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

51–60 of 146 posts

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

#51

Post by ldoughty »

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.

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, or not let back into the USA (even if they were otherwise allowed to work) next season...

Again, we're arguing over where to draw the line, and that's why I dislike "Product of the USA" as a mechanism for meat labeling... everyone wants to draw the line somewhere differently, so it would be better to be more specific about labeling aspects of it, not the whole.

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

#52

Post by anamax »

Victerius wrote: post #12

Are "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.

> 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.

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

#53

Post by istjohn »

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…

That there isn't an obvious place to draw the line does not in any way justify drawing the line at a patently absurd position like this court has done. Courts constantly make rulings on issues where the boundaries are somewhat blurry. For just one example, take the infamous line about pornography: "I know it when I see it." They have well-established techniques for reasoning about such cases. It's not perfect, but it can be, and is, done all the time.

This case isn't about canned soup. It's about meat that has been minimally processed, e.g., a side of beef that gets cut into steaks and ribs in the USA. Calling that a "Product of the USA" is absurd. M-COOL sounds great, but this is still stupid.

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

#54

Post by mc32 »

pdonis wrote: post #46
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…

> imported as a sapling, planted in the USA for 20 years, then milled in the USA, then worked into a table by USA craftsmen But that's not a good analogy to what is being complained of in this case. What is being complained of in this case would be more analogous to a tree that was raised from sapling on in a foreign country, cut down, milled, and worked into pieces of a table in that foreign country, then a US compa…

Sounds like “assembled in… from foreign components” or in this case “butchered in… from foreign cattle”

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

#55

Post by cptskippy »

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…

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 advocating for a world where people have the perception of freedom while being oblivious to the fact that they're actually being manipulated for profit. But that's ok as long as it's Facebook, Coke, Philip Morris and Nestle and not big bad government.

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

#56

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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 agree with the courts that "Product of the USA" okay...

It's okay to import an animal, put them on a feed lot for a few days, then move them over to the slaughter house and claim "raised in the US"?

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

#57

Post by thesimon »

drdaeman wrote: post #25
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…

>beef born there, raised here, slaughtered somewhere else

Not rare to see here in Germany. I have seen it for Austrian-grown chicken to be slaughtered in Germany, similarly Argentinian beef is sometimes cut in the Netherlands.

EU regulation stipulates:

> The term ‘origin’ should be reserved for meat obtained from animals born, reared and slaughtered, and therefore wholly obtained, in one single Member State or third country.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=15906711...)

UK law requires country of birth, country of rearing, country of slaughter and country of cutting to be on the product.

Slightly surprising that US consumers don't get so much information.

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

#58

Post by [deleted] »

brimble wrote: post #35
version_five wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 thing…

[deleted]

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

#59

Post by Teever »

JasonFruit wrote: post #29
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.

That'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.”

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

#60

Post by mmarq »

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…

> 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 potatoes or fries, first of all because we should not poison them and second because part of their education should include teaching them how to eat properly.

Post reply on HN