Today the EU imposed 15% tarrifs on a range of US goods, including "stationery and clothing to sweetcorn and spectacle frames."

Question for debate:
Is this just another step in a gradual progression towards "fair" instead of "free" trade, or just a temporary squabble that will soon be settled? Do you support the use of tarrifs to protect American jobs?

My take: Given the forseen economic troubles for developed nations on both sides of the Atlantic, I think populist and corporate political forces will exert enough influence to keep these protections in place. There is a lot of concern now over the loss of American manufacturing jobs, so this will be seen as a way to protect the few jobs and companies that remain. Defeating these measures would require strong lobbying from retail companies.

As a matter of general opinion.. because I have not heard strong arguments against it... I think free trade is better for everyone in the long run, but it has short term consequences that make it a tough pil to swallow.

Is this just another step in a gradual progression towards "fair" instead of "free" trade, or just a temporary squabble that will soon be settled?

Unfortunately I don't think it is either.

Both the USA and the EU talk the free trade talk when it comes to other countries' behaviour, and both have enough muscle to strong-arm weaker economies (particularly in the Third World) into my-way-or-the-highway trading laws. Yet when it comes to their own jobs, both jursidictions suddenly find lots of perfectly reasonably explanations (for which read excuses) for why it is absolutely essential that they protect this vital industry or that special interest - for which read "why it is absolutely essential to apply different rules to themselves from the ones they insist everyone else uses".

The only reason that these two trading bloks keep butting heads over international trade and the various subsidies they dish out internally is that these are the only two trading bloks with enough muscle to stand up to one another.

Everyone else would love to apply such self-favouring policies to their international trade, and arguably, most of the rest of the world outside the G8 (and, let's be honest, it isn't the minor EU members that are making the most noise, but France, Germany & the UK, which are all G8 members) needs to do that far more than anyone inside that exclusive little club.

Do you support the use of tariffs to protect American jobs?
No. Nor do I support EU subsidies.

I do, however, think that - in a world where the two largest economic powers (if we think of the EU as a single power, which isn't quite true just yet) insist on behaving differently from the way they demand their trading partners behave - many Third World countries would be justified in applying tariffs to discourage the subsidised overproduction being dumped below cost price in their markets, especially in commodities & foodstuffs.

I don't personally believe that "free trade" and "fair trade" are necessarily in opposition. Nor do I belive that the current world trading system is remotely like either. What we have now is "free trade as long as the big boys win" and "fair trade for us but not for you".

Increasingly it seems our leaders in the West are getting really good at playing checkers when they really ought to be learning to play chess properly, since those are the pieces on the board in front of them. We can't entirely blame them, since we keep voting for them to do just that - as long as we keep winning, we don't seem to care that we're doing it by cheating.

I see this particular squabble as part of a larger trend towards essentially economic sanctions on the United States as punishment for Iraq and Kyoto. I find it interesting that China and Canada supported this as well.

I only support tarrifs if the good is needed to maintain national security. For example, I would support tarrifs on imported food if the US was not growing enough to feed itself in a time of war. The only other times there should be tarrifs are for countries that use slave labor or are causing catastrophic environmental damage.

Interesting idea. Of course, it hasn't openly been stated. But it is possible.


One could argue that it would be better for national security to encourage multiple sources of foodstuffs and promote global prosperity by removing domestic subsidies that prevent thrid-world producers from competing. This would provide alternate sources of agriculture in case ours was poisoned or blighted, and prospering nations are less likely to require the use of our troops.

Similarly, I would argue that imposing tarrifs on nations that use slave labor or are causing environmental degredation only prolongs the problem, by making the nation poorer. Economic sanctions have a pretty poor record of inciting political change within a country (see Cuba or Iraq). By engaging them in trade, the people of the nation prosper and will naturally push internally for better conditions. We have to patient and let progress come from within.

The original Grauniad article actually states why the tariffs were implemented:A recent example of this is shrimp; American shrimpers like to use gas-guzzling trawlers to catch wild shrimp, so for obvious reasons they can't compete with farmed shrimp from such regions as South-East Asia and Latin America. Aside from the cost issue, there's also the factor that farmed shrimp is more consistent in size and flavour than wild shrimp. Since it would be downright unAmerican to expect American shrimpers to become, well, competitive or anything, imports have been classed as dumping and subjected to tariffs. The revenue from these tariffs is then funnelled to the sorely put-upon American shrimpers, who are thus doubly encouraged to remain uncompetitive, because hey, not only does the government protect them, they get paid to be protected. And the best part is the consumer picks up the tab! As a resident of the United States, and someone who likes eating shrimp, you'll understand I'm just thrilled to bits about this.

This, of course, comes in addition to tariffs on catfish, steel, softwood lumber and of course the staggering 2002 farm bill (which raised agricultural subsidies by over 80% for the following decade) which the American government has implemented over the past few years. I think the only real underlying trend, though, is the usual one of politicians trying to gain votes with pork at the taxpayers' expense. Which, I might add, is something which affects constituency-based political systems somewhat more than proportional representation-based systems, because politicians in the former don't have to worry about the opinions of voters who are not their constituents, while still being able to spend those people's taxes.

Overall, though, I think this is just another bit of tit-for-tat in trying to get the other guy to live up to his professed support for free trade.

As an aside, I'd like to caution against making too much of the effect of Western countries' tariff régimes on the developing world. It's true that tariffs are harmful to the economies of developing nations, but in practice, the most harm is inflicted by the tariffs imposed by other developing nations.

Multiple sources would lessen the likelihood of a short-fall in a particular item(such as food), but they do not guarantee that the US would be able to feed itself. It would be a calculated risk, but a risk nonetheless. On something like food, I personally wouldn't be able to accept that risk, no matter how small.



Great points, but engaging countries using slave labor and/or that are enviromentally irresponsible has not yet proven to push the country towards resolving those issues. The differences that the US has taken towards Cuba and China have thus far yielded similar results in terms of inciting political change. Both have failed. Inciting political change is the not objective of the tariff though. The objective is to make it more economically advantageous for the country to stop using slave labor and/or devastating the environment.

Food isn't going to be a problem in the US for some time. Losing subsidies for agriculture, and dropping tarriffs against imported food would do more for national security than three brand new aircraft carriers. It would also do more to improve living conditions in third-world countries than billions in economic aid. Likely it would mean the demise of, or at least a reduction in size of Cargill, ADM, and ConAgra.

If domestic agricultural production dropped, the means to produce it would not dissappear, in fact, by laying fallow, it would probably become more productive.

I think that we should tax imports that cause carbon (and other air pollutants) emissions, but we should do the same for our own processes.

I'm wary of the 'slave labor' protections. What might be considered slave labor here might be considered a decent wage elsewhere. I actually think that any trade between nations improves the quality of life of both nations. Wage slavery just slows that process. Perhaps better than a wage provision in tarriffs, a better provision would be a Gini index provision. Something to the effect of if your country's Gini index is at least as half as good as ours, we'll trade freely. Otherwise, suffer penalties.

SWC. The food example is a hypothetical and I agree that the current subsidies are not needed. Nor are the good for the world or America today. I was just stating that if the US ever made less food than we need to eat, then I would not be against a tariff due to national security reasons.

As for the Gini Index as a basis for trade, the idea seems like it could become a moratorium on socialism. You always have some interesting new angle on things though.

Slave labor is a pretty relative term I suppose. What upsets me is when the government artificially holds their entire populace down be artificially pegging their currency. Essentially, making their country slave labor for the rest of the world. I definitely favor tariffs to push those countries to removing the barriers that prevent their citizens from improving their own standard of living as well as ours through fair trade.

Sad to see such an interesting topic..well interesting to me..get so poorly presented with this debate. This is not something only the EU has done or has been given permission to do by the WTO ..so I am a little disappointed to see it falsely presented as such.

The EU and the other collection of nation's exercising their WTO approved retaliation right will do nothing to convince the US to change her current trading practices. The foreign sales corporation disagreement is the big issue ...this one is meaningless really. The Byrd amend. is well supported in Congress and the cost of retaliation is not enough to convince anyone otherwise.

I think the big issue or the one of most concern regarding this newest turn of events is the WTO itself..it took quite a big stumble during it's little convention in Mexico and this issue further places the organization into question..how serious is the US about the WTO?

I think what we should (we being Americans) be asking ourselves is if we feel the WTO is an important organization and something we wish to fully and cooperatively participate in...and most importantly lead by example within.

As for the comments made on US Shrimp just let me say I always ask the fishmonger where his shrimp is from if it is not from the US I will not buy it. I ONLY buy American..same for all my fish.
I think a lot more plays into the cost difference...the cost of living is much higher here than say Asia or Latin America so that alone effects the costs. Yet quality is of most importance to me and you can NOT get the same quality of shrimp ...and most seafood..scallops, crabs etc....from Asia as you can from the USA.
Also...just to better inform my fellow ADers Shrimp from Asia is kept in a antibiotic solution that is not approved for use in the USA..blech! and for just basic wellbeing I would strongly suggest you all start asking your fishmonger for American shrimp too...yumyum

I am a strong supporter of country-of-origin labeling I believe the seafood one is supposed to be in effect yet the others have been delayed and purposefully obstructed.
I think that consumers should be fully informed about their purchases but not manipulated, controlled or restricted.

I'm not sure I follow you here, JLMA--tariffs make it more costly to import goods, so in the (unlikely) event that the US did find itself faced with a food shortage, imposing tariffs on imported foodstuffs would be just about the last thing you'd want to do. Or am I missing something?


It's nice if you can afford it; a lot of people can't. Farmed Asian shrimp has the potential to be a cheap (and comparatively tasty) source of protein for lower-income families, but with tariffs slapped on it, that option's out the window; and I'm talking about people who can't afford the more expensive American shrimp.

Now, personally, I do like my seafood (for the most part) wild and caught as locally as possible. Yuppie scum that I am, I'd have been perfectly happy to shell out some extra clams (pardon the puns) for the American product, albeit mainly on account of it being wild-caught rather than farmed (since as a non-American, I have no particular loyalty to American goods per se, and I live in Washington state, so the Gulf of Mexico is hardly "local" from my perspective). As a matter of fact, the American Seafood Distributors Association has long recommended that the Southern Shrimp Alliance try aiming its product at a niche market--the more "boutique" foodstuffs shopper--rather than trying to compete for the same slice of the mass market as the Asians and South Americans (Ecuador and Brazil are also among the countries hit by the tariffs). But no. Instead, they went the tariff route, and as a result the consumer is being "manipulated, controlled or restricted."

What annoys me primarily about this issue is that my political beliefs have now been brought into conflict with my taste for seafood. I don't like tariffs; they usually do more harm than good by inflicting more damage in other sectors than they prevent in the protected sector. Of all places, they should know this in Louisiana, where the steel tariffs led to a 50% reduction in steel imports through the Port of New Orleans, with predicable economic consequences. These tariffs on Asian shrimp may protect the jobs of a few American shrimpers, but they'll make shrimp too expensive for quite a few consumers. As a result, business will drop off at seafood restaurants, and their employees will end up taking the hit. The bottom line is that the tariffs will probably end up eliminating more jobs than they save, just like the steel tariffs did. Accordingly, I'm fairly incensed at the Southern Shrimp Alliance, and I want to deny them any of my money. Thanks to the Byrd amendment, this means I'd have to stop eating shrimp altogether.

I don't buy that. If it were true, the Southern Shrimp Alliance could have simply sicced the FDA on the Asian imports, rather than pursuing the "anti-dumping" route.

Well I don't feel this is a strong argument. Shrimp is a luxury item regardless where's it's country or origin is. I think the cheapest I see it sold in my area..and this would be on sale..is around 6-7 bux a pound. There are far more affordable sources of protein available here in the US. Claiming the Asian imports are needed for this reason is not at all true.





Well it is true..
Dangers Of Imported Shrimp
Like I said I prefer for consumers to be well informed..I don't support tariffs I support information. The FDA enforces this ban by testing approx. 1-2% of imported shrimp into the US. I would imagine if the FDA actually did bother to enforce the ban on this antibiotic that we would see the US shrimping industries much happier. The EU bans this antibiotic too.
This is why I feel the country-of-origin labeling is so important...because obviously we can not count on the FDA to screen these imported food products and so I would prefer to have the information readily available to make my own decisions and protect my own family's wellbeing.
Also I am very familiar with the northwest and they got shrimp up there too It is not just the gulf that relies on commercial shrimping.

Really.
Interestingly, this article (which may be premium content) cites the records of a Louisiana shrimper named Kim Chauvin:The spring in question being last year's, before the tariffs were imposed. $1.80.

Wow. That has got to be one of the worst pieces of so-called "journalism" I've ever seen, and I've seen some stinkers. The bulk of the article is filled with claims by American shrimpers (who have an obvious agenda where imported shrimp are concerned), and this Caroline Smith DeWaal woman. Interestingly, one of the first results Google turns up on her name is this page from ActivistCash.com ("We follow the money -- for you").ActivistCash (which, it should be noted, is operated by the Center for Cponsumer Freedom) also has a page on the organization to which Smith belongs, the Center for Science in the Public Interest. It makes for interesting reading. Basically, the CSPI's stance is that eating just about anything will kill you in short order.

The CBS piece is long on scaremongering, and short on specifics. It says (near the end) that 9% of shrimp tested in Louisiana tests positive for chloramphenicol; but are all the samples which test positive imported, or are there (supposedly) American-caught* shrimp which also test positive? Interestingly, the article does not say. What the article also doesn't say is what kind of amounts of chloramphenicol we're talking about here. For all I can tell from the article, the amounts might be so minute that you'd have to eat a pound of contaminated shrimp daily for eight years running before suffering any deterministic effects. Of course,something like that wouldn't be newsworthy, so best to leave that out.
Moreover, the article claims that chloramphenicol is "a suspected carcinogen that may cause [...] leukemia in humans"; oddly enough, the Merck Manual makes no mention of this, though it does mention the anemia:However, the Merck Manual also notes that the usual dosage is 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day, or half again to twice as much when treating meningitis. For an adult human, we're talking grams of the stuff per day, even at normal dosage; I suspect that's way more than you'll find in any shrimp. Personally, I have a sneaking suspicion that CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews just parrotted some line that Smith DeWaal fed him without bothering to check its veracity. Can we stand down the National Guard now?

* - I say "supposedly" because it's no secret that quite a few American shrimpers buy shrimp from Mexican shrimpers, among others, and pass it off as "American-caught."

I hadn't really thought of it that way. The way I see it, the tariff makes the imported food more expensive. This gives domestic farmers an advantage so they will produce more.

Surely this is the price Kim sells her shrimp as a distributor..yes..no.? Perhaps you should provide information on this that we are all permitted free access to.
I stand by my comments on this...Shrimp in my area sells for 6-7 bux a lb (this would be the 25-30s) and that is on sale. This is the retail price..the one I imagine the low-income family you are using as an example would pay. Even at the wholesale price or the production price there are far more affordable protein options for low income families. I can find whole chicken on sale at around .70 a lb and you can feed a family of four three dinners with a whole chicken. So again I don't feel this is a valid argument..shrimp is a luxury protein.



At a complete loss as to what your argument is exactly. You originally stated that you did not believe it was true that shrimp farmed outside the US in Asia was being treated with antibiotics. I have shown this is indeed true ..and that it is in fact fairly common food knowledge as it is even being written about in CBS news. Makes it a wee bit mainstream don't ya think? That is why I provided a "fluff" piece..to show that such a assertion is hardly a fringe or unheard of claim.
So again I stand by my argument on this too...antibiotics are in fact used in farm raised shrimp from Asia. Even the US gov acknowledges this.




The article also quoted a representative from the shrimp importers..do you think perhaps they have an "obvious agenda where imported shrimp are concerned"? And why are you trying to portray the American shrimpers as the goliaths here..they have approx. 12% of the market share in the US now..whereas imports account for 88%.


So you don't trust the "producers" of shrimp to best inform you of the safety of their products because of "an obvious agenda" and yet having the producers of the antibiotic in question inform you of the safety of their product is somehow void of such "an obvious agenda"
Did you happen to read on the Merck site that such a drug should only be prescribed by a doctor? And perhaps only when you are in need of an antibiotic? Not when you are enjoying a nice dinner?




Firstly I don't remember asking for the National Guard to be sent in..altho. I do remember stating I did wish for the COOL legislation to be put into action. Which you have not yet commented on. Again I don't really understand what your argument is..this antibiotic is banned for use in food production here in the US. Do you feel we should not bother to enforce our food standards? Do you feel that consumers should not be aware of the usage and presence of such things in their food purchases and be given the independent option to make their own choices? Or do you think that usage of such antibiotics should be allowed?

I agree with you that educated consumption is preferrable to tarriffs or quotas or the like. What concerns me is how "consumer education" can manifest itself. For example, people buy "organic" foods that have been grown using only natural pesticides thinking they are safer, yet natural pesticides can be more dangerous that artificial pesticides. What passes for "education" is really marketing. But alas, this is what it means to live in a capitalist society... so I shouldn't complain.

But this is where his point was... a lot of noise being made about the use of antibiotics to raise the shrimp, yet divorced from the actual risks involved. Would you turn down all food raised using antibiotics? An educated consumer should look at the actual risks involved. For example, I know that the beef I eat I can have a certain percentage of fecal content. It's small enough that it doesn't concern me.

The question is not, should we be alarmed about the use of antibiotics, but, should we be alarmed about the levels of antibiotic in the final product? More to the point, is Asian shrimp dangerous?

I applaud your principle to make a choice based on your own tastes, and not seek to impose it on others.

Is this just another step in a gradual progression towards "fair" instead of "free" trade, or just a temporary squabble that will soon be settled? Do you support the use of tarrifs to protect American jobs?

I think its more of a squabble than anything. Everyone approahces the WTO to try and get the best deal for themselves and one side or the other is generally trying to get away with some sort of protectionism.

In theory I do not support the use of tariffs to protect jobs (in any country) because governmental interventionism is normally inefficient and harmful to economic growth. However at some point you do have to recognise that the theoretical / ideological view can be awfully harsh to those unfortunate souls who face redundancy. So I would support protectionism provided that it was aimed at a.) helping workers facing redundancy (rather than the CEO) and b.) did not aim to prop up the industry indefinitely, but let it die a slower death.

Err - so I guess that as those conditions are almost never met in the real world, I don't really support protectionism!

If you mean that the $1.80/lb is not the retail price, then yes, you are correct. Neither, though, was the $6.45/lb of four years before.
And if you want a freely accessible article on the shrimp tariffs, here's one from Reason.
And I stand by mine. My point was that there is a massive difference in price between wild domestic and farmed imported shrimp, and while the retail price will be higher than the price the wholesaler paid, the initial price difference would still ultimately be reflected in the retail price were it not for the tariffs.
But, and I acknowledge I should have brought this up earlier, where South-East Asian shrimp farming really makes a difference is in South-East Asia itself. Shrimp farming there most certainly does provide a much-needed source of cheap protein, though the aquaculture industry of countries like Vietnam is profitable primarily due to the export market, and the American export market in particular.
Well, let's look at how you put it originally:
The article you cited indicated that 9% of the shrimp inspected tested positive for chloramphenicol. Based on the statement in the article about chloramphenicol being used in the feed in certain Asian countries (which are, rather unhelpfully, not named), let's assume that this applies to imported Asian shrimp alone. So your original claim was, at most, 9% correct.
My original response--that it simply did not ring true because if it were, the Southern Shrimp Alliance could have gotten the Asian imports banned on health grounds without having to resort to an "anti-dumping" lawsuit--was therefore 91% correct.
Oh, I'm not denying that the importers have an agenda of their own. But out of the whole article, a mere four sentences were spent on their side of the story, and the rest was spent entirely on bashing the imports.
Because, in terms of political influence, they are the goliaths. No member of the US Congress wants to be seen to be defending imports which are allegedly "stealing" American jobs, which is why this so-called "anti-dumping" tarriff got passed, despite the fact that American shrimpers make up a miniscule chunk of the American electorate. But they're organized, unlike the people whose jobs may get axed because of the tariffs, even though they potentially outnumber the shrimpers 20 to 1. Of course, a 17 year-old waitron at Red Lobster doesn't have the vote, so why should any elected representative care?
No, actually; to be exact, I don't trust anybody to be an unbiased source regarding the safety, or alleged lack thereof, of his competitor's product. In other words, if I want an unbiased opinion on imported shrimp, the last person I'm going to ask is a domestic shrimp producer.
On the other hand, any pharmaceutical company which deliberately plays fast and loose with information on its own product is likely to be looking at a massive lawsuit in short order. Merck, specifically, is currently facing some major personal injury lawsuits over Vioxx, an anti-arthritis medication. Thus, it has an acute interest at present in making sure information on its products is accurate.

But all this is rather by the by. The original topic of this thread concerned measures taken by the EU and other countries in retaliation to the US's refusal to scrap the Byrd Amendment. Even if the amounts of chloramphenicol in imported Asian shrimp posed a genuine health risk, how does imposing "anti-dumping" tariffs on Asian and South American shrimp benefit the American consumer? As far as I can make out from the CBS article, chloramphenicol is not an issue in Ecuadorean or Brazilian shrimp, so the current tariffs on shrimp imported from those countries have no added value for the American consumer. And thanks to the Byrd Amendment, which funnels the revenue from the tariffs to the American shrimpers, it's not like the tariffs might fund increased testing of imported shrimp by the FDA.

I know this is a very late response but I am in the midst of starting up my own business (yay!) I don't really understand why price is the only factor you focus on in regards to food..safety and quality should be fairly high on the list too...yes? So sure Asian shrimp is cheaper...but still not cheap. I never denied that was true..and I asked me dad if he has noticed much of a change in recent years to shrimp pricing wholesale and he has not.
What I did do is point out that the price reduction of Asian shrimp not only comes with far less safety controls in how these animals are farmed but also the quality of product. American shrimp are better quality and are safer and better for you to eat. And tariffs are not the only factors on pricing...and certainly not for market pricing of foods...demand is another..market share would be one too as would just basic factors like crop production, availability and weather.


Well there is a thing called statistics and some how I doubt that even in LA the US govt is testing 100% of shrimp imports..so that 9% would get statically measured and hence I am sure the number is much higher than 9%.


Why is your argument with me only focused on the article? I have an argument too...which you have continued to ignore even tho I have repetitively asked you to address it..will you or won't you? I am not a supporter of tariffs I already stated this several times..I am a supporter or COOL which is now in effect mandated by FEDERAL law for all seafood (yay!!) and this is how I believe concerns about imports..their quality and safety should best be addressed..and this is how I think the govt should be highlighting and pursuing not only the need but advantage of buying locally and even at least nationally. I am a major supporter of local produce in my own business endeavor. I am a major supporter of the slow food movement (seed bank and ark of taste) and I feel things like this..buying from local farmers or watermen is IMMENSELY important for not just the quality of our food table but protection of it.

Tariffs are but one alternative...and one I am not in favor of..there are other means to attempt to pursue this so please sir address my actual argument here and stop with the article. Any further comments on the article itself I believe should be directed to the actual author of the article.

Do you support the COOL mandate on seafood and it's proposed implementation on all other food products?

Do you support the government mandating and controlling food products imported into the US based on safety or production methods?


Well I personally know a few watermen myself and I hardly would consider them Goliaths of the food industry..organized sure they have to be..but Goliaths in comparison to the companies who run the import businesses of such products..no. I think you are way off on this one. I deal with only local or niche suppliers and they are most often family run mom and pop operations.

To a very large extent because it's the only external reference you've linked to. Moreover, the reason for my focusing on tariffs, and specifically the provisions of the Byrd Amendment, is because that is what this thread is about.

Personally, I have no objections to country-of-origin labelling, though I'm more inclined to focus on the possibilities for personal political expression (refusing to buy produce from countries whose governments one finds distasteful, etc.). I have no objection to more stringent food safety inspections either. But as I said before, neither the Byrd Amendment nor other protectionist measures serve the interests of the consumer.

Certainly, the Southern Shrimp Alliance isn't especially concerned with food safety. The SSA didn't exclude Mexican shrimp from their petition because Mexican shrimp is proven to be safe (I don't know one way or the other); they didn't press for tariffs on Mexican shrimp because the Mexican shrimping industry paid them an estimated $13 million not to. That's extortion, plain and simple. At a conservative estimate, assuming consumption of shrimp doesn't drop too much, the members of the SSA stand to gain payouts under the Byrd Amendment of $180 million annually, which translates to over $800,000 per company. (Note, incidentally, that domestic shrimp producers who aren't members of the SSA won't get a dime; as far as the SSA is concerned, their jobs don't matter.)
If I am "way off,"and the political influence of importers, such as the members of the American Seafood Distributors Organization, outweighs that of the shrimpers (including the members of the Southern Shrimp Alliance), then why has this tariff been implemented despite the ASDA's vociferous objections? Why did Congress in 2003 approve the payment of $35 million in "disaster relief" (much of which was funnelled into funding the tariff petition) to shrimpers in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas, and members of the Southern Shrimp Alliance in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Texas been awarded "trade adjustment assistance" (TAA) to the tune of up to $10,000 of taxpayer money per individual? What I'd like to know is where an industry organization which has been the beneficiary of such massive amounts of taxpayer-funded largesse gets off accusing their foreign competitors of receiving excessive subsidies?

Actually, I'm not just in favor of country-of-origin labelling, I'm also in favor of state-of-origin labelling. That way, I'll be able to tell whether any shrimp is from a Southern Shrimp Alliance state, and then pointedly refuse to buy it.