U.S. loses meat labeling case; trade war looms

[OneCrazyDiamond]

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]

1. Right, you are not allowed to know what you eat because that discriminates against the

stuff you don't want to eat.

[FlatBaroque]

8. You need to

get a picture of a mad cow and put your words on there for a top notch meme.

[Populist_Prole]

2. Oh noes! A trade war! The pundits will shit a brick

Can't have that! Nobody wants a trade war because.....Trade for trade's sake is good!

[pa28]

3. Perfect example of trade agreements being used as leverage to attack law and regulation.

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]

4. My thought exactly. This is a preview.

[daleanime]

10. Exactly, just the opening act....

[bananas]

57. Canada has published a hit list of potential U.S. targets, including wine, chocolate, ketchup and ce

From the article in the OP:

Canada has published a hit list of potential U.S. targets, including wine, chocolate, ketchup and cereal. Mexico has not done so but estimates damages similar to Canada's.

[Duppers]

20. Exactly.

And here's proof that not all U.S. producers can get behind the TPP.

[Wellstone ruled]

5. Winners are

American meat processors,the losers,American consumer.

[PSPS]

6. B-b-but the swooners say this can't happen because "Obama says so."

[Fred Sanders]

7. Using the now upheld by tribunal legitimate complaints of Canada and Mexico meat processors about American point of

origin labelling laws to cast another net of gloom and doom over the TPP is illogical.

[PosterChild]

21. + up! /nt/

[Trajan]

26. legitimate? ... we have those laws for a reason

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]

29. Canada will now be able to market it's own labels, like Alberta grain fed Prime beef.....if you can

see both sides of the issue.

[jeff47]

31. It's illogical to point out nearly identical rules and tribunals are in the leaked parts of the TPP?

Um, no. That's entirely logical. What's illogical is pretending that the TPP will produce different results from the same systems.

[mindem]

79. Corporate shill much?

To hell with what the consumer wants, it's all about marketing and money, money, money.

[CharlotteVale]

9. Glad I don't eat meat.

[Chan790]

11. Me too.

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]

13. Yep, and the trade partner will win.

[Ilsa]

14. I would want to know where my fish comes from also.

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]

15. I've heard about that, ewwwww!

[Phlem]

16. Guess I'm going to wait on dinner.

That is nasty beyond belief.

[arcane1]

27. It would be nice to know if the fish comes from a near-collapsed fishery too n/t

[appalachiablue]

66. Tilapia, no? A bottom feeder catfish type, farmed in Asia w/antibiotics thrown in. Yum.

[Sunlei]

73. That must be why all the bayous and drainage ditches are infested with tilapia...

I'm near Houston, we have lots of invasive species that thrive in our polluted water.

[peacebird]

46. My fear is the country of origin labels for fruit/veggies will come under fire next

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]

55. I worry about that, too.

[Ed Suspicious]

12. I want to be able to discriminate based upon where my meat was born, raised, slaughtered, processed,

etc. I want it.

[840high]

17. +1

[Lodestar]

42. I have stopped eating fish because it's impossible to track their origins. Will do the same if meat

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]

78. My supermarket clearly has it marked in their showcase....

where its from and if it farm raised or otherwise. I don't buy Asian farm raised fish/shell fish products.

[appalachiablue]

75. The Meat Wars. It was the Whiskey Rebellion 200+ years ago-

[Fred Sanders]

81. Missing the point of the WTO trade ruling completely.

[Fla Dem]

18. This is exactly what will happen under the TPP.

International courts/tribunals overriding US regulations and laws that keep our food safe. What next, disputing automobile manufacturing regulations?

[PosterChild]

22. We signed up to a trade agreement . ...

.... 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]

28. I signed nothing

We are gonna to fight you on this ... everyone fucking step of the way ...

NAFTA needs to be reversed, not enhanced ...

[PosterChild]

35. LOL, You sound like....

... 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]

44. You sound like someone

who's employed by 270 Strategies.

How's them apples?

[PosterChild]

83. Where were them apples . .,

.... 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]

30. Which is why the TPP shouldn't go through.

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]

19. Another good reason

To support your local farmers and butchers. Buy locally produced food.

[PosterChild]

23. If I bought only locally produced food...

...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]

24. Our food production is regulated under FDA and USDA rules. These organizations are at least

indirectly accountable to me. Mexican regulatory bodies? Not so much.

[PosterChild]

36. The dispute is over source labeling.......

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]

37. I don't necessarily. Country of origin labels allow me to decide. Do you have a problem

with me being able to make an informed decision?

[PosterChild]

43. Yes, and no...

.... 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]

45. Let's sum up some of your ideologies

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]

58. Accurate observation

Well done

[PosterChild]

84. Let's examine some of these assertions....

... 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.

Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states (countries) through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to allow (according to proponents) fair competition between imports and goods and services produced domestically.... The term is mostly used in the context of economics, where protectionism refers to policies or doctrines which protect businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating trade with foreign nations.

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]

82. Because.....

...I'm a liberal, progressive Democrat. And you?

[sarisataka]

25. Google farmers market

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]

34. The dispute is over source labling....

...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]

32. Imagine that...nt

[onecaliberal]

33. Here we go. Now we're not allowed to know where the meat we are eating came from?

[Ed Suspicious]

38. yup. There is a guy upthread who seems to hold a very strong opinion that this is the way it should

be. I don't understand that position from anyone other than someone who has a vested interest in keeping food origin secret.

[onecaliberal]

39. I will stop eating meat and feeding it to my children.

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]

56. k&r nt

[cascadiance]

40. A big issue with this decision is U.S. and Canada policy on mad cow "diets" of cattle...

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.

[Sunlei]

74. it is the feed problem. That 2004 article was very well written. It even touched on chronic wasting

in the deer population, and that prion disease is much, much worse in deer populations today.

[Nihil]

77. Ding! Ding! A winner!

> 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]

41. Labels don't discriminate, people do. n/t

[randome]

47. The only point to labeling is to highlight, which is another means to discourage purchase.

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]

49. True enough; we do indeed need more oversight, but I'd still prefer to be the decision maker

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]

53. There are probably other labels that can serve a good purpose.

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]

51. why would anyone care about a country of origin?

Maybe to try and support domestic producers and thus help out one's OWN economy, rather than the economies of other countries?

[randome]

52. But that's not the point of a trade treaty.

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]

54. That sounds pretty naive, not altruistic.

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]

67. +1

[appalachiablue]

68. The point of MAD Trade Agreements is to enable corporations to make more profit

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]

69. Not every corporation is a massive GE or Tyson Foods.

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]

60. Don't forget the closer a product is made,

the less carbon it takes to bring to market.

[Ed Suspicious]

59. Not to discourage purchase. If Italy puts out a premium beef product, they should be

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]

62. So far as I know, nothing prevents a company from calling attention to their own products.

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]

80. Folks should maybe try a Canadian news source for THEIR perspective on this, because there

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]

63. I know this is about Canada and Mexico

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]

64. +1

[randome]

65. If a country does not meet our safety standards -applied uniformly to all signatories-

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]

71. It may say that

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]

50. Part of the problem, if we are going to create these huge global trade sectors, is that there are

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]

61. Ridiculous.

[reddread]

70. A whinney win

[Sunlei]

72. why would congress want to remove the meat label that says for example on chicken,

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]

76. There have been problems

with meat that came from Australia through Canada, as well as with meat that originated in Canada. Buy local.