Although savvy economists recognize that there is no real free trade – there are always strings and limitations – despite GOP claims that our economy is over-regulated, the notion of accepting whatever America produces without question is seriously not going to happen even under the most liberal definition of a “free trade” treaty. Different nations in the world have differing standards, and some of those elements are non-negotiable and sacrosanct. We don’t have restrictions on selling Nazi memorabilia online, and our online privacy and consumer protection provisions – not to mention our definition of antitrust violations – are considered “lite” by so many other countries. The above elements are governed by vastly different standards by the European Union, and American companies doing business in the EU are stuck with those restrictions. Especially when it comes to the importation of goods.
China still bans the importation of American beef by reason of “mad cow” disease that occurred quite a few years ago. Likewise, health and safety standards are seldom waived regardless of the “free” nature of trade. Sometimes, nations use those quality-standard excuses to send a message, and sometimes there is a genuine health concern. An example of the former is the recent Chinese rejection of a large shipment American soy beans as containing mold, when in fact they were really sending a rather indirect message to Donald Trump that his policies are risking a trade war with the People’s Republic of China.
But sometimes the concerns are very real… when, for example, those health standards apply because Americans allow chemicals into the food chain that other countries consider toxic or when industrialized farming is economically destructive to local producers. Even as a desperate UK yearns to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with the United States, there is both extreme antipathy for Donald Trump, his objectionable language and his policies – Trump even used the excuse of a bad deal on the sale of the old US embassy in London as a lame reason to cancel his scheduled trip to the UK to avoid cold shoulders and protests – as well as deep concerns for American agricultural practices.
The January 16 Guardian (UK) posits this example: “Chlorinated chicken, hormone-fed beef and bacon produced with additives strong enough to cripple pigs have been listed by British campaigners as three of the top 10 food safety risks posed by a free-trade deal with the US.
“American use of the pork additive ractopamine alongside the more publicised practices of washing chicken in chlorine and feeding cattle growth hormones are highlighted in a report by the Soil Association as chief among its concerns about a post-Brexit era.
“‘Some of the key differences between UK and US production – hormone-treated beef, GM crops and chlorinated chicken – are becoming increasingly understood by British consumers,’ the report says… But there are ‘other areas where products imported from the US could be produced under significantly different standards to our own,’ it adds… The report was published to coincide with the second reading of the trade bill, which will provide a framework for post-Brexit trade deals.
“Ractopamine, which can add three kilos of extra meat to a pig, is banned by almost every country except the US. The EU has outlawed its use since 1996… It is fed to an estimated 60-90% of pigs in the US in the weeks before slaughter and has been found to cause disability in animals including trembling, broken bones and an inability to walk, according to the Soil Association.
“The group says it is concerned there will be pressure to source food from the US after Brexit, particularly if tariffs are imposed on food from elsewhere in the EU… ‘The concern is that while Michael Gove [the environment secretary] wants the country to be a leader in animal welfare and food safety … there will be a race to the bottom if British farmers have to compete on price with American food,’ said Honor Eldridge, a policy officer at the Soil Association.
“Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, has long argued that the biggest prize from Brexit would be a trade deal with the US. Farmers and food producers have expressed deep concern that food standards would be compromised in pursuit of a deal.
“They have been spooked by a London visit by Donald Trump’s most senior business representative, who warned that any post-Brexit deal with Washington would hinge on the UKscrapping rules set by Brussels, including regulations governing imports of chlorinated chicken.”
In the UK and the EU, concern for the welfare of the relevant local constituency trumps the ability of companies to maximize their profits. Taxes are high and social safety nets – including universal healthcare – are substantial. Trust in government is high, while Europeans inherently mistrust big business. In the United States, the reverse is true, particularly under a GOP/Trump dominated anti-business-regulation government.
The bigger and more interesting question, which American consumers apparently do not ask, is why these chemicals are allowed in the United States when they are considered toxic everywhere else? And that these agricultural practices are considered so toxic that even a desperate UK, seeking trade agreements to replace what will be lost upon Brexit (March 29, 2019), won’t close a treaty with the US as long as these products are not severely restricted… tells you a lot more…
I’m Peter Dekom, and sometimes it takes actions from other nations to point out risks that you might not even know you are taking… even as you trust government regulators to keep your air and water pure and your food safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment