Voluntarily? Of course, it looks like the TPP will make it illegal to label as to COO, because that would give an unfair advantage. Like it is none of my damned business if, say, shrimp is literally shitty shrimp from Vietnam or wherever.
I just have to either skip buying shrimp, or find other sources on the internet.

ETA - I just realized I no longer expect Congress to do anything that would help people instead of corporations.

But, haven't you heard? Corporations are people!!! [font size="1"]Uh, let's see...there's more...hmmm...corporations are...people...ummm...[font size="2"]Oh, yeah!!! Coporations are people, my friend!!!

But the government doesn't verify it, and the government no longer requires it.

What we don't raise, we hunt.

buying that. We need to thin out our woods so that we can run a small herd of cattle there.

A lot of people will go that route rather than buy meat at a supermarket.

the end I think that this law will be overturned because it is not going to help other countries and our farmers are going to see more people like us.

That's where I usually get mine stateside.

People are going to need to stop buying the commercially-raised feedlot stuff, anyway.

Perhaps when and if the artificial price supports can get removed....

and how improper labeling would have had a different outcome for that fiasco.

Hadn't seen that photo before, or maybe I put it out of my memory, had to look it up:

That movie also evokes a greater tragedy to come had we continued on the same 2000-2008 trajectory.

I think we were very fortunate to have Barack Obama as President, for all his flaws, and dread what may follow if we revert.

I know...click on the link for the rest of the story?

Canada and Mexico "sued" the US in the pseudo-court set up by NAFTA, claiming the labeling laws gave US meat producers an unfair advantage. And they won the "lawsuit".

So the US either has to strip labeling laws, or Canada and Mexico get to start jacking up tariffs.

Without NAFTA, the US response would be to raise tariffs in return, so Canada and Mexico would have to consider the response before starting a trade war. Both Canada and Mexico would be hurt by such a trade war and they'd have to decide if the pain was worth it.

But because of NAFTA, the US can't respond. So there's no penalty for Canada or Mexico raising tariffs. The "pain" is the $17M those countries spent on the "lawsuit", which is tiny compared to the costs of a trade war.

but the World Trade Organization.

http://www.vnews.com/news/business/17281960-95/us-house-votes-to-repeal-country-of-origin-labeling-law-for-meats

The WTO has no power to enforce its rulings, but it would authorize retaliatory tariffs by the "offended" countries. If we did not respond, Canada and Mexico would be able to impose tariffs on our goods without violating WTO rules, but any counterretaliation on our point would be a further violation and lead to authorization of limits on US exports to Canada and Mexico. Thus "trade war."

NAFTA was what prevented Canada from simply raising tariffs to pressure Congress 13 years ago when the House first passed the law; they had to win a court case and two appeals first.

And, as I keep trying to point out here, without NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO, Canada would have just raised tariffs immediately to pressure Congress when the law first passed in 2002, rather than having to go through a lengthy court process.

American ranchers love COOL because it makes their cows more expensive, but disliked some of the recordkeeping rules
American packers dislike COOL because they don't want to have to track country of origin for cows and hogs
Canadian ranchers hate COOL with a passion because they see it as a way to make imported beef and pork cheaper
Canadian packers are lukewarm about it but like that it puts American packers out
American retail is more or less split; the bigger chains like it because it costs them less to implement COOL on the margin than it does for smaller stores.

then you won't know what's in it unless you have an independent laboratory test it, no?

Welcome to Ratburgers! Enjoy!

And do perform laboratory tests on samples. "USDA certified" still means exactly what it did before.

chicken and eggs from local producers. I stopped buying animal products at supermarkets more than a decade ago, but maybe city dwellers who can't do as I do will seriously have to think about a vegetarian diet.

Better for cruelty. Better for the environment.

Animals don't deserve to be eaten. There are so many other things to eat.

Yes, food should be labeled as much as possible. I would like to know where my fruits, veggies etc come from and what is in them.

vegetables would be excluded.

hunt for what we don't raise.

HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU DON'T EAT YOUR UNLABELED MEAT??

Under NAFTA they had to win a court case and two appeals first.

Also, you neglect that the repercussions of "fighting" the US via tariffs would hurt Mexico and Canada. But thanks to NAFTA, the US can't fight back. So the pseudo-lawsuit also has the major benefit of having no down-side.

Congress just showed they'll fold if Mexico threatens to raise tariffs.

But thanks to NAFTA, the US can't fight back.

Huh? I think you fundamentally don't get how this works.

Without NAFTA:
Congress passes law in 2002
Mexico raises tariff in 2002
Congress backs down

With NAFTA:
Congress passes law in 2002
Mexico sues in 2008
Mexico wins appeal in 2015
Mexico raises tariff
Congress backs down

Why do you see the first option as better?

Thus incurring a cost to Canada and Mexico. And given the dynamics of what we actually trade between those countries, it would be more painful for Canada and Mexico than the US.

In summary, I hope you'll find the above a convincing argument for corporate rule.

Why you seem to prefer that to Canada being required to win a WTO case before they can pressure Congress is beyond me.

to us right before our eyes.

I can get fresh fish direct from local fisherman at tiny markets (including a vietnam vet who sells from a van by the roadside).

I can get eggs from neighbors and plan to get a small flock in the near future.

NAFTA trade tribunals.

Canada and Mexico, by rule of law, are now entailed to restrict the huge imports of American meat and entiles to other trade reprisals. No further appeals.

America is just finally doing what is right. Deal with it.

As a consolation for the legions and legions of American meat eaters, the prices of your favorite animal flesh will drop, due to more supply.

You know what, screw trade tribunals, screw corporations writing secret trade deals that trump our regulations and keep consumers in the dark, and screw all the owned politicians working for the corporate agenda.

It is not complicated why they exist if one takes the time to calmly think about it.

Screw trade? Meaning screw the entire history of commerce in the world?

You can hate the corporations, be my guest, but how can you hate negotiated and fair free trade?

Prior to the late 1970s America always had tariffs and had trade policies that encouraged domestic production. Since becoming the world's vanguard of "free trade" -which is anything but- we have lost one industry after another, shipped milling of good paying jobs overseas and have seen our standard of living plunge. What you corporate trade shills don't understand is America and the U.K. are the only 2 nations that believe in "free trade", the rest of the world does not and is more than happy to relieve us of our jobs in critical industries. I work for a corporation, I own many shares of corporations, I like free enterprise, I don't however like to see the powerful steamroll the masses in search of ever greater profits.

and almost no trade in 1933 when he replaced Herbert Hoover. If FDR had left "well enough alone" we might still have that. He didn't. And neither did Truman after FDR died.

The idea for 'trade tribunals' (arbitration to resolve international disputes) came from FDR's International Trade Organization that he proposed in 1944. It was certainly not a republican idea. In fact, by the time Truman finished negotiating the ITO and submitted it to congress, republicans were in control and hated the ITO so much that they refused to even bring it up for a vote.

GATT was a part of the ITO designed to be a temporary bridge to negotiate 'freer' trade until the ITO came into existence. Truman believed congress (republican-controlled) would never approve US membership in GATT so he authorized it by executive order. Then when congress refused to vote on ITO membership, GATT evolved from being a 'temporary bridge' to a permanent international trade institution which later became the WTO which used arbitration to resolve disputes just as the ITO had proposed.

America has lost scores and scores of manufacturing and technological industries over the last 30 or so years. Many of these industries such as the TV industry have advanced greatly creating a wealth of new technology and jobs. Unfortunately, since we had trade polices that encouraged other nations to plunder our industries at will...with no retaliation, we lost out BIG. You can drone on and on about trade tribunals, GATT, ITO but one thing I am pretty certain of is that FDR would never let our industrial base get routed by trade policies that favor other nations. When we started to cede much of our trade authority to international bodies accountable only to a few we lost our control over trade. We can start rebuilding again but it won't happen with the current trade policies and especially TPP.

To blame the decline in our manufacturing jobs on our trade policy ignores the fact that the decline has occurred everywhere.

America's world leading trade deficit provides ample evidence that the U.S. has lost so much manufacturing capacity we can't even come close to break even with the world. It again demonstrates that when a nation does not create and produce enough trade-able goods it loses it's position in world trade and runs up debt that limits growth. This contributes to a lower standard of living which we have been experiencing since the late 1970s.

Germany's imports are 31%; Canada's 32%; Sweden 32%, etc.

Our problem is that we export way less (9% of GDP) than any other developed country. Germany exports 38%; Canada 31%; Sweden 34%, etc. The large export percentages of Germany, Canada, Sweden and other countries are not based on low-wages paid to their workers. Their manufacturing workers are paid as much or more than they are in the US.

I think the real issue is with our exports and that is because the economies in other countries recovered from WWII with an export orientation particularly with respect to the US market because we had most of the wealth in the post-war world. Foreign manufacturers studied and learned what Americans buy and how our market works. We did not do the same with foreign markets for the simple reason that there was not much money or buying power in those countries after the war so our companies oriented their marketing to Americans, too. Now that the rest of the world has largely caught up to us in terms of buying power our companies are not as export-oriented as are companies in other countries have become.

We need to increase our exports. If Germany and Sweden can do it with highly paid workers, so can we.

And a point you have a hard time grasping: America has very little ability given near zero tariffs and one-sided trade agreements to expand exports because we cannot keep, much less grow, the industries here to create those exports. It will never happen under our current (and past) trade policies. Germany, Sweden and most of northern European do not allow their businessmen to write their trade laws. Both these countries have defacto barriers that help them grow their export industries.

The same principles as this decision will lead to a ruling that European countries cannot exclude genetically modified organisms or require that they be labeled. And the Europeans will not accept that. So when the nations of the European community denounce the WTO, the second era of globalization will be definitively over. (It has been in decline for 8 years already.) Free trade agreements are destined for the dust-heap of history -- for good or ill, and in my opinion, definitely not all good. But anyway, save your breath for breathing, you're going to need it.

That's just bizarre to me. I'm glad Canada had to go through a court process before they could pressure Congress with tariffs.

The US may have abused the rules, but COOL laws cannot reasonably be considered abuse. The case for free trade is that it gives consumers what they want at a cheaper price. It only does that if the consumers have full and free information. COOL laws to not restrict but enhance free trade.

Do you have any real instances of US abuse of trade treaties? Certainly subsidies to agriculture are limits on trade, and should be eliminated, but the treaties privilege them -- another reason why none of this is about free trade.

thinking skill.

Less of a high-demand consumer product in America due to lessened supply equals higher prices, Economics 101.

American consumers have been in the dark about their Meat forever.....because most prefer it that way, meaty and cheap...not in that order....even now when everyone knows that their One Dollar Burger contains mostly "pink slime" made from the leftover blood and guts of mixed carcasses and the chicken has more hormones in them than Arnold Schwartzinagger....how many will stop eating?

Check the assumptions of the "perfectly competitive model" taught in just about every ec 101 course in the Engllsh-speaking world.:

http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/5572?e=stengel_1.0-ch06_s01

Notice number five -- perfect information. (Would you like a dozen more textbook links? No problem!)

The perfectly competitive model, unrealistic as it is, is the theory that underlies free trade.

In the absence of perfect information, COOL and other labeling laws enhance competition and so enhance free trade.

Your post, dripping with contempt for American consumers as it is, is counterfactual -- consumers do want to know what they are buying.

Hey, man, get off your hobby-horse. Obama is wrong on this. I support him anyway, but on this, he is dead wrong.

Hobby horses are common vehicles of information, why is that a problem?

I think the consumer information argument is plausible enough that it should be a legal fig leaf.

That said, I still don't understand why people would prefer for Canada to be able to pressure Congress with tariffs immediately, rather than after a long court battle.

1) It would only restrict imports if people prefer to buy home produce.

Now, the evidence is that people do feel such preferences. The economic theory that recommends free trade assumes that people do not prefer home produce -- another point on which it is counterfactual. We have no economic theory that takes the fact of home preferences into account. In case you are tempted to say that home preferences are irrelevant, preferences are the only basis for choosing one policy rather than another in economics. In roughly the words of Ezra Mishan, "our value judgment is that it is better for people to have what they prefer than what they do not prefer." Start picking and choosing among preferences and you have no economic theory whatever.

2) There is a principle, here: freedom of information. I follow J. S. Mill in the idea that we may be wise to adopt a rule, such as liberty, that leads to good results on the whole even if it leads to bad results in a particular case. (In my opinion freedom of information would have unfortunate results in the case of GMOs; nevertheless I support it in that and every other case.)

3) Had Canada imposed tariffs outside the WTO framework, the United States could have retaliated within our sovereign rights. As things are, US retaliation to Canadian penalty tariffs would be a further violation and lead to the authorization of further Canadian limitation on US trade. This is the "trade war" we hear about.

Folks do not look much at labels, except the price label.....reality is a bitch.

If people really are as uninformed as you think, then there is no case for free trade whatsoever.

What, you just can't bear not to have the last word, even when it proves your position is without foundation?

On edit -- by the way, the evidence of home preference is not based on casual empiricism, strolling around the store, but on statistical analysis of the trade data. Of course, statistical methods are not perfect, but they can improve a little on impressions from standing around in the store aisles.

Then there were my other two points from which you seem to want to divert attention. Any thoughts?

Prices will drop. Especially on unicorn meat. And the world will be a much better place when we just sit back and let all the wonderful corporations and invented courts run our lives for us. What bullshit. None of this crap is being done to help the consumer.

we don't deserve to know. Watching that list grow is bound to be fascinating, and revivifying to our moribund democracy.

my chain market can go scratch.

don't buy unlabeled meat. If consumers want foreign meat, packers will label it.

In any event, this was done to keep Canada from imposing tariffs over labeling. It does not prevent labels.

because I am a vegetarian, but I do eat fish occasionally. So it does concern me about where my fish comes from.

And don't forget those Monsanto mega farms.....

I can buy my meat from a local small ranch; they'll deliver it to a small local processing facility and I can pick it up there.

Or I can get locally produced meat at a couple of local butchers.

I drive past a couple of dozen places grazing small numbers of cattle on grass every day to and from work, and many of them have signs up advertising their grass-fed beef, priced by the pound; they'll take care of the processing.

The majority of Americans who don't have local opportunities like mine deserve to know where their food, all of it, is coming from.

you should have voted for this guy:

Unfortunately, he was a victim of the corporate body-snatchers.

There are at least three family farms in our area who sell directly to the public.

Good luck with your search.

label theirs as coming from the US. I think companies that sell meat, like grocery stores, can still require labeling. I know that Whole Foods has labeled COO on everything for quite some time, and it's moving toward all GMOs being labeled by 2018. There's a lot of grumbling that it's too long a wait (they announced it in 2013) but it's a step in the right direction.

So, roughly, the packers can still claim "this beef is US born, raised, and slaughtered", and the stores can still say that, but the government can't require the cattlemen to produce the records to back that up.

(Like most issues, the cattlemen and packers were on opposite sides here; the packers actually supported Canada's lawsuit.)

soylent green.

move along.

nothing to see here.





:/

Then you'll know where it came from.

Country-of-origin-labeling is no longer required, but if you have a brand that says "Imported from Canada" and a brand that says "Take a guess", which one are you gonna buy?

Minnesota or Ontario.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

progressive direction.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]