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

71–80 of 146 posts

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

#71

Post by sdanvjsndks »

version_five wrote: post #30
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, governme…

I do not think things are as black and white as you think and its a blurry line, there are so many other factors to consider than just "government shouldn't tell me what to do" - such as how addictive the substance is, what demography of the people is the regulation going to target e.g. children etc. If you ask me if a person should be able to choose if they want to smoke, I'd say yes; and if you ask me if there should be regulation around marketing tobacco products targeting kids or if there should be regulation to prevent selling/consuming cigarettes in schools/colleges or in public transport, I would also say yes. Different people draw the line differently, with what products should be regulated and how stringent should the regulation be, and we keep trying to find the best compromise and not deal with absolutes.

The problem I have with these groups/people that "end up standing up for what people want" as you phrase it, is that while such groups generally stand up for the causes they like its also generally the same people that also carve out their own list of exceptions that they think the government should intervene on. So, in essence, what's the difference between them and the "protect us from ourselves" crowd as you phrase it.

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

#72

Post by jawarner »

version_five wrote: post #64
cptskippy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem problem with your argument is that you're saying it's perfectly ok for businesses to manipulate their products to make them addictive, the public with marketing, the schools with kickbacks, and the politicians with lobbyists. But when big government rears it's ugly head and tries to do any sort of regulation for the greater good, it's automatically bad and imposing on my freedoms and choice. You're advoca…

I'm summarizing the status quo, in which there are governments and other advocacy groups as well. My point is not that those should go away, it's that under the current system, there are cases where lobbyists (or corporate interests generally) can provide pushback that prevents runaway regulation and nanny-state-ism. If there were just profit seeking companies, and no opposing forces, that could be bad too, and maybe…

On any given issue, some people care more about it, and some people care less about it. Special groups in general are not a bad thing.

> If there were just profit seeking companies, and no opposing forces, that could be bad too, and maybe cause the kind of things you're talking about.

That's exactly what the problem is. On many issues, there are no opposing forces to the special interest groups. These arise when for example when an industry causes a small issue for a large population. It's difficult to organize and litigate in such cases.

Edit: I think we're mostly in agreement. I think what is needed is, like GP suggested, a rational way to balance the incentives for the special interests and the public good. Our current system relies on mustering large public support to make legal changes for the public good, but that's not scalable, and doesn't tend to rational, balanced thinking.

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

#73

Post by MikePlacid »

denton-scratch wrote: post #22
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)

> How's that "lobbying"?

From the court’s decision:

>

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.

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

#74

Post by mmarq »

version_five wrote: post #66
mmarq wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tobacco and junk food are big targets for the "protect us from ourselves" crowd who think they should dictate values to other people. It is insane that a minor is allowed to buy or consume junk food in an institution (a school) that’s supposed to look after them. Food served in schools should be selected by a professional, such as a dietician. It should not be possible for a child to eat hamburgers or jacket potato…

I can't tell if this is serious, you are calling it insane that a minor should be allowed to eat hamburgers and fries at school? If you are serious, I'd say this supports my argument that we need to counterbalance these extreme views, and that coincidentally, industry lobby ends up being on the other side, and helping normal people who think it's ok to enjoy a burger sometimes

I’m dead serious, school menus in Italy are (at least in theory) monitored by the ministry of health, to ensure they are healthy and well balanced. Children don’t buy food at school, they are served a meal from a fixed menu (which may change for religious or health reasons). I’ll leave to you to determine which county has better eating habits.

The notion that a 7 year old can buy fries or may think it’s normal to buy fries (rather than it being an exceptional thing that happens no more than once a week under the supervision of an adult) is as stupid as thinking that they should be allowed to buy and consume beer.

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

#75

Post by reginaldo »

jsonne wrote: post #61
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…

The crazy thing is they actually 100% hold this data. Literally adding a few lines to the tag would solve this. I worked in a meat packing plant during summers in college and they would use rfid tags to scan everything in and out. The whole supply chain including down to which truck it was specifically transported on is there.

For cattle, yes, but how far do you go? Imagine trying to tag Milton Friedman's pencil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tHtpac5ws

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

#76

Post by cbsmith »

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…

Yes, what we need are more food labels. That way it'll be less confusing for customers.

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

#77

Post by batch12 »

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…

This seems all about removing the capacity for a consumer to make an informed choice between products. The label 'Product of USA' should have an unambiguous meaning-- especially for food.

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

#78

Post by metadat »

batch12 wrote: post #77
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…

This seems all about removing the capacity for a consumer to make an informed choice between products. The label 'Product of USA' should have an unambiguous meaning-- especially for food.

100% agree, it "should" have an unambiguous meaning, and in the ideal world it would.

The reality is, it's highly political. This typically results in somewhat-to-very perverse decision logic at high legalisative levels..

The M-COOL approach will sidestep some of the nonsense.

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

#79

Post by henrikschroder »

mmarq wrote: post #69
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.

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_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.wik…

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.

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

#80

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #62
ldoughty wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "Product of the USA" means 100% US Supply chain, then I would further argue that almost nothing COULD be a product of the USA... If we can't include a copper heatsink because it was imported to the USA as raw copper ore... then can we even include foreign workers who come to the USA to work ? They may go home at any time... or they might be forced to go home... they might not even be authorized to work in the USA,…

I am drawing a line between what could still be manufactured if US borders closed today and what couldn’t. Rain comes from water outside the US borders but a war isn’t going to stop rain the way it might stop platinum imports. Copper can be sourced inside the US, if you didn’t then you have a foreign dependency in your supply chain which is something the DoD actually cares about for obvious reasons. Any other definit…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN