It seems like Congress is one step closer to allowing horsemeat for human consumption. In the U.S., it’s illegal to sell or serve meat that hasn’t been inspected by the Department of Agriculture. At the same time, there has been a ban on funding horsemeat inspections, which has effectively shut down the practice of slaughtering horses for consumption.

But last week, the House Appropriations Committee voted down the ban 27-25. Even wild horses could be in danger under the Trump Administration. The budget proposal for 2018 suggested that killing or selling of wild horses should be allowed in order to save money on their care.

Wild horse advocates are concerned that this would end an almost half-century long protection of horses, and said that the president is just giving in to livestock lobbyists.

On Tuesday, the committee will vote on a bill that prohibits government funding for “the destruction of healthy, unadopted wild horses” or selling wild horses if it will lead to “their destruction for processing into commercial products.”

The ban on funds for horsemeat inspection has led to over 100,000 horses being exported annually to Canada or Mexico to be slaughtered. Those in favor of ending the ban said that allowing inspection on horse slaughtering in the U.S. could ensure a more humane treatment of the horses.

Congress is dangerously close to opening the door for horse slaughter to return to the US, take action today: https://t.co/bIYFTMUIHa pic.twitter.com/8zGHbA35qa

— ASPCA (@ASPCA) July 18, 2017

But supporters of the ban said that previous inspections in the U.S. showed the horses were being treated inhumanely, with some even being “conscious during dismemberment.” “We know unequivocally that horse slaughter is not humane and can’t be done humanely because of the unique biology of horses,” said Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Eating horsemeat is controversial in America; most Americans see horses as pets or companions, and Representative Marcy Kaptur pointed out that Americans fought wars and built the country on the backs of horses. The three remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. closed in 2007.

While horsemeat is still seen as a delicacy in some parts of the world, like Japan and Belgium, eating horse is taboo in many Western countries. Four years ago there was a horsemeat scandal in Europe that spread from Ireland across at least 19 countries. Companies like Ikea had to publicly apologize and recall food products after they were found to contain traces of horsemeat.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress Might Soon Approve of Horsemeat for Dinner appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Vincente Fox Apologizes to Donald Trump for Profanity

Happy #ThrowbackThursday everyone! Remember when the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, told Donald Trump in an interview with Breitbart that he would not pay for Trump’s “f****** wall”?

That was crazy. But what’s even crazier is how last night Fox tried making amends with the presumptive GOP nominee in another Breitbart interview. Later the ex-president even invited Trump to Mexico. Fox claims it was in good form of him to apologize and Trump should do the same. Others say that the apology only makes Trump stronger. So does Trump win this rant-filled feud? See for yourself:

NFL warns against hefty meat consumption in Mexico and China for athletes

Vegans and health nuts everywhere are having a field day! The NFL is warning athletes not to eat too much meat from Mexico and China. Apparently eating large quantities of meat produced in those countries can lead to a positive test result for clenbuterol–a muscle building stimulant banned by the league’s drug policy. But besides the fact that this is a total vacation damper, it raises suspicion about the possibility of tainted meat from abroad.

Starbucks introduces new frappuccino despite lawsuits

Starbucks has been in the news quite a bit this week. This week, the coffee chain announced its new frappuccino: the Caramel Waffle Cone frap, which, if I’m honest, sounds freaking delicious!

But remember how Starbucks played us all with their ice-drink ratio thievery and their overall under-filling issue? A number of lawsuits have been filed against Starbucks for profiting off these cheap tactics. I certainly will never forget the day I spent $6 on a latte and was given half a cup of milk. I swore never to shop at Starbucks again. But…I wonder if those Caramel Waffle Cone fraps are any good.

You know me when #StarbucksHappyHour FRAPS are back I am there!! Tried the NEW Caramel Waffle Cone Frap! pic.twitter.com/tpuHLPKXqt

— Sydney Sanchez (@sydneysanchez21) May 4, 2016

Los Angeles: City’s Homeless Population Increases 11 Percent in 1 Year, Officials Say

Los Angeles, the city of Angels (and many say one of the best cities in the world, second to NYC) has a major problem: homelessness. In less than a year, Los Angeles’ homeless population  increased by 11 percent. Among the most affected are veterans and, for the first time ever this year, people between the ages of 18 and 24.

Martin Shkreli: Prosecutors Say Former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Facing New Charges

To conclude our Throwback Thursday edition of RantCrush Top 5, let’s talk about Martin Shkreli. Yes, he’s back in the news. This “Pharma bro” is facing new charges, but we mostly remember him as the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who jacked up prices for an AIDS treatment by 5,000 percent overnight. He’s also the same guy who took possession of a prized WuTang Clan album and wouldn’t give it back. But today, Shkreli is facing additional charges for siphoning money from his business to relieve himself of debt at another one of his companies. Seems like everything is just one big game of Monopoly to this kid. Hopefully he’ll soon be out of the news for good.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: Cinco de Mayo Edition appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama signed a bill this week that closes a nearly 85-year-old trade loophole allowing the import of slave-produced goods into the United States. The new regulations, which will affect a long list of goods known to be created by child or forced labor, will go into effect in about two weeks.

The loophole allowing goods made by child or forced labor into the United States is found in the Tariff Act of 1930. While these types of goods are traditionally prohibited under U.S. law, there’s an exception in the tariff–“consumptive demand.” Essentially what that means is that if it’s impossible to supply the domestic demand without importing products made via child or forced labor, those products are allowed to be imported.

The list of products that these new regulations will affect most heavily are cotton, sugarcane, tobacco, coffee, cattle, and fish. The Department of Labor’s list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor also includes things like gold, diamonds, electronics, and pornography–depending of course on the producing country.

There’s been a particular focus on the use of forced labor in the Thai fishing industry, after a number of exposes written over the last year have exposed the use of trafficked Rohingya migrants as slave workers on Thai fishing boats. According to the Guardian:

Hundreds of people are thought to have been traded as slaves to support Thailand’s $7.3bn seafood industry. Costco and CP Foods are facing a lawsuit, filed in California, to prevent the sale of Thai prawns/shrimp tainted by slavery. In January, European Union investigators visited Thailand to see whether it had made enough progress on the issue of slavery to avoid an EU-wide ban on seafood imports from the country.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) proposed the amendment that closed the loophole, and now his office is asking the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency to begin enforcing the new roles as soon as they go into effect in 15 days. Brown stated:

It’s embarrassing that for 85 years, the United States let products made with forced labor into this country, and closing this loophole gives the U.S. an important tool to fight global slavery.

Brown is right–while this may mean less choices for consumers in the U.S., it will be a comfort to know that we no longer lend such support to forced labor.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Bans Import of Slave-Produced Goods appeared first on Law Street.

As many Americans continue to move toward more conscious eating that places an emphasis on consuming responsible, organic foods, we’ve seen more labels in our supermarkets. The country-of-origin labeling rule (COOL), first authorized in 2002, mandated that our meat labels list the country where the product was produced. However that provision was repealed in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama late last week–which means that country-of-origin labels will no longer appear on meat, specifically beef and pork, sold in the United States.

But this move on Congress’s part isn’t about a departure from increased labeling–it’s about the possible international affairs and economic side effects of continuing the labeling. The COOL labeling has been controversial on the world stage from the beginning, because other countries feared it could cause American consumers to discriminate against their meat products for no reason other than that competitors’ products were produced in the United States. Last week, the World Trade Organization (WTO) authorized Canada and Mexico, two of the U.S.’s major trading partners, to tax American products to make up for the cost of the COOL regulations.

The concerns over those costs, as well as the fact that these taxes could be extended to other products, caused Congress to repeal the provision specifically on beef and pork, but labeling will remain on other products. Any meat that comes into the United States from another country will still be inspected by the USDA before it makes it into consumers hands. However, many Americans are unhappy with Congress’s choice to change the labeling requirements overall. Most notably, this comes in contrast to what Americans seemingly want. According to a 2013 study by the Consumer Federation of America:

Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born, raised and processed. Similarly, ninety percent (90 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born and raised and the fact that the meat was processed in the U.S.

Supporters of COOL have floated particular concerns about Brazilian beef, because the country has had an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease as recently as 2014. According to Willy Blackmore, of TakePart, “there could soon be between 20,000 and 65,000 metric tons of fresh or frozen Brazilian beef—about 1 percent of U.S. beef imports—coming into the country annually.”

So, the vote was kind of a lose-lose for Congress–either way it was going to make some people mad. But for now, we won’t be seeing country-of-origin labels on our beef or pork–we’ll have to see how long that change lasts.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where’s Your Meat From? Congress Repeals Country-of-Origin Labeling appeared first on Law Street.

A large international study conducted by the British think tank and policy institute Chatham House has determined that taxing meat wouldn’t cause as much of an uproar as previously believed. The motivations of such a tax would be that it would promote healthier eating, as well as serve as an attempt to combat climate change.

Chatham House’s study surveyed 12 different nations and also conducted focus groups in the U.S., U.K., Brazil, and China. They were attempting to determine how people would react to government policies like higher taxes on meat, as well as cutting subsidies to livestock farmers and introducing more vegetarian meals in public institutions like schools. While they discovered there would be a backlash to these policies in many scenarios–people love their meat–it will most likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for the policies was strong.

This is an important finding, as steps to reduce global consumption of meat may need to be taken soon. The production of livestock is responsible for 15 percent of global emissions–more than the world’s cars, trains, planes, and ships combined. It’s going to get worse, too, as global meat consumption is expected to rise roughly 76 percent over the next 35 years. When countries become richer, they’re more likely to consume more meat. And countries that already consume a lot of meat aren’t really doing so safely. Developed countries eat on average, twice as much meat than what’s considered healthy. Americans are also big offenders–we on average eat roughly three times as much meat as what’s considered healthy. But because of that love of meat, it has traditionally been viewed as a bad move politically to create meat taxes or make it more expensive in any way.

But Chatham House’s research stands in contrast to that hypothesis. Chatham House lead author Laura Wellesley said:

The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.

When discussing the possibility of a meat tax, a consistent comparison that’s being made is the evolution of taxation on cigarettes. Once commonplace higher taxes on cigarettes as well as public service campaigns helped decrease the amount of smokers.

While it’s doubtful that we’ll all be taxed on our meat anytime soon, it may be something that’s brought up at the UN Climate Change conference in Paris next week. So, if you’re big meat fan, this may be something to keep an eye on.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Next Turkey Day, Will We Have a Meat Tax? appeared first on Law Street.