Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "Product of USA"

Re:Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "... by alexfromapex on Friday March 18, 2022 @01:06PM (#30724720)

Calling food that is 90%+ made in another country a "Product of the USA" is just insulting and I think if there was no money involved in the judges' decision making they'd just call this what it is; deceptive trade practices.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "... by notJim on Friday March 18, 2022 @01:11PM (#30724794)

The judge is likely interpreting a law that is worded to result in exactly this outcome.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "... by jaywalk on Friday March 18, 2022 @01:21PM (#30724933)

Exactly. It's ridiculous to jump to the assumption that judges are being paid off when they correctly interpreted the law as written.

The law needs to be changed, of course. But that's not up to the judges.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "... by matheusmoreira on Friday March 18, 2022 @01:31PM (#30725059)

> But that's not up to the judges.

Sure it is. English common law countries place heavy emphasis on precedent. If the judge had refused to take the law literally in this case and done the reasonable thing instead, chances are this precedent would be cited in any future lawsuits of this sort.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Court affirms imported beef still allowed to be labeled "... by mpalczewski on Friday March 18, 2022 @01:41PM (#30725192)

2 out of 3 judges are interpreting the law this way. This went all the way to an appeals court. There's a strong implication that there is quite a bit of room for the judges to maneuver.

The minority opinion judge said > if consumers are deceived by the label, “Product of the U.S.A.,” then that label violates both the FMIA and USDA regulations.

[ Parent | on HN ]