The issue is not really hormones (they are the political reason, but not the technical one). The true issue is the antibotic abuse: this is a bio threat, especially for farmers and rural guys. Let's say you're walking your dog in the countryside. You fall somewhere, it gets infected, so you get some antibiotics. Those antibiotics do not work after 3 days because they were used in the next door farm, and bacteria is used to them.

Now you have two solutions:

* you are educated (or at least knowledgeable) and you know that if the antibiotics do not show any effect after 3 days, this is caused by resistance, so you go to the doctor again and he gives you type2 antibiotics.

* You are not knowledgable and you let the infection get worse. You have two new solutions:

* * You're young and in good enough shape: depending on the bacteria type, you will suffer for some time, probably have troubles walking and lasting scars.

* * Are you old and/or in a bad shape? Tough luck. Depending on the bacteria type, you might die.

Allowing countries to decide what to ban is just saying that ag goods are exempt from free trade.

Why should the US put up with this? We have a natural advantage in agriculture, with very high productivity.

If you're against free trade, ok, but that's going to apply to European exports of all kinds. And if the trade motivation for links with Europe goes away, so does the motivation for defending Europe via NATO. NATOxit (NATOff? NATOut?) would cost Europe enormously.

You argue that sovereign states should not be allowed to regulate what gets put into food? Should our FDA have no regulation authority over food?

We certainly should have free trade for fungible goods and services. Anything we permit to be made and sold internally we should permit to be imported. But we should have the power to regulate hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides in food and we should respect the decisions of other countries to regulate what they permit in their food.

You seem to be against treaties of any kind, which by their nature put limits on the behavior of sovereign states.

I strongly reject the idea that food is somehow exempt. This is moral posturing and, like the noxious and genocidal anti-GMO position, is being used as a cloak for frank protectionism by ag interests that would be destroyed by superior overseas competition.

> You seem to be against treaties of any kind,

Not at all. I am reticent to tell others what they should do within their own borders. Treaties regarding external interactions are important.

> This is moral posturing

It is not posturing to prefer that I not have to personally vet the provenance of everything I buy in the grocery store. We know what happens when there is insufficient regulation of food. You get melamine in infant formula because it boosted somebody's profit margin.

Trade in ag goods is an external interaction.

Anyway, what trade treaties require is that health regulations have a rational basis, not be merely pretexts for protectionism. Too much of what I see from Europe is the latter, not the former.

How would preventing the import of melamine tainted milk be an external interaction? Should all states be required to sell poisoned milk from China?

Did you not read my second paragraph? I think you're not interested in honest debate here.

Why would you imply that I didn't read your full comment? Of course I did.

You have not made to me a compelling case that a legitimate concern over what one allows into one's food supply is an external interaction.

The US are also banning some food that isn't banned in EU. Now what - should European countries leave NATO about it?

Of course not, since the cost to Europe would be enormous. As a US taxpayer, I wish you would.

As a french taxpayer, i wish my country would leave as well, it was the second worst decision from sarkozy (first one being Lybia invasion).

France has indeed been out of NATO from 1966 to 2009 due to disapproval of US hegemony.