[hedgetrimmer]

6. No Party may adopt, maintain or apply any sanitary or phytosanitary measure with a view to, or with the effect of, creating a disguised restriction on trade between the Parties

Because domestic standards that do not conform to international standards must satisfy a battery of NAFTA or WTO tests in order to avoid being considered barriers to trade, the burden of proof falls on the country defending a stronger domestic health or environmental law. Thus, the pacts create significant incentives for the U.S. to avoid exceeding international standards. The threat of a costly NAFTA or WTO trade challenge may also chill innovative solutions to consumer and worker health and safety, environmental, labor rights, or other social or economic development problems.

--HARMONIZATION HANDBOOK Accountable Governance in the Era of Globalization: the WTO, NAFTA, and International Harmonization

[Mase]

6. No Party may adopt, maintain or apply any sanitary or phytosanitary measure with a view to, or with the effect of, creating a disguised restriction on trade between the Parties

hedgetrimmer replied:
Because domestic standards that do not conform to international standards must satisfy a battery of NAFTA or WTO tests in order to avoid being considered barriers to trade...

This is utter nonsense. You're fabricating reasons again. This provision enforces fair trade. Isn't that what you want? Here are some examples of unfair trade and why point #6 is in the agreement:

"A European Union (EU) ban, in place since 1989, on imports of meat products from animals treated with growth-promoting hormones, which has effectively blocked U.S. meat (mainly beef) exports valued at about $100 million annually. A WTO panel recently ruled in favor of the United States, but the EU is appealing"

"An EU prohibition this year against poultry meat imports from the United States (valued at $50 million annually), because the EU will not recognize as safe the U.S. processors' system for washing carcasses in chlorinated water. In retaliation, the United States banned some $1 million in EU poultry product imports"

"Korean border clearance procedures that can delay imported perishable products for several weeks, compared with several days elsewhere in Asia. These include a rule that 100% of imported agricultural products be inspected and tested rather than sampled randomly, and a requirement that every shipment of imported fresh produce be unpacked, sorted, and repacked to remove any spoiled product; An EU decision, effective November 1, 1997, that human foods must be labeled to indicate whether they were produced from genetically modified corn and soybeans."

The provision cited at the top is simply in response to other nations putting up additional barriers to protect domestic industries. Nothing more. You're creating issues that just aren't there.