Vatic Note: The first point I would like to make on this is that the publication that is presenting this to us through the alternative news is Reuters, which is owned by Rothschild. So, the question is, "what benefit is it to the global bankers to release this information to the American public?" I have not figured that one out yet, but hopefully, by the time I finish analyzing this article, I will have stumbled on a possible reason that benefits them and not us.
The second point is how the international banking consortium can make or break nations through the control of their global currency, which is right now pegged to the oil bourse, and which will be a lot easier to do once they get complete control of the financial side of the planet. Sovereignty has been a big problem for them in managing each countries various currencies with or without gold and silver backing.
And by the way we are not the only ones that require such notice on their tuna cans..... Australia, New Zealand, the Dutch, and The United Kingdom. So how come they ruled only against the United States? I agree with the commenter below that the WTO is fascist in nature and only cares about money and not about the extinction of the dolphin if they continue to kill them at the rate they have in the past.
WTO rules against U.S. dolphin-safe canned tuna labels
World Trade Organization found on Tuesday that U.S. rules on
dolphin-safe labels for canned tuna run counter to international trade
laws, siding with Mexico in a long-running dispute and opening the door to retaliation against U.S. exports.
ruling, which the United States said it would appeal, upholds Mexico's
complaint that revamped U.S. labeling rules are still discriminatory
because they disqualify Mexican tuna from bearing dolphin-safe labels,
unlike other countries' tuna.
recommend that the dispute settlement body request the United States
bring its measure, which we have found to be inconsistent with (the WTO
rules) ... into conformity with its obligations," the WTO panel said.
In a statement, Mexico's economy
ministry applauded the WTO decision, adding it could eventually take
measures against the United States if any possible appeal process were
to back the latest resolution.
has been fighting for more than 20 years over rules the country argues
have frozen its fishing industry out of a U.S. imported canned tuna
market worth $680 million in 2014. Mexico has about a 3.5 percent share.
arose because yellowfin tuna swim with dolphins in the eastern tropical
Pacific, where Mexico's fleet operates, using speedboats to herd the
dolphins and large purse seine nets to catch the tuna swimming beneath
of dolphins were killed before international conservation efforts set
standards to protect dolphins and put professional observers on ships to
record each tuna catch.
argued the agreements cut dolphin deaths to minimal levels - below the
thresholds allowed in U.S. fisheries - and that tuna from other regions
does not face the same stringent tests, with ship captains allowed to
self-certify that no dolphins were harmed.
But the United States argued it was reasonable to make distinctions between products based on fishing methods and said Mexico had not shown any cases of a ship's captain lying about dolphin deaths.
Trade Representative spokesman Andrew Bates said the United States was
pleased the WTO compliance panel found it was entitled to disqualify
tuna caught in purse seine nets, but disappointed that the WTO found the
Robertson, a spokesman for the Campaign for Eco-Safe Tuna, hailed the
decision and said Mexico's retaliation would be "very significant."
the Earth Island Institute, which works with brands such as StarKist
and Bumble Bee Foods to certify tuna as dolphin-safe, said the WTO put
trade above the environment.
The institute's associate director, Mark Palmer, said Mexico would not be able to claim many lost sales as Mexican tuna was sold in many U.S. shops catering to Latin American clients.
(Additional reporting by Tom Miles in Geneva and Adriana Barrera in Mexico City; Editing by Bill Trott, Jonathan Oatis, Ted Botha and Bernard Orr)
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.