US Milk - WTF?

[Ihavenojob]

My first assumption was correct, you are thick.

 

[SirGalahad]

My first assumption was correct, you are thick.

Coming from the forums crack squad of dumb posters.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

The EU uses the precautionary principle in its food risk assessment, whereas the US approach is based more on a cost-benefit approach when reviewing food safety standards.

Yes, and the US system is to be preferred because it does not impinge (as much) on the freedom of the majority for the privilege of the minority, unlike the precautionary principle. The EU would ban alcohol on the precautionary principle that it would probably harm a small % of people, thereby robbing the opportunity of the majority to have alcohol harmlessly. Nearly all regulations should follow innovation, not direct it. Put the cart after the horse. So thanks for proving ihatemyjob's point.

If we leave the EU and want to trade with the EU we will need to meet their standards, not hard to fathom.

Yes, we all agree on that. We already trade with the whole world and our exports always have to meet the standards of those countries, otherwise they won't import them.

It would not exclude us from setting our own standards

Oh good, glad you understand this.

but whoever we traded with we would need to meet the agreed standards.

Yes, exactly as our exports have to meet the standards of others. You've said the same thing twice, so I think you understand it.

what is likely is that we would have standards dictated to us.

Aaaaand it's gone way over your head again. Let's explain it so a child can understand: each country sets its own standards. It cannot 'dictate' standards to another sovereign nation. If you want to export then you must meet the standards of the customer country. If you want to import then the product you buy must meet your own country's standards. There is no dictation. If for some reason we decide milk sold in the UK must be green then we can do that, and there is nothing those evil Americans can do about it. They will simply have to make some green milk if they want to sell it to us. And if they decide it isn't worth their time to make green milk then they're free to do that, and we simply won't buy any white milk from them. Nobody is forced to buy or sell anything they don't want to. That's how markets work.

(I realise I have been saying 'standards' when I actually mean 'regulations', but I'm using Kankerot's language).

 

[JohnD]

The EU would ban alcohol

You've just made that up.

 

[Brigadier]

You've just made that up.

That's the nature of speculation.

 

[SirGalahad]

As we would have less negotiating power vis a vis a trading bloc what is likely is that we would have standards dictated to us.

Yes, and the US system is to be preferred because it does not impinge (as much) on the freedom of the majority for the privilege of the minority, unlike the precautionary principle. The EU would ban alcohol on the precautionary principle that it would probably harm a small % of people, thereby robbing the opportunity of the majority to have alcohol harmlessly. Nearly all regulations should follow innovation, not direct it. Put the cart after the horse. So thanks for proving ihatemyjob's point.

So wrong its laughable. Here is one example "The US Delaney Clause which established a policy of zero tolerance for any residue of carcinogenic pesticides or additives in processed food, no matter how small the risk or how tenuous the relationship between the results of the animal tests establishing carcinogenity and human exposure, at a time when no EU country had addressed this issue."

That was more restrictive then the EU. You simply do not understand that the issue is with risk assessments but also corporate capture when influencers can create exemptions and loopholes.

The EU licences new drugs and chemicals every year which have side effects and environmental concerns using your logic they would ban them all as there is a miniscule chance of harm.

I can carry on but you are as wrong as you can get on this.

Aaaaand it's gone way over your head again. Let's explain it so a child can understand: each country sets its own standards. It cannot 'dictate' standards to another sovereign nation. If you want to export then you must meet the standards of the customer country. If you want to import then the product you buy must meet your own country's standards. There is no dictation. If for some reason we decide milk sold in the UK must be green then we can do that, and there is nothing those evil Americans can do about it. They will simply have to make some green milk if they want to sell it to us. And if they decide it isn't worth their time to make green milk then they're free to do that, and we simply won't buy any white milk from them. Nobody is forced to buy or sell anything they don't want to. That's how markets work.

(I realise I have been saying 'standards' when I actually mean 'regulations', but I'm using Kankerot's language).

My word. Then why do countries enter into trade negotiations if it was simply accepting the relevant standards.

Before you dismiss this guy are you a Nobel prize winning and internationally respected Economist?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/13/the-secret-corporate-takeover-of-trade-agreements

Today, such deals are more often referred to as partnerships, as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms.

When you start using terms like evil you know you have lost your marbles.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

That was more restrictive then the EU. You simply do not understand that the issue is with risk assessments but also corporate capture when influencers can create exemptions and loopholes.

The EU licences new drugs and chemicals every year which have side effects and environmental concerns using your logic they would ban them all as there is a miniscule chance of harm.

I can carry on but you are as wrong as you can get on this.

I think we're talking cross purposes. I'm not saying the FDA is the perfect model of a regulatory agency and we should copy it in every detail, nor that the EU agencies are wholly terrible and should be scorched from the earth. I'm saying the cost-benefit principle is more desirable than the precautionary principle. But even if you prefer the precautionary principle the point is moot; unless we leave the EU we cannot create any regulations contrary to those of the EU.

My word. Then why do countries enter into trade negotiations if it was simply accepting the relevant standards.

Quite. But ultimately, if we don't like the terms, we don't make the deal. There is no dictation, only negotiation; compromise. We are not under the boot of America. You don't need an FTA to trade; trade happens by default. An FTA is just special rules added to the game. Yes they are influenced by corporate lobbying and special interests looking for privilege, but such is the nature of politics. We don't need the EU to do it for us any more than Singapore does.

 

[Notch7]

Quite. But ultimately, if we don't like the terms, we don't make the deal. There is no dictation, only negotiation; compromise. We are not under the boot of America. You don't need an FTA to trade; trade happens by default. An FTA is just special rules added to the game. Yes they are influenced by corporate lobbying and special interests looking for privilege, but such is the nature of politics. We don't need the EU to do it for us any more than Singapore does.

Very sensible explanation.

Of course it doesnt fit in with the remainers + left wing scaremongering narrative.

In all the media discussion going on, it is all forgotten that trade happens without FTA.

We also see the term 'export tariffs' bandied around.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, and the US system is to be preferred because it does not impinge (as much) on the freedom of the majority for the privilege of the minority, unlike the precautionary principle. The EU would ban alcohol on the precautionary principle that it would probably harm a small % of people, thereby robbing the opportunity of the majority to have alcohol harmlessly.

People here don't seem to like them using that argument for NOT banning guns.

 

[SirGalahad]

I think we're talking cross purposes. I'm not saying the FDA is the perfect model of a regulatory agency and we should copy it in every detail, nor that the EU agencies are wholly terrible and should be scorched from the earth. I'm saying the cost-benefit principle is more desirable than the precautionary principle. But even if you prefer the precautionary principle the point is moot; unless we leave the EU we cannot create any regulations contrary to those of the EU.

Again let me point out you need to consider outcomes. The EU and the US have different approaches and an analysis was done on the outcomes of these two approaches it boiled down to context of the particular risk than on broad differences in national regulatory regimes. Sometimes the EU is more precautionary than the US (such as regarding hormones in beef), while sometimes the US is more precautionary than the EU (such as regarding mad cow disease in blood).

However what needs to be understood are these approaches are not created in a microcosm they are shaped by political systems, risk perceptions, trade protectionism, and legal systems. The US approach its more litigious as you can have potentially harmful products available and initial redress can be via the courts.

So to argue the cost-benefit principle prima facie is better is not an argument that has merit as its way more complex than that.

Quite. But ultimately, if we don't like the terms, we don't make the deal. There is no dictation, only negotiation; compromise. We are not under the boot of America. You don't need an FTA to trade; trade happens by default. An FTA is just special rules added to the game. Yes they are influenced by corporate lobbying and special interests looking for privilege, but such is the nature of politics. We don't need the EU to do it for us any more than Singapore does.

How does the UK through the EU trade with the US? How do we trade with Singapore? Which countries do all their trading on the basis of WTO only? (None)
If you want to cut a deal with a more powerful country or bloc who is going to concede more ground? If we do not like the terms then we default to WTO and do you know what impact that will have on the UK industry? Are we set up for this type of trade?

Australia which often gets mentioned on here as some paragon of trade has ten FTA and its agreement with Japan another developed western economy took 7 years to negotiate. Negotiating trade agreements are highly complex and cover not just tariffs, quotas but IP, competition policy etc.

It's not like agreeing a price on a car.

 

[JohnD]

it is all forgotten that trade happens without FTA.

I'm sure Notch can give us examples of large, developed Western nations that don't have trade agreements and rely on WTA rules.

Which are they, Notch?

 

[Roger928]

Again let me point out you need to consider outcomes. The EU and the US have different approaches and an analysis was done on the outcomes of these two approaches it boiled down to context of the particular risk than on broad differences in national regulatory regimes. Sometimes the EU is more precautionary than the US (such as regarding hormones in beef), while sometimes the US is more precautionary than the EU (such as regarding mad cow disease in blood).

However what needs to be understood are these approaches are not created in a microcosm they are shaped by political systems, risk perceptions, trade protectionism, and legal systems. The US approach its more litigious as you can have potentially harmful products available and initial redress can be via the courts.

So to argue the cost-benefit principle prima facie is better is not an argument that has merit as its way more complex than that.



How does the UK through the EU trade with the US? How do we trade with Singapore? Which countries do all their trading on the basis of WTO only? (None)
If you want to cut a deal with a more powerful country or bloc who is going to concede more ground? If we do not like the terms then we default to WTO and do you know what impact that will have on the UK industry? Are we set up for this type of trade?

Australia which often gets mentioned on here as some paragon of trade has ten FTA and its agreement with Japan another developed western economy took 7 years to negotiate. Negotiating trade agreements are highly complex and cover not just tariffs, quotas but IP, competition policy etc.

It's not like agreeing a price on a car.

Yes, our bodies need calcium. But perhaps milk is not the best source, as we’ve been led to believe. Try eating more lettuce, kale, broccoli, almonds, oranges, flax seed, sesame seeds, dill, thyme and other dried herbs. For cereal, try almond or hemp milk instead of cow’s milk. Calcium from plant sources is more easily digested by our bodies than calcium from cow’s milk, because plants have a high magnesium content, and magnesium aids in the assimilation of calcium by the body. Decreasing your intake of cow’s milk will do your body good!
Source Google.

If you can't stomach that then buy your own cow.
Either method would be one step closer to reducing the cruelty imposed on
wretched dairy livestock in the Uk and eu factory farms and American ones.

 

[Notch7]

WTA rules

I dont know -I thought WTA had something to do with tennis?
In any case I said free trade arrangement.

 

[JohnD]

nations that don't have trade agreements and rely on WTA rules.

Which are they, Notch?

you haven't answered the question.

 

[Notch7]

So to argue the cost-benefit principle prima facie is better is not an argument that has merit as its way more complex than that

Yes, your point cut both ways doesnt it..........