And right at the moment, the Trump Administration is in the corner of Corporate Profits. The New York Times has the low-down as the bell sounds:
The contentious negotiations over the fate of the North American Free Trade Agreement have veered into one of the world’s most pressing health issues: fighting obesity.
Urged on by big American food and soft-drink companies, the Trump administration is using the trade talks with Mexico and Canada to try to limit the ability of the pact’s three members — including the United States — to warn consumers about the dangers of junk food, according to confidential documents outlining the American position.
The American stance reflects an intensifying battle among trade officials, the food industry and governments across the hemisphere. The administration’s position could help insulate American manufacturers from pressure to include more explicit labels on their products, both abroad and in the United States. But health officials worry that it would also impede international efforts to contain a growing health crisis.
And how important is this issue? I mean, do special package warnings work? Katherine Martinko of Treehugger remarks:
Food manufacturers are feeling highly threatened — which, in a way, is a good thing — because clear warnings on food labels are known to work. When packages show confusing charts that require time and math skill to decipher, few shoppers are inclined to do so, or are misled by numbers that are presented as overly complicated. One study at Mexico’s National Institute for Public Health found that only 17 percent of shoppers bother to look at the front-of-pack labels now mandated by law.
This particular NAFTA-related fight is important because it would influence future trade policies. When countries back down and agree to something like what the U.S. is demanding, it creates “regulatory chill,” deterring other countries from pursuing aggressive warnings on food packages. Chile is unusual in that it has stuck to its decision to fight obesity in this highly visual and effective manner.
And the impact would not only be on the Mexicans and Canadians, but potentially Americans as well. From the Times article:
Heading off pressure for more explicit warnings through the Nafta negotiation is especially appealing to the food and beverage industry because it could help limit domestic regulation in the United States as well as avert a broad global move to adopt mandatory health-labeling standards.
“It kind of kills a law before it can be written,” said Lora Verheecke, a researcher at the Corporate Europe Observatory, a group that tracks lobbying efforts. “And once you put it in one trade agreement, it can become the precedent for all future deals with future countries.”
For my money, this public health issue should trump the corporate profits angle because it’s a national security issue. I don’t see the profit margin of Coca-Cola being of relevance to our national security, but a healthy, active citizenry is of critical concern to the nation. Since none of us are omniscient, easy to understand warning signs on the food we eat seems like an important step forward. Yes, they could become a political football in and of themselves, and, sure, the presence or absence of them may prove to be wrong as science advances – yep, eggs, butter, and margarine are examples of the fluctuating opinion of science – but, in all honesty, we make the best decisions we can with our best knowledge and judgment, because that’s all we can do, and acknowledge and correct mistakes as they occur. That’s what adults do.
If President Trump is really serious about national security, as he claims here, then he should be on the other side of this issue. The fortunes of Oreos are not the fortunes of the United States, no matter how much I loved them in my youth.
