8 ms·

Lobbying 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

by o-o- 5y ago

Lobbying 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 ago
How'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 … … As a result, in 2015, Congress repealed the new country-of-origin requirements for beef products, essentially reinstating the pre-2008 status quo.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 ago
Calling 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 ago
  The judge is likely interpreting a law that is worded to result in exactly this outcome.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Exactly. 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 ago
    2 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 ago
Unfortunately, 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 ago
The 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 ago
  In 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 ago
Agreed. 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 ago
I’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 ago
  The 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 ago
    It 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.

by o-o- 5y ago

denton-scratch 5y ago

How'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 ago

Calling 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 ago
The judge is likely interpreting a law that is worded to result in exactly this outcome.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Exactly. 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 ago
  2 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 ago

Unfortunately, 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 ago

The 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 ago
In 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 ago

Agreed. 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 ago

I’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 ago
The 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 ago
  It 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.