Why I couldn't be an international trade lawyer
I like food. I mean, I really like food. I love cooking, I love eating at good restaurants, I love thinking about food, I love looking at food, I love smelling food. If I had to choose between a lifetime of celibacy or a perpetually bland diet - I'd have to choose the lifetime of celibacy. And for those of you who know me, you know what a big deal that would be.
So what does this have to do with international trade law, you may ask?
From the EC Classification of Chicken case:
Brazil and Thailand argued that the chicken was "frozen boneless salted chicken cuts that have been deeply and homogeneously impregnated with salt in all parts with a total salt content of not less than 1.2% by weight."
The Panel of the WTO said that the chicken was "frozen boneless chicken cuts impregnated with salt, with a salt content of 1.2%-3%."
The Panel then determined that "the critical question in interpreting the EC Schedule is "whether the term 'salted' in the concession contained in heading 02.10 covers the products at issue which, in turn, will entail a determination of whether that concession includes the requirement that salting is for preservation and, more particularly, is for long-term preservation.""
And then they get into a big happy debate over what "salted" really means.
Now, they clearly fail to address the real issue:
Why would anyone want to eat frozen chicken impregnated with salt? Frozen chicken is bad enough. But impregnated...with salt? Yuck. This is why I don't buy the frozen chicken that comes in industrial-sized bags in the US - it's salted. Impregnated. No longer virginal.
I want my chicken to have been clucking a short while ago. I want my chicken to have eaten grains, and not hormones. I want my chicken to have not been impregnated with salt. In general, I prefer not to think of chicken and impregnation in the same sentence.
I really don't think I could be an international trade lawyer - these people keep missing the things that really matter in life. Just look at the latest WTO GMO decision.
So what does this have to do with international trade law, you may ask?
From the EC Classification of Chicken case:
Brazil and Thailand argued that the chicken was "frozen boneless salted chicken cuts that have been deeply and homogeneously impregnated with salt in all parts with a total salt content of not less than 1.2% by weight."
The Panel of the WTO said that the chicken was "frozen boneless chicken cuts impregnated with salt, with a salt content of 1.2%-3%."
The Panel then determined that "the critical question in interpreting the EC Schedule is "whether the term 'salted' in the concession contained in heading 02.10 covers the products at issue which, in turn, will entail a determination of whether that concession includes the requirement that salting is for preservation and, more particularly, is for long-term preservation.""
And then they get into a big happy debate over what "salted" really means.
Now, they clearly fail to address the real issue:
Why would anyone want to eat frozen chicken impregnated with salt? Frozen chicken is bad enough. But impregnated...with salt? Yuck. This is why I don't buy the frozen chicken that comes in industrial-sized bags in the US - it's salted. Impregnated. No longer virginal.
I want my chicken to have been clucking a short while ago. I want my chicken to have eaten grains, and not hormones. I want my chicken to have not been impregnated with salt. In general, I prefer not to think of chicken and impregnation in the same sentence.
I really don't think I could be an international trade lawyer - these people keep missing the things that really matter in life. Just look at the latest WTO GMO decision.
posted by Nixie at 11:42 AM
1 Comments:
This has nothing to do with trade law, but the best read on the Sheehan arrest is at the blog of a MidWest lawyer with First Amendment experience, Glenn Greenwald.
Post a Comment
<< Home