SPP - Canada gets lax USA TOXIN regulations

[Karlin]

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/59714/

Mark Schapiro reveals the grim fact that some American companies often have two production lines: one that manufactures hazard-free products for the European Union and another that produces toxin-filled versions.

K -
Now Canada will have to take their toxic line of products, thank you PM Harper and the SPP meeting in Montebello this past weekend. If not, our government could be sued by the American corporations that make these products for any lost revenue. That was one of the critical points for NAFTA, and the SPP is "NAFTA on steroids".

This is all the more absurd when we read, at that link, that the E.U. has found that there is no loss of profits when using the less-toxic production of everyday items. There is no good reason why we should be subjected to toxins, but Harper has agreed to the SPP agenda that says we will be glad to accept whatever America produces.

Streamline that trade, Harmonise those regulations, and allways end up with the lowest level of protection for consumers.

 

[TenPenny]

Yes, I can well imagine that all of these American companies are thrilled to be permitted to make toxin filled versions of everything.

The EU, of course, is that body that imposes the rules on English sausages that Blackleaf posts at regular intervals. Do you honestly think the EU is a paragon of virtue? For the most part, I think they're a paragon of pointless beauraucracy, civil servants run amok, the vast majority of whom are catering to a small national interest.

 

[normbc9]

It is not just US manufacturers either. Stockhausen Chemical out of germany has formulated a fiorest fire retardant gel product that is banned from use in the EU nations and is now being marketed under the name Thermo-Gel in the US and used by the fire tanker industry because that is what is provided by the government agency having the jurisdiction over suppressing that particular wild fire. There are other products on the market that do not contain harmful NPE's but are never allowed the chance to bid their product on a level bidders field. I think someone has the "Fix" in on the deal. There are a lot of bad discrepanices in the regulation of all manuafctured chemicals, world wide.

 

[Niflmir]

Yes, I can well imagine that all of these American companies are thrilled to be permitted to make toxin filled versions of everything.

The EU, of course, is that body that imposes the rules on English sausages that Blackleaf posts at regular intervals. Do you honestly think the EU is a paragon of virtue? For the most part, I think they're a paragon of pointless beauraucracy, civil servants run amok, the vast majority of whom are catering to a small national interest.

Yeah, Angela Merkel ain't no saint from what people tell me. I try to stay out of European politics though. It is incredibly difficult to find food which isn't organic sometimes. I really would prefer if they mentioned where those "toxic products" go, business people aren't evil. Someone pointed out to me that the people behind the ACLU were mostly CEO's - I haven't checked that yet mind you.

 

[Karlin]

more concerns - Mexican Truckers

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4137

the Bush administration’s plan to begin allowing Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States could degrade regulations about safety on the highways. Mexican cargo haulers have been accused of having less than great vehicles.

This cargo arangement would easily spread to Canada under the SPP 'North American Union' agreements that PM Harper signed onto in Monetebello last weekend, without parliamentary overshight or approval.

 

[Toro]

Or, rather than some silly conspiracy theory, this has to do with the fact that barriers to trucking were supposed to be lowered under NAFTA, but the Clinton administration and Congress has refused to abide by the agreement.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, enacted almost eight years ago, was supposed to open the border to trucking. But the Clinton administration, under political pressure from the Teamsters union, which represents 120,000 drivers in the freight industry, refused to implement the trucking agreement, citing safety concerns.


In February of this year, a NAFTA arbitration panel ruled unanimously that the United States was in violation of its commitments, and the new Bush administration rightly agreed to open the border to Mexican trucks by the end of this year. But again under union pressure, the U.S. House voted 285-143 on June 26 to deny funds to the Transportation Department to implement the trucking agreement.

http://www.freetrade.org/node/233

 

[Just the Facts]

the Bush administration’s plan to begin allowing Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States could degrade regulations about safety on the highways. Mexican cargo haulers have been accused of having less than great vehicles.

This cargo arangement would easily spread to Canada under the SPP 'North American Union' agreements that PM Harper signed onto in Monetebello last weekend, without parliamentary overshight or approval.

I didn't realize anyone couldn't drive anywhere they wanted. Maybe it will serve to promote highway safety in Mexico. Presumably Mexican trucks, or any trucks, for that matter, would be required to meet local safety standards.