If tomorrow laws were passed that the entire lifecycle of a product sold in a country must fully respect the laws of that country (e.g. a banana sold in the US would have to be grown, transported, etc. according to US rules and regulations, or in other words as if it was done inside the US) then you could guarantee such abuses done on the other side of the world would at least be illegal and hold the company in the US liable.

But then the banana would probably become a luxury product and people vote with their wallets. Some countries that rely on this would be gutted and lose a lot of the income making their lives even worse. And it still wouldn't change anything that happens at home and is legal regardless of globalization (cut down a forest to make room for cattle? Lobby says yes).

The fact that it happens elsewhere just helps put people's minds at ease. Everybody can now have plausible deniability. But it could happen one town over, if it doesn't affect them directly most will still vote with the wallet. Some can't afford not to.

It's not globalization that does this, it's that people want cheap. And if globalization goes away tomorrow they will just find new ways, someone will always have to pay the price so all the rest don't have to. A poor town? An Indian reservation? Some wildlands? Someone will have to "take one for the team" whether it's at home or on the other side of the world.

My point is simply that globalization doesn’t have to be a bad word.

Trade between Canada and the US left both countries better off. Largely because we have similar standard of living so neither country was being exploited.

If lawmakers did a better job putting in safeguards into trade laws then globalization wouldn’t be a synonym for exploitation.

I do agree with your point that under current political realities nothing is likely to change. I’m simply hopeful that if enough people become aware of this then policy will eventually shift—rather than respond with a knee jerk cancel all trade reaction that we see today.