You can hope, but congresses affections lie with the producers not the consumers. I suppose the ultimate goal of all this is to forgo labels anymore descriptive than "Protein". Yuck, just remembered the English hubbub a while back, horse meat in the hamburger. I'm not to enthused with the one world one market bs.
House panel votes to repeal law that requires meat labels to show animal's country of origin
Meat labels are seen at a grocery store in Washington, Tuesday, May 19, 2015. A House committee is moving swiftly to get rid of labels on packages of meat that say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
---- .. i asked a cow the other day, 'would you like the ones who eat you to know much about you?' .. moomoo, said, 'hey, yay, for sure, it's the leastest they could do for me ever'
and sure feel now the meat packaging no-no should be one of likely other deal-breakers, also, in new trade deals and which should go toward changing existing deals .. though you know how many politicians say, 'well, i didn't agree with that bit, but the rest i thought on balance it was a go.'
i do think politicians should say no to trade deals that are able to overturn decent and reasonable laws where people are happy wit them .. that is too much interference in interior affairs .. ..
1. New IP regulations will delay the availability of cheaper generic medicines. 2. New regulations will alter the operation of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS), which will make it difficult to keep costs down. 3. The TPP includes a clause that allows pharmaceutical companies to sue a government over its pharmaceutical policies, effectively meaning governments will not be able to regulate the price of medicine unless in "emergency situations." http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=113013387 ----
by Dan Mitchell @thefoodeconomy February 2, 2015, 1:56 PM EDT
.. MOOOOOOO ..
The controversy surrounding country-of-origin food labels is clouded by trade interests and other issues.
If the debate over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) were confined to the pros and cons of letting consumers know where their food comes from, that would be great. Instead, the debate, especially when it comes to meat, is clouded by a bunch of different interests and side issues of varying degrees of legitimacy: the meatpacking industry’s corporate interests, ostensible First Amendment complaints .. http://fortune.com/2014/07/31/free-speech-meat-producers/ , the interests of industry critics looking for any excuse to penalize big meatpackers, and, perhaps most of all, international trade squabbles.
One problem, especially when it comes to the trade issue, is a lack of reliable data. Canada says it’s losing $1 billion a year due to a U.S. rule that beef sold here be identified by its country of origin. A new study .. http://www.nfu.org/images/COOLReport1132015Final.pdf .. by an Auburn University economist blames those losses on “turbulent economic times,” and says COOL has had a negligible impact on imports from Canada and Mexico.
The study’s author, agricultural economist C. Robert Taylor, wrote: “COOL has not had a significant negative effect on the price paid for imported slaughter cattle relative to comparable domestic cattle, COOL has not had a statistically significant negative effect on imports of feeder cattle relative to U.S. feeder cattle placements, and COOL has not had a negative impact on imported cattle for immediate slaughter.”
The study was commissioned by the National Farmers’ Union, which supports COOL, and supported by other groups that favor labeling.
The study has its detractors, of course. Jim Wiesemeyer, senior vice president of Informa Economics, told Farm Journal .. http://www.agweb.com/article/new-study-on-cool-shows-no-harm-NAA-wyatt-bechtel/ .. that Taylor “cherry picked” the time period he studied. The data included exports starting in 2005, he noted—when there were trade restrictions on live cattle coming from Canada because of worries over BSE (Mad cow disease). If the study had gone back some years before 2005, he said, it “would have had nearly opposite results.”
Taylor stood by his methodology, responding that responded that the data he used—Mandatory Price Reporting data that meatpackers provide to the USDA—doesn’t go back further than 2004, and that year’s export data was unreliable.
Earlier studies—some of which were used by the WTO in reaching its decision—showed that COOL has crimped Canadian exports to the United States. Farm Journal notes that those studies came from Canadian trade organizations.
.. trade deals should not be able to overturn good consumer standards of any sovereign country .. anyway, lol, knowing more about the animals those of us who still eat is good for us and the least we can do for their memory .. and reading on labels the names of other countries helps me to retain the wonder of being a part of such an infinitesimally larger and evermore complex world .. lol, hey welcome from Spain! .. lol .. helps to keep connection ..
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
.. MOOOOOOO .. 
