eating has not been raised on steroids and ash...
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...not production standards. Why do you think that Canadian and Mexican ranchers might use steroids more than American ranchers ?
This isn't a health and safety issue ; it's just about protectionist labeling.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)onecaliberal
(32,991 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)be. I don't understand that position from anyone other than someone who has a vested interest in keeping food origin secret.
onecaliberal
(32,991 posts)How dare anyone say we don't have the right to know where on the hell our food comes from. This country is becoming more screwed by the day.
bananas
(27,509 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)After the big issues with mad cow disease many years, the WHO issued guidelines for the global farming community that animal parts of cows should not be fed to cows OR other animals either such as poultry and pigs.
Most of the rest of the world has followed these guidelines, but the U.S. and Canada hadn't restricted feeding cattle animal parts to poultry and pigs, when their parts are fed back in feed to cattle, even though cattle parts are no longer fed to cattle now. Many experts have concerns that even though poultry and pigs don't get themselves the disease in terms of how it manifests itself in cattle, there is concern that they can be *carriers* of the disease, and that the circle of feeding cow parts to these animals and then these animals back to cattle will still perhaps perpetuate mad cow disease that will bite us back at a later date. Here's one of many articles on this topic from back then...
http://www.greens.org/s-r/33/33-09.html
And guess what, not too long ago, there was another case found in Canada with these reduced restrictions for another incidence of mad cow disease just this year! HMMM!!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/13/us-canada-beef-idUSKBN0LH15P20150213
So... If we can no longer have labels on country of origin of cattle meat, then what's to protect those around the world from perhaps a larger potential spread of mad cow disease that happened in Canada recently, likely due to these policies!
You would almost think that this newer policy will have the reverse effect, and make it less problematic for American cattle (at least those that don't have organic certification) to get sold overseas. I'm wondering what places like Europe and Asia with stricter standards feel about this. It certainly will likely hurt organic cattle farmers here in the U.S., who perhaps can no longer have a larger share of cattle exports than the more corporate cattle farmers that aren't putting in place adequate feed restrictions.
Response to cascadiance (Reply #40)
nenagh This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)in the deer population, and that prion disease is much, much worse in deer populations today.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> A big issue with this decision is U.S. and Canada policy on mad cow "diets" of cattle.
The American (and presumably Canadian?) beef exporters are desperate to sneak their
unregulated(*) product into other markets around the world in the same way that the
Mexicans are trying to get *into* the US.
(*) = the majority from CAFOs, obviously excepting organic producers
Lodestar
(2,388 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)So of course it's discriminatory. The answer to this is more inspectors and a more robust inspection process. If we were assured of our food safety, why would anyone care about a country of origin?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
Lodestar
(2,388 posts)rather than be completely dependent on government. Labels should provide enough information to make
informed decisions and that also creates incentive for companies to run a tighter ship regarding how their
food is grown, processed, etc.
randome
(34,845 posts)If we increased our safety standards and applied them uniformly to domestic and imported food, then we could label other country's products as not meeting those standards. So long as our domestic standards don't single anyone out, I don't see that anyone bringing an objection to the WTO could prevail.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Maybe to try and support domestic producers and thus help out one's OWN economy, rather than the economies of other countries?
randome
(34,845 posts)The point is to benefit all countries, not just ourselves. I know that sounds altruistic and what government is truly altruistic? But trade treaties are the closest we come to being fair to all signatories.
Far-reaching treaties like the TPP bring us closer together even as we compete. At least that's the idea. I probably don't need to point out that it doesn't always work out that way.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)From what I've seen historically the point of trade treaties is to benefit businesses, not countries or their inhabitants.
Do they 'bring us closer together'? Sure, they drive us all into poverty to benefit those who exploit us.
appalachiablue
(41,199 posts)appalachiablue
(41,199 posts)for execs. and shareholders by producing products and services in countries as cheaply as possible, with near slave wage worker exploitation and scant to no regulation. Give up the feel good global happiness index, it's about money. How stupid do you think people are?
randome
(34,845 posts)Some are smaller companies that want to do business overseas more fluidly.
There is nothing wrong with corporations making more profit. The problem we have in this country is that we don't tax that profit more equitably. But that's a different issue.
So long as the playing field is leveled for all signatories to the treaty, in general, in aggregate, it's a good thing for all concerned. Will some corporations take advantage of the situation to line their pockets and pay out extra special bonuses to their execs? Undoubtedly.
But that's not what the vast majority of companies do. It's what the biggest and the greediest do and those are the ones we hear the most about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,032 posts)the less carbon it takes to bring to market.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)happy to allow consumers to chose Italian origin beef. This is about choices, nothing else. That is unless you have something to be ashamed of as a country of origin. Then I suppose the label might allow consumers to chose from a better managed country of origin. If you have a comparative advantage, use it and make better product. If your comparative advantage is that you put out absolute shit for the absolute lowest price, then own it.
randome
(34,845 posts)That's different from a 'receiving' country trying to encourage local products only. Local is good but not in terms of an international trade treaty where all parties are to be treated alike.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)is so much wrong with American knowledge of this.
COOL was written to interfere with imports. Against the treaty.
Sorry, America, you can not always be the winner. Sometimes you are wrong, and military might does not make right.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but it will be extended to China with TPP. yes, I do care about whether or not my food comes from a country that seems incapable (or just doesn't care) of even making dog treat that won't kill dogs.
appalachiablue
(41,199 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)then we don't allow them to export to us. It's that simple. The TPP will increase safety standards across the board. Unless the GOP starts weakening ours, which I wouldn't put past them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but it will not be enforced. If there is only one thing I know about this country it's that profits come before the general welfare every time. Our government is the servant of the rich.
Lodestar
(2,388 posts)currently no impartial global rules or regulators in combination with those of a country to create a consistent set of conditions and a fair playing field.
The complexity of accomplishing that is mind boggling and perhaps the U.S. is trying to dominate this process before such global entities are created in order to have the greatest influence over how its set up.
Of course the question of corporate dominance in any institution's decision-making process is always going to be contentious due to all of the conflicts of interest relative to profit-making and less than democratic modus operandi.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)from HEB- "hatched raised and processed in the USA"? Even fruit is labeled what country it came from.
All grocery stores know what country their products come from, they bought the products from their wholesaler.
It doesn't seem like a hardship to add a line to the computer generated label.
Rolando
(88 posts)with meat that came from Australia through Canada, as well as with meat that originated in Canada. Buy local.