by Marcia Mueller
Trade deals are a nightmare for animals. When it comes to animal welfare and cultural-specific cruelty, trade and import decisions, policies, and regulations are virtually the only means of exerting pressure to maintain humane treatment or prevent cruelty.
But according to Matthew Scully, “As more responsibility shifts to the WTO [World Trade Organization], we lose those standards and the sovereign freedom to assert them. Free trade under the WTO has become not just a principle but a kind of mania, not just a good but the highest good, leveling standards in both human rights and animal welfare to the lowest common denominator and reducing all moral problems to questions of economic advantage.” Dominion (St. Martin’s Press, October 2002), p. 184.
For example, when the U.S. used its own laws against purse-seine nets which drown thousands of dolphins along with target fish such as tuna. The U.S. labeled cans as dolphin-safe if appropriate tuna fishing methods were used. Mexico filed a complaint saying the labeling violated the rights of their fishermen. The WTO agreed and made Congress change our law. So now tuna cans cannot even carry a label ensuring buyers that the tuna was caught by dolphin-safe methods because it would inhibit free trade in a manner unfair to Mexico. So this trade agreement denies consumers the information needed to make choices!
The fight over the tuna/dolphin issue and the outcome in favor of Mexico reveals that a country’s domestic policies and laws can be revoked to promote trade. “This should serve as a warning against expansive trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership that would replicate rules that undermine safeguards for wildlife, clean air, and clean water,” said the Sierra Club’s Ilana Solomon in a statement.
There have been similar challenges over the EU ban on furs from animals caught in steel-jaw traps. Leg hold traps have been outlawed by 85 nations. However, the U.S., Canada, and Russia still use them. The traps have been deemed inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the World Veterinary Association, the U.S. National Animal Control Association, and the American Animal Hospital Association.
A ban of the traps was implemented in the EU member countries. But the ban was vigorously challenged by the fur industry, trappers associations, and aboriginal groups. The EU was threatened with reprisals and caved in. They changed their regulation to allow furs from leg hold trapped animals as long as “internationally agreed upon humane trapping standards” were adopted, even though no such universal standards exist. Thus much hard work by advocates to save wildlife from being held and tortured in the traps failed to protect them.
Concerning other wildlife issues, the Obama administration is claiming that the new TPP actually strengthens conservation. However, the TPP rules really only bind trade partners to “take measures to combat” trade wildlife rather than actually inhibiting it.
The ability of members to sue when they feel they are disadvantaged by other countries’ humane laws and get those laws overturned could presage further nightmares in the lives of farm animals in underdeveloped countries. Most of those countries do not have animal welfare laws and little will to invest in agricultural methods to reduce cruelty in raising and slaughtering animals. Demanding improvement could be reviewed as unfair and discriminatory. One could also ask how many cruel practices could potentially be outsourced from developed countries to trading partners abroad to avoid the laws and extra expense required of humane treatment at home.
According to Public Citizen, the Trans-Pacific Partnership could also threaten food safety. The TPP would require us to allow food imports if the exporting country’s safety regimen is deemed “equivalent” to our own, even if it violates our food safety laws. The rules could effectively outsource domestic food inspection to other countries. U.S. safety rules could be subject to charges as “illegal trade barriers” if the U.S. rules are stricter than general international standards. Our label laws could be challenged as “trade barriers” if they undermined products from other members of the TPP. Consumers would not be given the information to make humane choices.
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=6271
Free trade is a devil’s bargain designed to satisfy human greed with the least regulation and resistance possible, with standards falling to the lowest levels of the membership. We can reasonably ask how many hard-won laws for animals will be the target of challenges and lawsuits that will revoke them. What all this will mean for animals and their treatment is terrifying to contemplate.
AFTERWORD by Roland Vincent
Marcia Mueller’s insightful and revealing article should make a candidate’s position on the TPP the primary litmus test of that candidate’s fitness to serve in office.
For animal activists and the animal movement, there is no more indicative measure of a candidate.
Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Jill Stein, and Clifton Roberts all oppose the TPP. If Hillary is elected, it will almost assuredly become law with only minor tweaks. She repeatedly called it the “gold standard” of trade agreements until Bernie challenged her in the Democratic primaries.
If Bernie becomes the Democratic nominee, there is little doubt he will become the 45th president of the US. If Hillary is nominated, we must beat her with Donald Trump.
While I like and respect both Stein and Roberts, voting for them will not stop Hillary from shoving the TPP down our throats.
Editor’s Notes:
• I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.
If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.
• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!
• Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.
• If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.
There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.
• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot
You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!
• Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty
If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.
Just $3 per month will allow is to advertise!
Armory of the Revolution 
Pingback: The Ultimate Litmus Test for the Presidency — Armory of the Revolution | KathyPowers1
The more I hear about the TPP, the worse it sounds! I was on a conference call recently with the Trade Justice Alliance. The call covered a lot of ground, but there were a couple of things especially worrisome to animal advocates. For example, some of the objectives in the agreement are stated as “shoulds” rather than “shalls,” offering recommendations rather than laws. One discussion involved sharks. The agreement notes that countries “should” promote shark conservation. However, the agreement will also result in abolishing trade tariffs. So when, again for example, Vietnam’s 20% tariff on shark products is gone, the products will be less expensive, and more people can afford them, resulting potentially in more shark killing. Tariffs will be reduced or abolished in other countries, as well.
Another concern is how much this will affect other animals, including farmed animals and research animals. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association lauds the TPP, noting that developing countries have a growing middle class. Since they assert that 96% of the world population resides outside the USA, the potential for beef sales is huge. The outlook for pigs is equally bad, with the TPP opening the market to approximately 500 million more people. Since the countries involved have few, if any, humane laws, the treatment of the animals will be worse than they are here, where the few laws that exist are seldom enforced. There will likely be less opportunity for undercover cruelty investigations.
We also have to be particularly concerned about more live exports. Apparently America is already sending living hogs to China and to the state of Hawaii. Live shipping involves horrendous suffering to the animals who are crammed onto ships and sent for their long journey under terrible conditions. That they have nothing to forward to but having their throats slit when they arrive makes it even worse.
Similarly, Big Pharma is eager to do business and open facilities in TPP countries, and they may search for countries who will allow animal research with few, or no, restrictions.
The TPP is long and complicated and apparently negotiated behind closed doors. Congress was just recently provided with the text. We can guess that, if signed, it will benefit corporations by making their global reach greater and their profits higher. We can be certain what it will do to the animals.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Species and Class.
LikeLike