Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

foodsafetynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 146 posts

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#21

Post by jaywalk »

notJim wrote: post #15
alexfromapex wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The judge is likely interpreting a law that is worded to result in exactly this outcome.

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.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#22

Post by denton-scratch »

o-o- wrote: post #3

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.

How's that "lobbying"? Isn't that just Big Meat paying for lawyers and winning a court-case? (Along with a brain-dead judge)

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#23

Post by machinerychorus »

Retric wrote: post #19
ldoughty wrote: post #16

I 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 th…

I 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.

Right, 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.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#24

Post by floor2 »

There'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.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#25

Post by drdaeman »

ldoughty wrote: post #16

I 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 th…

> Tell me where the meat was born, raised, and slaughtered.

This! Can't agree more. In modern economies, something might be a product of few dozen countries (beef born there, raised here, slaughtered somewhere else, beans from that place and pepper imported from another, there's a can and paper label design and printing too, and of course a labor to make those into the final product - which might be distributed), so trying to argue about things as having single country of origin is just wrong and archaic.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#26

Post by matheusmoreira »

jaywalk wrote: post #21
notJim wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge is likely interpreting a law that is worded to result in exactly this outcome.

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.

> 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.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#27

Post by jcranmer »

Retric wrote: post #19
ldoughty wrote: post #16

I 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 th…

I 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.

So 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.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#28

Post by have_faith »

ldoughty wrote: post #16

I 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 th…

> 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

I think it's very misleading if they're selling beef soup with an american flag on the front. Either way our disagreement just highlights the importance of the meat country of origin label.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#29

Post by JasonFruit »

chrisbrandow wrote: post #18

The 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 th…

"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.

Re: Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

#30

Post by version_five »

o-o- wrote: post #3

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.

> 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.

Post reply on HN