Tons of it, probably.

It's the U.S. that needs to 'beef up' (pun) the number of its inspectors and do a much better job. But then that would require the GOP to get off their lazy asses and do something besides obstruct.

(As an aside, countries do not import food into the U.S. They export it to the U.S. {/obsessive language rant over})
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

corporation that is trying to sell the food can take the offending country to ISDS proceedings, because the inspections threaten profits. Looks to me like parts of the TPP/TTIP will actually result in Congress sitting on its ass, because any rule or regulation that affects profits is fair game for a lawsuit.

We only inspect 2% of incoming food. So the whole thing, IMO and all that, is just a hollow joke. I feel certain that the US will take EU countries to court over their banning of some US foods and GMOs. Nobody trusts anyone else, and with damned good reason.

If a country applies laws that directly discriminate against another signatory of the treaty, then they can go to court. But if a signatory's laws are applied uniformly to internal as well as external companies, then I don't think anyone can complain.

At least that's how I think it's supposed to work. It's similar to outlawing tariffs designed to discriminate against a competing country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

I am thinking of cases where, for example, we KNOW we get nasty seafood from Vietnam and Malaysia, we send tons of it back - and that is only inspecting 2%. So I would think we should inspect seafood from those countries even more assiduously and inspect a lot more than we do now. But would that be considered not applying inspection standards evenly.
Personally, I pretty much just do not buy shrimp any more. Don't know if it has been fed feces, has been bleached, or has Corexit problems.

Best to eat as little meat and fish as possible these days.

That's a good question about applying safety inspections, though. If a signatory to the treaty displays a widespread problem with contamination or whatever, then I would think (and hope) that a more onerous inspection system -at least until the problem is dealt with- would be seen as justified.

I don't think common sense is being thrown out the window. Of course I could be wrong about that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

the house.

does.

Labeling a product is designed to 'highlight' it, which equates to discrimination because the only reason to highlight it is to discourage its purchase. If we had a robust safety inspection system, who would care where the food came from so long as it's safe?

Just because the U.S. is too damned cheap (lazy) to put a professional safety inspection system in place, the WTO sees it as discriminatory to go the easy route of discouraging purchases from other countries.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

many nations have GMO labeling laws.

They want these kinds of things for themselves, obviously. So who cares if we get more bad food coming into our country. The GMOs will have to be accepted in their countries and the pharmaceutical companies can protect their patents and charge more money in smaller countries that can't afford it and the corporate thieves are happy and in charge, damn the people in all countries, including ours. The whole thing stinks.

surely you realize that the drugs in poor countries are a lot less than what is charged here. In fact, brand name drugs in poor countries are often less than generics here.

Truthfully, I think we need a law that limits how long a pharmaceutical company can write-off research and development costs (including those for drugs that don't pan out) once they have been recouped. If we did that, a long patent should actually reduce the cost of name brand drugs.

What the TPP is really getting at is countries that don't honor a patent. A drug company can incur billions developing a cancer treatment. It deserves some protection. But some of these countries will not enforce the patent and will essentially counterfeit the drugs. That's wrong.

The alternative, and one I'm certainly not opposed to, is for Congress to budget enough money for government agencies to do all the research. Problem is, they are not going to budget the tens of billions it takes. So, we have to rely on for-profit companies to find the funds to pay for research.

I think the TPP can help in this respect, especially if it includes -- which I think it will -- methods to get the drugs to poor countries at reasonable costs.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/why-chemotherapy-that-costs-70-000-in-the-us-costs-2-500-in-india/274847/


Obama and our trade reps are well aware of the problem of getting drugs to those who need them at affordable costs, while encouraging research into new drugs, and are working on developing a solution. I'm not sure exactly what that is going to be, but they darn sure understand the problem, better than most posting here:

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/blog/2013/November/stakeholder-input-sharpens-focuses-us-work-on-pharmaceutical-IP-in-

UPDATE 4-U.S. loses meat labeling case; trade war looms

World Trade Organization says U.S. meat labeling illegal

* Canada, Mexico seek permission for trade retaliation

* U.S. lawmakers split over scrapping meat labeling rules (Adds market reaction, comment)

By Krista Hughes

WASHINGTON, May 18 (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.

<snip>

"Our governments will be seeking authorization from the WTO to take retaliatory measures against U.S. exports," the Mexican and Canadian ministers for trade and agriculture said in a joint statement.

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.

<snip>

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/05/18/usa-meat-idINL1N0Y90SL20150518

I pick up one that had a good price on it and couldn't believe what I was seeing. The label was written in Spanish. Nothing wrong with that except that almost no one in our area reads Spanish. The man standing next to me asked what country it was from - the label did not say. I put the meat back on the shelf not because of the language but because I do not want to support import programs that are unfair to farmers. I suspect many did.

People are not going to be happy with less rules making our food safe.