June, 09 2015, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Symone Sanders (202) 454-5108, ssanders@citizen.org
Val Holford (301) 926-1298,valerieholford@starpower.net
House Expected to Vote to Repeal Country-of-Origin Meat Labels Due to a Trade Agreement Provision That Is Replicated in the TPP
Groups Warn Congress That Fast Tracking the TPP Trade Deal Would Topple More U.S. Consumer Protections; Public Citizen Releases List of Top U.S. Consumer, Environmental Policies Undermined by Past Trade Deals
WASHINGTON
The threat to consumer laws posed by the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal will be on full display Wednesday when the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass legislation to repeal the U.S. policy requiring country-of-origin labels on meat sold here. This law is just the latest in a string of U.S. policies that have been repealed or weakened to comply with provisions in previous trade agreements that also are included in the current draft of the TPP deal.
Major consumer groups, including Public Citizen, wrote to President Barack Obama last month supporting the labeling policy and warning about the TPP's threats to other consumer laws. The meat labeling is supported by nine in ten Americans, but has been under attack by meat and livestock producers in Mexico and Canada who successfully challenged the policy as violating U.S. obligations under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.
"How could Congress be considering Fast Track for more trade deals that will undermine our food safety after just being ordered by a foreign trade tribunal to eliminate Americans' right to know where the meat at our grocery stores comes from?" said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.
The TPP would require us to permit food imports if the exporting country claims that their safety regime is "equivalent" to our own, even if it violates the key principles of our food safety laws. These rules effectively would outsource domestic food inspection to other countries. Under the TPP, any U.S. food safety rule on pesticides, labeling or additives that is higher than international standards would be subject to challenge as an "illegal trade barrier," which is what led to the demise of the meat labeling policy.
"The president says 'we're making stuff up' about trade deals undermining our consumer and environmental policies, meanwhile, thanks to recent trade pacts, Congress is about to gut consumer meat labels, and we now have to import processed chicken from China that Congress previously banned. To comply with NAFTA, the Obama administration opened all U.S. roads to trucks originating in Mexico that lack our safety and air pollution standards," Wallach said.
Speaking at Nike in May, the President stated, "Critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation - food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations. They're making this stuff up. This is just not true. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws."
Despite the fact that the pact is secret from the public, Members of Congress, who are allowed to read it, confirm that the draft TPP deal would undermine our laws.
Past trade agreements on which the TPP was modeled repeatedly have undermined domestic consumer and environmental policies. The meat labeling controversy comes after a previous WTO ruling required the United States to reverse its ban on sale of processed chicken prepared in China, a ban enacted by Congress because of severe shortcomings in China's food safety and inspection regimes.
Public Citizen's List of Top U.S. Public Interest Policies Undermined by Trade Deals:
- Instead of only allowing imports of poultry and meat from processing facilities U.S. inspectors certified as complying with U.S. safety and inspection standards, now we allow products from any plant in any country whose policies, even if violating core elements of U.S. meat and poultry safety law, are deemed equivalent based on comparison of written policies.
- U.S. patent laws were altered to comply with the WTO to extend the duration of monopolies provided to medicines, delaying generic drugs that provide lower priced drugs to consumers.
- The U.S. ban on sales of tuna caught using dolphin-deadly nets was eliminated and now a final WTO ruling is imminent against voluntary dolphin-safe tuna consumer labels.
- The Obama administration lifted the ban on access to all U.S. highways for Mexican-domiciled long-haul trucks that had been excluded due to safety and air quality concerns.
- U.S. Clean Air Act regulations on gasoline cleanliness were rolled back.
- The U.S. lifted a ban on U.S. sale of shrimp caught with nets that drown sea turtles.
- The U.S. automobile "CAFE" fuel efficiency standards fleet analysis regime was weakened.
- U.S. country of origin labels for meat are pending elimination.
- The ban on processed chicken from China was lifted despite horrifying inspection reports and China's lax safety and inspection systems.
Through the TPP, U.S. policies could be challenged both by foreign governments, and also by corporations and foreign investors that would be empowered to sue the U.S. government for future profits lost in a special tribunal that operates outside of the U.S. court system.
More on Previous Public Interest Policies Undermined by Trade Pacts
In January 2015, the Obama administration announced it would allow Mexico-domiciled long-haul trucks on all U.S. highways after losing a North American Free Trade Agreement challenge and being threatened with sanctions on more than two billion in U.S. trade flows. Consumer groups warn that the trucks pose significant safety threats, while environmental groups warn that they do not meet U.S. emissions standards.
In response to previous WTO rulings, the United States has rolled back U.S. Clean Air Act regulations on gasoline cleanliness standards successfully challenged by Venezuela and Mexico; Endangered Species Act rules relating to shrimping techniques that kill sea turtles after a successful challenge by Malaysia and other nations; and altered auto fuel efficiency (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards that were successfully challenged by the European Union.
The Fast Tracked legislation that implemented the WTO included provisions to enact a patent extension sought by pharmaceutical interests that consumer groups had successfully defeated for decades but the WTO terms required. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended the U.S. patent law to provide a 20-year monopoly - replacing the 17-year term in U.S. law and increasing medicine prices by billions by extending the period during which generic competition would be prohibited. The bill also watered down the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act both of which required that only poultry and meat that actually met U.S. safety and inspection standards could be imported and sold here and allowed imports that meet "equivalent" standards with foreign nations certifying their own plants for export.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
UN Human Rights Chief Says Trump Must Halt 'Extrajudicial Killing' in International Waters
"None of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law," said Volker Türk.
Oct 31, 2025
The United Nations' top human rights official said Friday that US President Donald Trump's deadly strikes on boats in international waters in recent weeks amount to "extrajudicial killing" that must stop immediately, remarks that came as the White House appeared poised to expand the unlawful military campaign to targets inside Venezuela.
Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said of the administration's boat strikes that "these attacks—and their mounting human cost—are unacceptable."
"The US must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats, whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them," said Türk, noting that the administration has not substantiated its claim that those killed by the strikes in waters off Central and South America were smuggling drugs.
The Trump administration has also kept secret a US Justice Department memo purportedly outlining an internal legal justification for the deadly strikes.
Türk noted that "countering the serious issue of illicit trafficking of drugs across international borders is—as has long been agreed among states—a law-enforcement matter, governed by the careful limits on lethal force set out in international human rights law."
"Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life," said the UN human rights chief. "Based on the very sparse information provided publicly by the US authorities, none of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law."
The Trump administration's strikes have killed more than 60 people thus far. At least one of the targeted vessels appeared to have turned around before the US military bombed it, killing 11 people.
Türk's statement came as the Miami Herald reported that the Trump administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment."
Trump has said publicly that land strikes inside Venezuela would be the next phase of the military assault, which he has described as a "war" on drug cartels. The president has not yet received—or even sought—congressional authorization for any of the military actions taken in the Caribbean and Pacific.
In a statement last week, a group of UN experts denounced the Trump administration's strikes and belligerent posturing toward Venezuela as "an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region."
"The long history of external interventions in Latin America must not be repeated,” the experts said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Administration Has ‘Made the Decision to Attack Military Installations Inside Venezuela’: Report
"Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean isn’t about 'drugs,' it’s about oil, power, and regime change," said on critic of potential strikes in Venezuela.
Oct 31, 2025
Two reports claim that the Trump administration is poised to launch strikes against military targets inside Venezuela.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday night that the administration is preparing to attack a variety of targets inside Venezuela, including "ports and airports controlled by the military that are allegedly used to traffic drugs, including naval facilities and airstrips."
Reports from the US government and the United Nations have not identified Venezuela as a significant source of drugs that enter the United States, and the country plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the primary cause of drug overdoses in the US.
While the WSJ report said that the administration had not yet decided to carry out the operations against Venezuela, the Miami Herald reported on Friday morning that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment."
A source who spoke with the Miami Herald didn't explicitly say that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro would be the target of these actions, but they nonetheless hinted that the goal was to weaken his grip on power.
"Maduro is about to find himself trapped and might soon discover that he cannot flee the country even if he decided to,” the source said. “What’s worse for him, there is now more than one general willing to capture and hand him over, fully aware that one thing is to talk about death, and another to see it coming."
While the Trump administration has accused Maduro of leading an international drug trafficking organization called the Cartel de los Soles, some experts have expressed extreme skepticism of this claim.
Phil Gunson, analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank, said in an interview with Agence Presse-France earlier this year that he doubts that so-called "Cartel de los Soles" even exists, and noted that "direct, incontrovertible evidence has never been presented" to show otherwise.
Earlier this year, the administration attempted to tie Maduro to another gang, Tren de Aragua, despite US intelligence agencies rejecting the notion that the street gang had government connections.
Launching strikes on Venezuelan soil would mark a major escalation in the administration's military campaign targeting purported drug traffickers, which so far has consisted of drone strikes against boats in international waters that many legal experts have described as a campaign of extrajudicial murder.
Dozens of political leaders throughout Latin America earlier this month condemned the administration's attacks on the purported drug boats, and they warned that they could just be the start of a regime change war reminiscent of the coups carried out by the US government in the last century that installed military dictatorships throughout the region.
"We have lived this nightmare before,” they emphasized in a joint letter. “US military interventions of the 20th century brought dictatorships, disappearances, and decades of trauma to our nations. We know the terrible cost of allowing foreign powers to wage war on our continent. We cannot—we will not—allow history to repeat itself.”
Medea Benjamin, cofounder of anti-war group CodePink, accused the Trump administration of using a fight against alleged drug trafficking as a false pretext to seize Venezuela's vast oil reserves.
"Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean isn’t about 'drugs,' it’s about oil, power, and regime change," she wrote in a post on X. "Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, that’s why they’re escalating toward war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Failed to Scrap Filibuster Under Biden. Now Trump Wants 'Nuclear Option' to End Shutdown
"I hate to say I told you so but... I fucking told you so," wrote progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan, who repeatedly urged Senate Democrats to end the filibuster during Joe Biden's presidency.
Oct 31, 2025
US President Donald Trump late Thursday urged Senate Republicans to scrap the legislative filibuster to end the prolonged government shutdown without Democratic support—the kind of scenario progressives warned about when imploring Democrats to eliminate the 60-vote threshold during former President Joe Biden's term.
In an all-caps post to Truth Social, Trump wrote that "THE CHOICE IS CLEAR—INITIATE THE 'NUCLEAR OPTION,' GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Trump noted Democrats' failure to terminate the filibuster when they controlled Congress under Biden, pointing specifically to the central role that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema—both of whom have since left office and the Democratic Party—played in obstructing filibuster reform.
"Just a short while ago, the Democrats, while in power, fought for three years to do this, but were unable to pull it off because of Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Never have the Democrats fought so hard to do something because they knew the tremendous strength that terminating the Filibuster would give them," Trump wrote. "Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats."
With the filibuster intact, 60 votes are required to pass most legislation in the Senate. Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats.
Progressives warned repeatedly during Biden's presidency that Republicans wouldn't hesitate to scrap the filibuster in the future should the 60-vote threshold become a severe hindrance to their agenda. Abolishing the legislative filibuster to end the shutdown would clear the way for other Republican policy proposals to get through the Senate with simple-majority support.
"I spent the entire Biden presidency warning idiotic establishment Senate Dems and Biden who opposed getting rid of the filibuster that Trump and the GOP would come back to power and do it themselves," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote Thursday in response to the president's demands. "I hate to say I told you so but... I fucking told you so."
Adam Jentleson, former chief of staff for Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and a vocal advocate of ending the filibuster, noted that "it's pretty easy" to initiate the "nuclear option" on the filibuster "because despite everything, the Senate is a majority rule institution, per the Founders' design."
"The rule that overrides all other rules is that a majority of senators can vote at any time to change the rules—including getting rid of the filibuster, which the Founders abhorred anyway," Jentleson wrote late Thursday. "They could do it tomorrow! No preparation needed."
Trump's demand comes as millions of people across the US are set to lose federal nutrition assistance due to the shutdown and the administration's illegal refusal to tap emergency funds to pay out the benefits.
Millions of Americans are also facing the prospect of skyrocketing health insurance premiums as Trump and congressional Republicans decline to support extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said earlier this month that he would oppose scrapping the filibuster to end the shutdown, but he could change his position amid Trump's pressure campaign.
One progressive, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), has called for a filibuster carveout that would allow senators to keep the government open with a simple-majority vote.
"I've been consistent on this," Khanna said in an interview in early October. "I said this when Biden was president, and I'm now saying it when Trump's president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


