Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 26, 2011 10:56:09 GMT -6
The WTO had again ruled against US Country-of-Origin labeling for meat. Mandatory labeling of meats by country-of-origin was passed by Congress in 2008. In the 50 years prior to that, it had been an optional policy, with specific legislation being left up to states.
Nov 22, 2011
by Sara Haimowitz.
(originally from Public Citizen.
Contact: Bryan Buchanan, 202-454-5108--Public Citizen)
WTO Rules Against Country-of-Origin Meat Labeling Law:
3rd Ruling Against U.S. Consumer Safeguards in 2011
"The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ruling today (Nov 18, 2011) against another highly popular U.S. consumer policy – country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meat cuts and products – will only intensify public opposition to more of the same backwards trade pacts, Public Citizen said. A panel report released today announced that Mexico and Canada have succeeded in their WTO attack on the labeling rule; today’s WTO ruling is the third this year against popular U.S. consumer or environmental measures.
“Today’s ruling makes very clear that these so-called ‘trade’ pacts have little to do with trade between countries and a lot to do with our major agribusiness corporations being free to sell mystery meat in the United States, with neither consumers nor our elected representatives in Congress able to ensure its safety, much less even know where it is from,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.
After 50 years of state efforts to institute COOL for meats, and federal experimentation with voluntary COOL for meat, Congress passed a mandatory COOL program as part of the 2008 farm bill. In their successful WTO challenge, Mexico and Canada argued that the mandatory program violated the limits that the WTO sets on what sorts of product-related “technical regulations” WTO signatory countries are permitted to apply.
In their filings to the WTO, Canada and Mexico suggested that the U.S. should drop its mandatory labels in favor of a return to voluntary COOL, or to standards suggested by the Codex Alimentarius, which is an international food standards body at which numerous international food companies play a central role. Neither option would ensure that U.S. consumers are guaranteed the same level of information as the current U.S. labels.
Today’s decision follows WTO rulings this year against U.S. “dolphin-safe” tuna labels and a U.S. ban on clove, candy and cola flavored cigarettes.
“These 3 rulings – with the WTO slapping down safe hamburgers, Flipper and children’s smoking prevention policy – make it increasingly clear to the public that the WTO is leading a race to the bottom in consumer protection,” said Wallach.
In today’s ruling, the trade panel specifically found that COOL labeling requirements violated the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), one of 17 agreements administered by the WTO. While the WTO has ruled on nearly 200 disputes, the TBT had played a major role in only a few cases thus far.
“There has been widespread concern that this provision could empower a WTO panel to 2nd-guess the U.S. Congress, courts and public by elevating the goal of maximizing trade flows over consumer and environmental protection,” said Todd Tucker, research director for Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.
“Today’s ruling shows that consumers’ concerns were well-founded.”.
“The Obama administration is in the process of negotiating its first-ever trade deal – the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement – and so far it looks like it will replicate many of the anti-consumer rules present in the WTO terms and the North American Free Trade Agreement,” noted Wallach.
“These WTO rulings show the need for President Obama to start fulfilling his campaign pledges to create a trade policy Americans can believe in and stop expanding the old trade pact model.”
Do we need any more reasons to withdraw from the WTO?
Our food safety and health is being sacrificed by the Free-Traitors in our own Government--by their persistent refusal to withdraw from the WTO.
The Constitution specifically obligates them to regulate trade in the best interests of the American citizenry. From Article I of the Constitution:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;[/color][/ul]
Is enforcing such a ban fulfilling that Constitutional obligation?
Occupy Wall Street needs to add this to their list of demands.
And since the labeling now becomes optional, Americans need to refuse to buy meat that isn't labeled by Country-of-Origin. And protestors need to block entrances to stores that refuse to voluntarily label their products.[/b][/color][/font]
Nov 22, 2011
by Sara Haimowitz.
(originally from Public Citizen.
Contact: Bryan Buchanan, 202-454-5108--Public Citizen)
WTO Rules Against Country-of-Origin Meat Labeling Law:
3rd Ruling Against U.S. Consumer Safeguards in 2011
"The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ruling today (Nov 18, 2011) against another highly popular U.S. consumer policy – country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meat cuts and products – will only intensify public opposition to more of the same backwards trade pacts, Public Citizen said. A panel report released today announced that Mexico and Canada have succeeded in their WTO attack on the labeling rule; today’s WTO ruling is the third this year against popular U.S. consumer or environmental measures.
“Today’s ruling makes very clear that these so-called ‘trade’ pacts have little to do with trade between countries and a lot to do with our major agribusiness corporations being free to sell mystery meat in the United States, with neither consumers nor our elected representatives in Congress able to ensure its safety, much less even know where it is from,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.
After 50 years of state efforts to institute COOL for meats, and federal experimentation with voluntary COOL for meat, Congress passed a mandatory COOL program as part of the 2008 farm bill. In their successful WTO challenge, Mexico and Canada argued that the mandatory program violated the limits that the WTO sets on what sorts of product-related “technical regulations” WTO signatory countries are permitted to apply.
In their filings to the WTO, Canada and Mexico suggested that the U.S. should drop its mandatory labels in favor of a return to voluntary COOL, or to standards suggested by the Codex Alimentarius, which is an international food standards body at which numerous international food companies play a central role. Neither option would ensure that U.S. consumers are guaranteed the same level of information as the current U.S. labels.
Today’s decision follows WTO rulings this year against U.S. “dolphin-safe” tuna labels and a U.S. ban on clove, candy and cola flavored cigarettes.
“These 3 rulings – with the WTO slapping down safe hamburgers, Flipper and children’s smoking prevention policy – make it increasingly clear to the public that the WTO is leading a race to the bottom in consumer protection,” said Wallach.
In today’s ruling, the trade panel specifically found that COOL labeling requirements violated the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), one of 17 agreements administered by the WTO. While the WTO has ruled on nearly 200 disputes, the TBT had played a major role in only a few cases thus far.
“There has been widespread concern that this provision could empower a WTO panel to 2nd-guess the U.S. Congress, courts and public by elevating the goal of maximizing trade flows over consumer and environmental protection,” said Todd Tucker, research director for Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.
“Today’s ruling shows that consumers’ concerns were well-founded.”.
“The Obama administration is in the process of negotiating its first-ever trade deal – the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement – and so far it looks like it will replicate many of the anti-consumer rules present in the WTO terms and the North American Free Trade Agreement,” noted Wallach.
“These WTO rulings show the need for President Obama to start fulfilling his campaign pledges to create a trade policy Americans can believe in and stop expanding the old trade pact model.”
Do we need any more reasons to withdraw from the WTO?
Our food safety and health is being sacrificed by the Free-Traitors in our own Government--by their persistent refusal to withdraw from the WTO.
The Constitution specifically obligates them to regulate trade in the best interests of the American citizenry. From Article I of the Constitution:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;[/color][/ul]
Is enforcing such a ban fulfilling that Constitutional obligation?
Occupy Wall Street needs to add this to their list of demands.
And since the labeling now becomes optional, Americans need to refuse to buy meat that isn't labeled by Country-of-Origin. And protestors need to block entrances to stores that refuse to voluntarily label their products.[/b][/color][/font]