Is food safety an economic weapon?
block food imports from developing economies, according to
researchers in Thailand, India and Australia. They claim that rich
countries are using consumer fears of tainted food as an excuse to
bypass international free trade agreements, writes Anthony
Fletcher.
The bird flu epidemic in Asia is a good example. According to a trade negotiator at the Thai commerce ministry, the outbreak provided the EU with the perfect excuse to protect the bloc's powerful meat sector. "The rich food importers are getting better and better at manufacturing safety hazards - real and imagined," the official told the Financial Times.
Following the outbreak, the EU immediately put in place measures to ensure protection against any possibility of the disease being introduced within the bloc. Fresh and frozen Thai poultry products have been barred from the economic bloc until 15 August 2004, and the ban also covers imports of pet birds from Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Pakistan, China, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. The EC says that the decision is in line with OIE (International Organisation of Animal Health) guidelines.
"We must all remain vigilant and member states must ensure that the import ban is fully respected at ports and airports," said European Commissioner for health and consumer protection David Byrne. "Our ban is designed to keep the disease out of Europe so that neither our citizens nor poultry stocks should be at risk."
But Professor Bhanupong Nidhiprabha, a member of the team studying safety standards in the food trade, said that rich countries are simply finding they can draw up arbitrary safety standards then ban imports, saying it is their sovereign right. This reflects the unfair balance of power in food production. The leading 10 food producers are all developing countries, while the main markets are the European Union, the US and Japan.
In addition, western countries are using super-sensitive technology to detect contaminants in food imports from developing countries. This, claims Saknarong Utsahakul, director of planning and research at the Food Institute of Thailand, is unfair.
"Our food industry is facing a critical situation," he told the UK's Financial Times. "Food is now tested for chemical parts per billion - we're getting to the point where they'll find something undesirable in everything if they want to."
Many Asian nations objected to the EU's ban on prawn and chicken imports after detecting traces of nitrofluran and chloramphenicol, the prohibited veterinary drugs. They claim that extremely sensitive machines can detect antibiotics at lower levels than sometimes found in European food.
But after a week of denials and perhaps months of cover-ups in Thailand over the existence of Avian flu in the country, the EU believes it has a duty to protect its consumers. Right up until the outbreak was admitted, senior ministers were claiming that Thailand had "never" seen a case of avian flu. Cabinet members even enjoyed a lunch featuring various chicken dishes to prove that the meat was safe for consumption, an event broadcast live on national television.
The denials, and subsequent revelation that Thailand may have had the virus for some time, has raised serious questions about the safety and quality of Thailand's food industry, a major exporter to the EU.
The EU's meat industry is certainly not impressed. "I'm not that surprised," British Poultry Council chief executive Peter Bradnock told FoodProductionDaily.com in February. "It confirms the suspicions of several experts that the country may have had this virus for some time. It is regrettable that proper control methods were not in place. But what guarantees can the Thai government give that problems affecting other food exports are not being covered up? This is a wider concern that needs to be addressed."
