11 ms·
Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"
- zalebz 5y agothis is a 2-1 state court appeal where the dissenting judge was the senior judge that cited potential state vs federal issues. my take is this is far from any sort of definitive decision.
- o-o- 5y agoLobbying at its finest – an open form of corruption. The system needs an institution controlling these "interest groups". A force that can weigh the millions of dollars they spend to sway decision makers' opinions against "the greater good" (which often turns out to be public health). The same goes for the unneccessarily prolonged fight against tobacco companies and junk food in schools.
- denton-scratch 5y agoHow's that "lobbying"? Isn't that just Big Meat paying for lawyers and winning a court-case? (Along with a brain-dead judge)
- MikePlacid 5y ago> How's that "lobbying"? From the court’s decision: <<But this new law generated several years of international-trade issues with Canada and Mexico, including two disputes before the World Trade Organization and more than $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs imposed against the United States. … … As a result, in 2015, Congress repealed the new country-of-origin requirements for beef products, essentially reinstating the pre-2008 status quo.>> The court just used this “status quo” law formulas. But it’s not the result of just lobbying, right. It’s the result of a trade war.
- alexfromapex 5y agoCalling food that is 90%+ made in another country a "Product of the USA" is just insulting and I think if there was no money involved in the judges' decision making they'd just call this what it is; deceptive trade practices.
- notJim 5y agoThe judge is likely interpreting a law that is worded to result in exactly this outcome.
- jaywalk 5y agoExactly. It's ridiculous to jump to the assumption that judges are being paid off when they correctly interpreted the law as written. The law needs to be changed, of course. But that's not up to the judges.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago> But that's not up to the judges. Sure it is. English common law countries place heavy emphasis on precedent. If the judge had refused to take the law literally in this case and done the reasonable thing instead, chances are this precedent would be cited in any future lawsuits of this sort.
- mpalczewski 5y ago2 out of 3 judges are interpreting the law this way. This went all the way to an appeals court. There's a strong implication that there is quite a bit of room for the judges to maneuver. The minority opinion judge said > if consumers are deceived by the label, “Product of the U.S.A.,” then that label violates both the FMIA and USDA regulations.
- new_stranger 5y agoUnfortunately, whatever body you create to watch the body you create that watches the body you create will have people in it that will be the target of lobbing. You need to some how break through the selection process to appoint people of integrity and put enough safeguards in place to prevent conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, I don't know of a single time this design worked out in the past and created a working entity. Corruption is the standard because it's the easiest path. This is true in other arenas like plaintext vs all the work of adding encryption or screen time vs exercising. All the laws in the world won't fix a mindset or mental attitude.
- jcranberry 5y agoThe cases were dismissed. The court basically said this is something for USDA/Congress to take care of.
- version_five 5y ago> tobacco companies and junk food in schools Bear with me, I think these are actually two examples of net good (potentially) done by lobbyists, where their (admittedly uncaring) business incentives end up standing up for what people want. Tobacco and junk food are big targets for the "protect us from ourselves" crowd who think they should dictate values to other people. Just because they aren't good for you, government shouldn't be telling people what to do. Luckily (and I mean this, it's essentially a coincidence) the incentives of tobacco companies and soft drink manufacturers or whatever align with giving people what they want, so ordinary people who would otherwise get pushed around by controlling political types (for their own good) get an unexpected ally. I've seen this with covid too, few stand up for people who just want to do their own thing and not get pushed around by people who want to impose their values of maximizing for health (pretending to) at the expense of all else. The only groups with the clout to stand up to health officials mad with power end up being lobbyists for companies that are losing money hand over fist, and the interests align. I'm not saying it's utopian, but for better or worse, they end up providing a much needed countervailing force against what might otherwise be a march to some technocratic hell hole where people can't make their own choices because someone knows better.
- brimble 5y ago> Tobacco and junk food are big targets for the "protect us from ourselves" crowd who think they should dictate values to other people. Just because they aren't good for you, government shouldn't be telling people what to do Schools should absofuckinglutely not be serving, nor even making available, junk food to kids on any kind of regular basis. This isn't the government raiding your cupboards and throwing out things they don't like.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jawarner 5y agoIn a lot of cases, the relationship between a product and a consumer is abusive. Take heroin for example. There is a huge (black) market for heroin. People "want" it, and will become addicted to it, and "want" it even more. The monetary value of a product is not a measure of how much good it does.
- jawarner 5y agoAgreed. I call these "Lorax problems" when there's nobody there to speak for the common interest. It generally takes a drastic public spectacle to muster the political wherewithal to make a law in these cases. It took DDT killing bald eagles for the feds to make the EPA and the Clean Water and Clean Air acts. It took an oil spill to hold oil, inc. accountable for (a fraction of) their pollution.
- mmarq 5y agoI’m not familiar with American labelling, but in the EU there are several labels that mean different things. I’m not an expert, but roughly speaking PDO (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_ori...) means that the entire process follows certain procedures, ingredients come from a particular area and production happens in certain areas (usually the same as the ingredients). PGI (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Indication https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Indic...) instead is looser. For instance you may have PGI Tuscan oil that is produced with North African olives, while Lametia DOP (a PDO oil) must be produced near Lametia Terme and must use Carolea olives from the same area. You can’t label your oil “Lametia DOP”, if you produce it near Milan or if you use different olives. All this to say that for “product of USA” to make sense, it should not necessarily mean that in order to get that label all ingredients must come from the USA. You probably miss a PDO-like certification.
- henrikschroder 5y agoThe EU just has so much more and better regulations on food labelling than the US. Also, for meat, origin labelling is mandatory, but you usually see all three: "raised in", "butchered in", packaged in". If I understand the case in the article correctly, they're saying that if any of those three countries is the US, you can slap a "Product of the USA" on it and be done with it, which just wouldn't fly in the EU.
- mmarq 5y agoIt would fly in the EU, if you branded your product accordingly. Maybe "Product of the USA" doesn't mean much legally. In the EU you can probably brand something as "Product of the EU", but you can't make wine in your basement and call it Prosecco, because "Prosecco" is a PDO wine/name and must be produced in Valdobbiadene and Conegliano using local grapes. Maybe somebody should register a brand and license it to producers that follow certain processes? Certainly there are private companies already doing that, but nobody cares. To be honest, these protected denominations favour the producers more than the consumer. If you think about it, from the consumer's perspective, it doesn't really make sense to prevent somebody in Florence from producing Prosecco, if they follow the correct procedures and use the correct grapes. The same applies for meat origin labelling, why should I care if my steak comes from the UK? I would understand Argentina... I find way more relevant knowing the breed rather than the country of origin (What's this? Angus? Chianina? https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/steak/sainsburys-sirloin-steak--taste-the-difference-225g-7809846-p-44 https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/steak/sainsburys...) But I digress.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- supernova87a 5y ago"Beef, designed in California"
- jgwil2 5y agoI got some chrysanthemums as a gift last fall that came in a plastic, jack-o-lantern shaped pot. The text on the bottom read, "Made in China. Designed in USA."
- jcranberry 5y agoMore information: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/10th-circuit-confirmed-dismissal-product-usa-beef-lawsuits https://www.natlawreview.com/article/10th-circuit-confirmed-...
- blakesterz 5y agoThe actual ruling is here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110655707.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101... The dissent starts on page 22 of that PDF, it's an interesting read. "The text, history, and purpose of the FMIA all point toward the same conclusion: Congress could not have intended to authorize outright deception in meat labeling. Plaintiffs invoke state law to challenge precisely this sort of label, alleging that defendants mislead consumers about the origin of their beef products."
- hericium 5y agoIn the US, Tic-Tac has zero calories. The same Tic-Tac is advertised in the EU as having "2 calories". If a pack full of candy, 0.5g (edit) sugar each, can be sold as zero-kcal candy, then what's the fuss with meat labelling? Not lobbied enough?
- soco 5y agoYou have a point but it's 0.5g each candy so they're in the area of rounding errors. And as every programmer knows just one rounding error won't bite you, but when (often) it gets multiplied...
- mprovost 5y agoThe EU probably requires calculating energy in kilojoules (which are 4x calories) and then converting back to calories which results in different rounding.
- abrowne 5y agoI believe the US allows .5 to round down to 0, while I've seen EU labels list e.g. .5 g of fat, so I wouldn't be surprised if they require it.
- bobro 5y agoThe idea that doing something wrong in one arena means we are justified to do something else wrong in another arena is incredibly self-sabotaging.
- bamboozled 5y agoWill no longer buy American beef, thanks. It’s amazing how badly this affects the credibility of the USA.
- Victerius 5y agoAre "Product of USA"-labeled products entitled to beneficial tax treatment or subsidies? Because it would make sense for a business to attempt to minimize its production costs by outsourcing to cheaper foreign sources while reaping fiscal benefits at home.
- anamax 5y ago> Are "Product of USA"-labeled products entitled to beneficial tax treatment or subsidies? The presence/absence of "Product of the USA" label affects some people's buying decisions.
- bluGill 5y agoNot very many. Consumers mostly go to the store and grab whatever. Very few even read the label.
- ompaLompa 5y agoCritically thinking - If that was the case this wouldn't have been fought in court. A few google searches show the effect is minor to major depending on product category. I wasn't able to find exact numbers. But as a personal note I would never buy meat labeled "Made in China"
- moate 5y ago*Citation needed for every sentence in this post.
- ldoughty 5y agoI sympathize with US ranchers, but I agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay... M-COOL (Meat Country of Origin Label) is the right solution... and let me give an example why: If I buy a new, real wood, kitchen table, that was imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen -- would that be a product of the USA? I'd say so, and I think few people would argue that the "birth" of the tree on foreign soil taints its "Product of the USA" qualities in this sense. If you agree with me there, then what we will end up disagreeing on is when that threshold is crossed, and it's no longer "Product of the USA". By attacking this label, it was always an uphill battle, I think.... and that's why M-COOL is the better solution. Tell me where the meat was born, raised, and slaughtered. If a soup company imports that beef and uses it in their soup that is mixed, seasoned, and canned in the USA, I don't think it's fair to say they are not a USA product, however, it's still valid and good (I think) to say that it's from imported meats.
- Retric 5y agoI disagree that your first example would qualify as a product of the USA. At least from a defense standpoint. In my mind if a product has foreign decencies in it’s supply chain then it is not a product of the US alone. A reasonable exception for manufacturing equipment or IP owned by a foreign company.
- machinerychorus 5y agoRight, and the fact that you disagree is why M-COOL seems like a good solution: put all the relevant info on the label, and let each person choose where they draw the line.
- jcranmer 5y agoSo if everything in your car came from the US, except for a platinum ingot that provides the platinum in the catalytic converter, it is improper to claim that the car was made in the US? Note that the US is not a major producer of platinum.
- 5y ago
- chrisbrandow 5y agoThe answer to the question, "does a consumer think that beef with a USA label might have come from another country?" is obviously "No" But there is a certain type of Lawyer-brain legalism that has infected our courts, and I don't know of a good solution. But you get this kind of obvious perverse result where it just defies common sense. In that sense, I can understand how lawyers and judges looked at whatever laws that define what each part of a "product", "of", "USA" means and concluded, that yes, imported beef can technically be "Product of USA" I'm so sick of this.
- JasonFruit 5y ago"Lawyer-brain legalism" describes the right way to interpret law, though. The way to fix it isn't to be flexible about the law, but to write better law.
- Teever 5y agoThat's some Lawyer-brain legalism thinking right there bro. People with Lawyber-brained legalism on the brain are the ones who write those poorly written laws. “Don't struggle–only within the ground rules that the people you're struggling against have laid down.”
- sethammons 5y agoI wish there was a better mechanism for intent vs letter of the law. Activist judges can be a real problem, but so can "oh, yeah, but this comma was in the wrong spot, so we are legal!".
- jeltz 5y agoActivist judges do not seem to be more common in Europe where intent is generally more important. I do not think focusing on intent significantly enabled activist judges.
- elliekelly 5y agoI disagree. My experience is limited to regulators, not judges, but Europe tends to be much more focused on the spirit of the law compared to America's focus on the letter of the law. The law can (and should!) be flexible. Legislation cannot possibly conceive of every possible fact pattern that might emerge. It's an unrealistic expectation and it would be a waste of effort to try to draft laws that way because they’d either be so specific they'd never apply or they'd be so broadly vague that they'd apply to everyone.
- gojomo 5y agoLife imitates art – specifically the Las Vegas-based surreal pseudo-mega-market "Omega Mart", which offers "Americanized Beef" in red, white, & blue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROOGLYvQdDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROOGLYvQdDs
- floor2 5y agoThere's good news though if anyone reading this is concerned that it means they might be getting beef from Mexico that was raised in unsanitary conditions, with dangerous drugs, unhealthy diets and while exploiting low paid workers in terrible working conditions, which is that all of that is equally true of American beef, so there's really no difference.
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoThe meat is not really at issue. Neither is the label. It's the need for folks to buy something with a nationalistic label, where the problem begins.
- andruc 5y agoIf the standards and regulations that goverend the raising and production of meat were the same across all nations, then I'd agree that the decision would be a purely nationalistic one.
- istjohn 5y agoWhen Brazil is burning down rainforests to raise cattle, there are good reasons to care where your beef is coming from.
- cwkoss 5y agoThere are many environmental and other moral reasons to prefer more-local food (and other products)
- jgod 5y agoWhat's wrong with preferring your nation (language, culture, geography - doesn't necessarily map 1:1 to countries) over others, while living in your nation? I'd be more worried about people who place other nations above mine while living in mine.
- caseysoftware 5y agoI'm thinking of this from a product recall point of view. If some sort of pathogen or other issue is discovered in CountryX, you would probably think "whew, not my problem. I only buy beef from the US" and ignore everything else about it. Feels like it's setting up a bad situation but hopefully they have mitigation approaches.
- dqpb 5y agoThree words are not enough to convey the biography of a cow.
- instagraham 5y ago> "M-COOL" Seeing these, I always wonder which came first--The phrase or the abbreviation?
- bumblebritches5 5y ago
- kuang_eleven 5y agoThat seems like a reasonable ruling. For any product, if there is a substantive processing step done (other than basic packaging), I would consider the label to be accurate. Additionally, mandatory COOL seems like a self-serving overreach by the cattle industry. By all means, include optional labeling specifying the country of origin, following whatever (non-fraudulent) criteria you want, and that label can be protected all you want, but don't make it mandatory. Shades of the equally ridiculous mandatory GMO labeling that thankfully got nixed.
- lnanek2 5y agoNot super interested in GMO or not myself, but knowing where beef comes from seems important. Outbreaks of mad cow disease tend to be confined to certain countries, so it's valuable to be able to know your meat isn't coming from one of those if you don't want to get a prion disease. Meanwhile it's valuable for corporations to hide where the meat comes from since such a country might sell their beef considerably cheaper to offload it despite the disease. So it's one of those cases where the corporate interests (profit) are against the individual interests (not getting a prion disease) and having government step in and mandate country of origin labeling would be valuable. I think the US tends to be less strict about meat anyway, though. Our grocery stores still package beef in carbon monoxide to make it look red even though other countries have decided that makes the meat look misleadingly fresher than it really is, for example.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoIt's only reasonable for corporations. None of this is in the interest of the consumer.