Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the on-the-horns-of-a-dilemma dept.

Public Citizen reports via Common Dreams

[The decision on December 7 by the] World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against the U.S. country-of-origin meat labels (COOL) that consumers rely on to make informed choices about their food, provides a glaring example of how trade agreements can undermine U.S. public interest policies, [said Public Citizen]. How the Obama administration responds to the WTO ruling will have a significant impact on its efforts to build congressional and public support for the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

In his May 2015 speech at Nike headquarters, President Barack Obama said that critics' warnings that the TPP could "undermine American regulation--food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations" was "just not true". [Obama] said: "They're making this stuff up. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws."

"Today's ruling makes clear that trade agreements can--and do--threaten even the most favored U.S. consumer protections", said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "We hope that President Obama stands by his claim that 'no trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws', but in fact rolling back U.S. consumer and environmental safeguards has been exactly what past presidents have done after previous retrograde trade pact rulings."

In response to previous WTO rulings, the United States has rolled back U.S. Clean Air Act regulations on gasoline cleanliness rules successfully challenged by Venezuela and Mexico and Endangered Species Act rules relating to shrimping techniques that kill sea turtles after a successful challenge by Malaysia and other nations. The U.S. also altered auto fuel efficiency (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards that were successfully challenged by the European Union. After the final WTO ruling against the policy in May, Obama's Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also contradicted Obama's claim, announcing: "Congress has got to fix this problem. They either have to repeal or modify and amend it."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @08:47AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 11 2015, @08:47AM (#274884) Journal

    Treaties cannot be unrepealable becuase it is illegal under US law for congress to enter such a treaty in the first place. if they do it anyway it's just null and void, and has no effect in US law.

    Here's the thing. Repeal/back out of the treaty, if it's such a bad thing. There are set mechanisms by which one deals with treaty. Picking and choosing which consequences you will honor is not one of those options.

    Here, there apparently was a protectionist gimmick masquerading as "country of origin" regulation. Foreign sources had to provide onerous levels of documentation.