Bans on Meat Imports Fuel Claims of U.S. Protectionism

As import barriers have gone up around the globe to stem the spread of “mad-cow” and foot-and-mouth diseases and genetically modified StarLink corn, some experts said the U.S. and its trading partners have begun using food safety fears as an excuse for economic protectionism.

“Most of these barriers are riding on potential safety concerns, but they have a big economic component,” said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow with the Institute for International Economics in Washington. In a trading environment governed by World Trade Organization rules favoring open markets, food and animal health scares are “a very safe scapegoat” for those seeking to curb imports, he said.

Last week’s ban by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the import of an annual $278 million in live hogs and uncooked animal products from Europe to stem the spread of foot-and-mouth disease gives U.S. pork producers what they’ve been pushing for for years: a ban on pork imports and added sanctions for the European Union’s decade-long refusal to accept hormone-treated meat from the U.S.

That move expanded the U.S.’ ban on European cattle, sheep and goats, which was adopted in 1997 because of mad-cow concerns.

Some trade-policy observers said the U.S. was too aggressive in slapping a ban on all European countries when outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed only in Britain and one region of France.

But some politicians have urged the USDA to cast an even wider quarantine net, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who said he wants to block imports of livestock from everywhere in the world, including rival Canada.

Although most experts agree that U.S. government regulators are justified in battening down the hatches at ports of entry to protect the food supply, they said the length of these bans and how and where they are lifted will show whether trade officials are exploiting these concerns to protect domestic producers.

A prime example of this kind of maneuvering, observers said, is the decision by the U.S. and NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico to ban Brazilian beef last month even though there had never been a case of mad cow reported in Brazil. After much public outcry, the ban was rescinded Feb 23.

The ban on European pork could last weeks, months or more, analysts said. USDA officials wouldn’t speculate and said they are reviewing reports daily from countries affected by foot-and-mouth disease and will call off the ban when it’s scientifically shown to be safe to do so.

The ban on EU beef could last much longer, USDA officials said, and will require intensive negotiations between the U.S. and EU. “I wouldn’t think that would happen any time in the near future,” said USDA spokesman Jerry Redding.

Economic protectionism under the guise of safeguarding the food supply is nothing new. For decades, countries have used pests and disease to keep foreign agricultural products from competing in their market.

California avocado growers used the seed weevil as a reason to keep Mexican avocados out of the U.S. market until 1997, when they were finally allowed into 19 states in the Midwest and Northeast.

And Australia recently moved to block California table grapes from entering its market because of the risk of importing Pierce’s disease, a grapevine scourge that has devastated California vineyards. But it is a risk that many scientists here and in Australia dismiss.

The EU has been equally protective, blocking the shipment of genetically modified U.S. crops such as corn and soybeans and their seeds, even though they have not been shown to pose a human or animal health risk.

“That is more of a fig leaf for protectionism than our response to these outbreaks,” said Peter Morici of the Economic Strategy Institute.

Japan also instituted a temporary ban on imports of U.S. corn until the U.S. proved it could keep StarLink, a feed corn not approved for human use, out of its shipments.

California’s farm economy stands to lose or gain quite a bit from these trade disputes. The state is the top agricultural exporter in the U.S., with 1999 shipments totaling $7 billion--about the same as Mexico and Thailand and half that of Canada. Besides grapes, most of the state’s top exports, including California beef, have been unaffected by these bans.

But that could change if food safety suspicions are raised about the state’s products or if they are banned from foreign markets in retaliation to U.S. bans.

WTO rules require “sound science” to be the basis for such bans, but the level of acceptable risk varies from country to country, trade analysts said, making enforcement sometimes difficult.

After the U.S. extended its ban to all EU animals and meat last week, EU Food Safety Commissioner David Byrne called the move excessive and unjustified and threatened to go to the WTO if the ban remained in effect.

But a spokesman for EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy later contradicted Byrne’s remarks.

“This is not about a new EU-U.S. trade dispute, this is a veterinary and sanitary issue . . . and at this stage we are certainly not seeking recourse to the WTO,” Anthony Gooch said Thursday.

Indeed, officials point out, the U.S. ban mirrors the EU’s mechanisms for dealing with food scares.

Foot-and-mouth disease is not dangerous to humans, but it spreads rapidly, not only through hay, water and manure, but on clothes, shoes, tires and even the air, causing entire herds and flocks to be destroyed.

Mad-cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is a threat to animals and has caused deaths in humans.

News of the two highly contagious diseases has scared consumers and given a boost to U.S. meat exports, which are insulated from the diseases by two oceans.

The U.S. Meat Export Federation would not project how much U.S. exports are expected to rise as a result of the recent bans on European and South American meat. But at the start of the year, they were predicting a 10% to 15% boost in sales to countries that had previously bought from the EU.

U.S. red meat exports shot up 21% from 1999 to 2000 to a record $5.3 billion, according to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. Analysts chalked up most of the increase to expanding world trade in beef rather than bans on competing European beef.

However, some are speculating that demand for U.S. pork could surge in the midst of these animal health scares. Since the first case of foot-and-mouth disease was diagnosed in Britain in February, live 40-pound hog futures have risen 9% on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

But even if it appears that the U.S. and Canada are beginning to profit wildly from global health scares, the gains will probably be short term, analysts said. And part of that gain will probably be offset by a declining demand for soy going to livestock feed, farm industry officials said, as animals across Europe are destroyed.

And if grim news about meat keeps dominating the news, experts said, U.S. ranchers and pork producers stand to lose a lot more than they’ve gained. The biggest risk would be Americans losing some of their renewed appetite for red meat.

“It’s gruesome,” Hufbauer said. “When you see all these fires and animals being burned . . . and pictures of cows with BSE. There’s something very disturbing about it.”

*

Reuters contributed to this report.