r criticism leveled at these treaties and the bodies that govern them is that they undermine the ability of signatory nations, including the United States, to make their own laws. This causes concern across the political spectrum, with the American left expressing serious concerns about our ability to keep and enforce our environmental laws and the American right seeing not only American sovereignty but the traditional concept of "states' rights" in jeopardy.Decisions made in the Uruguay Round of GATT talks permit the WTO to intervene in: Local agriculture subsidies (which can include programs like "Buy Oregon" or "Minnesota Grown") Governmental purchasing, such as the federal governments "Buy American" policy Federal and state environmental regulations that favor some products over others (such as the California higher emission controls for motor vehicles) The rights of Indian tribes, guaranteed by Federal law, to fish waters that are otherwise protected. Regulations controlling food quality, such as outlawing Red Dye #2 (a proven carcinogen), or bovine gonadotropic hormone (a suspected carcinogen) To those who say such fears are groundless, opponents of the free trade agreements point out that before the WTO was in place, the Netherlands and the European Union brought a complaint against the United States' Marine Mammal Protection Act, which allows us to forbid the importing of tuna which is caught in ways that harm dolphins. The Netherlands claimed that this law interfered with their ability to export tuna to America. The GATT body ruled against the United States, which allows the WTO to impose sanctions if that law is enforced. A similar suit was brought by Mexico under NAFTA in 1991Some Americans are deeply concerned about the fate of dolphins in Dutch and Mexican waters; others, to whom the health of dolphins is entirely irrelevant, nonetheless do not like to see U.S. law overturned, or ...
