Even Before TPP And TTIP, US Already Being Forced To Change Laws By Trade Agreements

from the not-so-cool dept

Thu, May 28th 2015 1:03am — Glyn Moody

Recently, we looked at how corporate sovereignty provisions undermine democracy by irrevocably binding future governments. The analysis was framed in terms of the UK's situation, but applied more generally to any country that signs up to investor-state dispute (ISDS) mechanisms in trade agreements. In particular, it applies to the US. And yet in President Obama's (in)famous TPP speech at Nike a few weeks ago -- the one where he claimed some of his "dearest friends" were wrong -- he said the following:

[TPP] critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation -- food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations. They're making this stuff up. (Applause.) This is just not true. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.

But as a post on the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy site points out, just 12 days after Obama made that speech, this happened: The House Agriculture Committee voted 38-6 to repeal in its entirety country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) for beef, pork and poultry. The House vote came in response to a May 18 ruling by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that the U.S. had violated global trade rules by requiring supermarket labels on beef and pork to indicate where livestock was born, raised and slaughtered.

…

Congress has not repealed it because of overwhelming public support for COOL -- 90% of Americans support such a measure, according to Consumer Reports. Needless to say, civil society including farm, ranch, consumer, labor and other groups, won't sit quietly. But the fact is that the U.S. has to change COOL or face trade sanctions (though how significant is unclear). The USTR has already indicated it will encourage Congress to revise COOL.
As that makes clear, alongside the fact that it is quite possible that the US will indeed modify its laws here because of a trade agreement, this would be happening even though the laws in question enjoy huge support among the US public. Which shows that trade agreements can not only force laws to be changed, but can do so with absolutely no regard to what the people in whose name they are supposedly negotiated, actually want.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: binding, international obligations, laws, regulations, tpp, trade agreements, ttip, wto

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 1:58am

It must be specific provisions at play here. In Europe COOL is the standard even on meat. The larger problems here are the number of transits on the way and the miss-labeling happening there. 6 or 7 different jurisdictions are the norm.

Different documentaries has proven horse-meat in beef and animal cruelty in asian feather-industry getting labeled as European welfare feathers etc. Without COOL it would be much more difficult to trace and assure the validity of such claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 3:16am
  
  Re:
  "In Europe COOL is the standard even on meat."
  
  It may not be in the future.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 2:16am

Do whatever the f they want, THEN pass the the bill that gives THEMSELVES the authority.....the "elite" class everybody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 3:02am

Such an enrapturing post.

Anyway, if anyone is wondering why Masnick hasn't gone more ballistic recently on TPP, it's because google's bought US presidency already assured them that there will be no copyright law threats to their "business model".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 3:54am
  
  Re:
  Except it was Glyn Moody who wrote this post...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 6:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Facts ... we doan neeed no stinkin facts!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  More like the Disney, the RIAA nad MPAA bought the presidency. After all these are the industry interests secretly negotiating these agreements with legislatures. but I guess you refuse to acknowledge this truth. Keep covering your ears, closing your eyes, and pinning everything on Google. Just because the government is receiving a lot of public resistance towards the laws that the MPAA has paid for which is slowing down the agreement doesn't mean Google is somehow behind it. Any fool can see who is really in support of these pro-IP laws and it's not the public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 4:08am

any bets on what type of meat it will actually be.

My bet is old zoo meat or anything they can sell at a premium price with absolutely no overwatch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Long Pig, 28 May 2015 @ 2:26pm
  
  What type of meat?
  Why, human, of course. Soylent Green is made out of people!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 4:11am

I wonder if their are any benefits to to this trade agreement. I wonder if yes; their will be some side effects that don't exactly work out well for the American people, but over all, maybe this agreement be a good thing? Is it possible that we give up something like "COOL" but over all we gain a massive boost to our economy?? Perhaps.... cough.... sorry, HAHAHA!! I just couldn't keep a straight face, this whole deal is a dog fucking a cat.... wrong from the start...HAHAHAAHA....

How is it not absolutely obvious to all that the elite are orchestrating this entire deal to protect their profits from those meddling people? People who are tired of the elite stealing their countries wealth and bribing corrupt politicians to further enhance their wealth with the very money they are stealing?

I say stealing because when they started out, they were on a level playing field. They competed with everyone else, it was just good decisions that got them ahead. The point where they started bending our legal system, bribing our politicians, and back-dooring massive trade agreements that screw the everyday consumer, is where it really became stealing isn't it?

Is it too late? With half of the American people latched onto the Government tit (subsidies and such) is their enough left pulling the cart that they can change the direction and maybe even manage to get a few more people to get off the cart and help pull... cough....... AHAHAHAHA, almost kept it together on that one....... AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

With the borders getting flung open and low wage earners pouring into the country driving down the average wage and increasing the percentage of the population on subsidies, the cart is eventually going to come to a screeching halt. God help us when it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 4:30am

US has only itself to blame
As that makes clear, alongside the fact that it is quite possible that the US will indeed modify its laws here because of a trade agreement, this would be happening even though the laws in question enjoy huge support among the US public.

I'm pretty sure that the WTO rules that the US has now fallen foul of were put in place due to US lobbying - perhaps related to the labelling of GM foods.

Monsanto is desperate to force the EU to stop labelling GM foods as such - because consumers won't buy them and it is shut out or the european market.

The US wants it both ways - force food labelling where it helps US interests - and ban it where it does the reverse.

OF course US consumers do have the means to overturn this - simply stop buying unlabelled meat. It is not harder than to stop buying Canadian or Mexican meat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 28 May 2015 @ 7:57am
  
  Re: US has only itself to blame
  Then what? We become a whole nation of vegans because all meat is unlabeled?
  
  I don't think that's a tenable solution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re: US has only itself to blame
    I think a better approach is to not buy meat that you don't understand. It doesn't have to be labelled if you can get the information from the butcher.
    
    Even better is to trade quantity for quality. Buy your meat from local producers (to the extent that it's possible) who produce the meat in a manner that you agree with. It's more expensive, but the meat you get is much better quality and much tastier. Your overall meat expense doesn't have to go up -- just eat less meat. You probably won't mind because it will be so much yummier, and if you're an average American, you will be much healthier for it.
    
    "We become a whole nation of vegans"
    
    I think you meant vegetarians here. Vegans avoid all animal products (like butter, eggs, etc.), not just meat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 29 May 2015 @ 3:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: US has only itself to blame
      I think a better approach is to not buy meat that you don't understand.
      
      That was really what I meant- I assumed that meat could still be labelled voluntarily and the good quality local producers would want to label theirs. However if they don't then it may be possible to get the required information by other means.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 5:17am

What's surprising is that the Republicans seem to be even more in favor of fast-tracking these agreements than the Democrats, despite all the hysteria against UN before and letting UN control US and such.

Yet, this is kind of like that, too, but now they seem to have no problem with it, because the companies bankrolling their campaigns have an interest in these agreements passing.

I wish US had real anti-bribing laws. If you directly benefit from a law being passed and you either directly or indirectly (through PAC) donate to a politician passing that law, you should be accused of bribing and the politician of corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 7:27am
  
  Re:
  If someone were to start trolling the GOP that this would lead to 'sharia meat' - b/c there's no way to tell where it came from - you'd get them to back away real fast. Still it makes me uncomfortable to resort to this level of bigotry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 28 May 2015 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    I already don't buy meat labeled as Halal. It's against my religion (Christianity) to eat meat offered to another god.
    
    (Acts 15:29)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2015 @ 3:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Which is the point because any sort of label would be 'hurtful to profits' so you wouldn't be able to tell its origin or if it's kosher / halal / etc. But as the post above you says, it relies on playing off of some really nasty bigotry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just Another Anonymous Troll, 29 May 2015 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  If you directly benefit from a law being passed and you either directly or indirectly (through PAC) donate to a politician passing that law, you should be accused of bribing and the politician of corruption.
  That seems to outlaw donating to any candidate you support. Wanna throw some cash to an anti-NSA candidate? Bribery because if he is successful you'll get spied on less. I do agree that money seems to outweigh the desires of constituents in Congress, but I don't think banning all campaign donations is the way to go. That makes absolutely sure that the only guys who win will be the super-rich, and then they can screw you even worse because they don't have to hide behind lobbyists and Congressmen to do their will.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teamchaos (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 6:02am

Obama lied again, anybody surprised by that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 7:16am
  
  Re:
  Politician lied again, anybody surprised by that?
  
  FTFY.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 6:33am

They can all rot in hell, the courts will have the final say in this. Last I knew the U.S. of A. was still a sovereign nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 7:06am

Corruption isn't partisan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 7:16am

This law was brought in to effect to deal with cheaper Canadian meat from coming into the USA's market. This law when done was in violation of the Free trade Agreements our 2 countries entered intop, but you guys don't give a shit about if your wrong, look at the BC softwood lumber disputes and you will see that the good ol USA just makes up shit as it goes along and says that is law now , and fuck our agreements we do what we want.

your cool law has only been on the books for a short time, so quit trying to say these agreements are changing your laws, your law makers are changing them, and fuck the trade agreements we have.

Not a smart idea to piss off the people that control most of your water and power for the west coast.

Keep it up USA, you may have no power in California soon.

Merica, Fuck ya!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 28 May 2015 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  Do you honestly think your excess power comes all the way down to California?
  
  Now water, on the other hand, that might be true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 10:19pm
  
  Re:
  Possibly the angriest Canadian ever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 7:20am

Laws aren't the only change
It used to be when testing for certification as a Master Chef (CMC) by the American Culinary Federation, the market basket portion of that test (PDF) included rules to follow guidelines for American Regional Cooking (that does not appear to be the case anymore) in which if you grabbed the rack of lamb out of the basket and it did not have the USDA stamp on it, you failed. I am not aware of why that change was made (or when for that matter).

It was also possible to fail if you chose, say a fruit, that was out of season in the US but was available elsewhere. It appears that now one must use some of everything in the basket, so what is supplied has already considered these things if they are important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Hero, 28 May 2015 @ 7:24am

Surprising?
"the US will indeed modify its laws here because of a trade agreement"

Yes, well, that is what a treaty does, and that is why it is voted upon by our legislative branch (through fast-track...though it's not like they'd read the treaty anyway).

So, basically, your story is that the US had to abide by laws our legislative branch passed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teamchaos (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 8:10am

Most American's back new trade deals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/poll-americans-support-trade-deals-118366.html

Surprising? Not really. Most Americans stopped listening to the shrill cries of labor unions and other organizations that oppose free trade quite some time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 10:23am
  
  Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
  The problem is that these aren't trade deals that remove trade restrictions these are deals that simply impose laws on nations.
  
  When people hear trade deals they think the removal of trade restrictions and tariffs. In order to get bad trade deals passed that's what they are being disguised as and most people fall for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Teamchaos (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 10:44am
    
    Re: Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
    While it is certainly true that these agreements include more than removing trade restrictions, they do in fact include removing trade restrictions and tariffs and improving market access.
    TTIP: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/may/tradoc_152462.pdf
    
    TPP: https://ustr.gov/tpp/outlines-of-TPP
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Alien Rebel (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 12:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
      Kudos for your enthusiastic attempt to sell us a clunker. By all means point out the shiny new coat of paint and the engine's horsepower rating. Unfortunately, there's an obvious puddle of fluid underneath the TPP, the tie rods are bent like pretzels, and I can see gears through the hole in the transmission.
      
      If I were King, these guys at the USTR (and all lobbyists, for that matter) would be forced to wear plaid leisure suits to dispel any illusions about who they are and what they're all about. What's your color preference, BTW? Peach and lime, or avocado and gold?
      
      --
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2015 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
        "Kudos for your enthusiastic attempt to sell us a clunker."
        
        Take off your tin foil hat long enough to admit that these agreements do have trade related components in addition to all the garbage that TD and other sites are railing against.
        
        FTFY.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 29 May 2015 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
        None of which actually benefit We the People.
        
        This is all about making Wall St. richer and more powerful. How much are you getting out of it? Hell, how well did you do out of NAFTA?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Alien Rebel (profile), 29 May 2015 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
        Take off your tin foil hat long enough to admit that these agreements do have trade related components in addition to all the garbage that TD and other sites are railing against. FTFY.
        
        I guess hell hath no phony play-acting fury like a used car salesman who's sales pitch only produces derisive laughter.
        
        --
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
  I rather suspect that if most Americans actually read and understood the trade deals, they wouldn't be supportive of them. But they don't. At best, they read the name of the deal (which is always incredibly misleading or outright deceptive). At worst, they just hear what the news says about the deal, which is even worse than just going by the name.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
    Not sure how one reads a document that is held as "secret" and the public is disallowed to read it for many years into the future.
    
    If the people were made aware of the provisions within the "trade deal" they would not like them. Just look at the reactions to the leaked details.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2015 @ 10:58am
  
  Re: Most American's back new trade deals.
  Free Trade?
  lol, how cute. You think it is about free trade.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 28 May 2015 @ 12:32pm

I think everybody's taking this the wrong way....
Obama didn't lie. In his mind, it will never happen, because after all, laws don't apply to him anyway. If a treaty says we have to do something the government doesn't want to do, they'll just Executive Decree it, say "Because Terrorist and Security, and The Children!" and then ignore it. When was the last time an administration actually did something it didn't want to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH, 28 May 2015 @ 2:56pm

TPP = Americans Indentured In China
It's the bi-partisan consensus vs. the USA, liberals and conservatives are all patriotically opposed to these job-destroying trade agreements, Republicans and Democrats are all treasonous for Fast Track and TPP.
Be Careful Americans when you are filling out your paperwork to go over and become an indentured slave, or guest worker or whatever they tell you it is, in China.
Republicans, absolutely not sincere about USA first and USA exceptionalism.
Republicans, absolutely not sincere about small and local govt.
Republicans, absolutely not sincere about being against international agencies such as the UN.
Democrats, absolutely flat out not sincere about supposedly caring about you and me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bruce, 29 May 2015 @ 3:27pm

Take the TPP; get The $HAFTA !
Abjectly typical of Nowhere man, Zer0bama !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Brinkley, 30 May 2015 @ 11:53am

COOL
This post is downright silly. You claim the WTO "forced" the U.S. to repeal its COOL regulations, then admit that the U.S. hasn't done so and almost certainly won't do so. The vote in the House ag committee had nothing to do with the WTO. It was engineered by Republicans who think protecting their agricultural constituents' profits is more important than consumers' right to know where their food comes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alien Rebel (profile), 30 May 2015 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: COOL
  Looks like House Agriculture Committee Chair Conaway disagrees with you.
  
  “This bill is a targeted response that will remove uncertainty and restore stability for the United States by bringing us back into compliance,” Chairman Conaway said. “We must do all we can to avoid retaliation by Canada and Mexico, and this bill accomplishes that through full repeal of labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken."
  
  --
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]