With all of the tainted wheat gluten from China that’s caused a massive pet-food recalls and the fact that it’s showing up in food given to pigs that are used for human consumption, should we be concerned about the large amount of food that’s being imported into this country? Or why it’s even necessary?
According to this Slate article, “We may be the world’s largest exporter of wheat, shipping 1 billion bushels to other countries in last year’s growing season…We’re the world’s biggest consumer of wheat gluten today” Only 4 places in the U.S. are making wheat gluten and we are one of the largest importers of wheat gluten.
In addition to our over-reliance on imports in this country, there are problems with some of the food being imported. Pesticides and anti-biotic laden food that isn’t approved by the FDA is being imported.
Concerned? No, not too much. Imports (and exports) are good things. Food Security is flakey idea. Why not worry about imported Toyotas? (Vehicle security!) or drugs (medical security!) Why not? Because big agribusiness has latched onto the Food Security idea as a means of protecting their cushy jobs.
If the Japanese Navy blockaded the Atlantic and the Commie-Nazi U-boats sealed the Pacific coasts, if they cut off all imports to the US, we would face a tough couple of months. No biggie. Long lines would form for the last pack of Scottish Salmon. That would be about the worst of it.
The fight against food imports is simply a means to make Americans pay more than the world price and to keep poor farmers in the rest of the world out of the US market.
**Paul in Saudi ** has summed up the arguments nicely.
Also, think in terms of “comparative advantage,” which is just a way of saying that due to local conditions (climate, availabilty of raw materials, human resource considerations, distribution channels, and/or whatever) it may be cheaper for one country to produce something than it is for another. If that something is a universally desired product, then it make economic sense for the world to let the country(ies) with the comparative advantage produce the product and sell it on the world market (which they will be able to do at cheaper prices than anyone else).
This frees up resources in the countries that do NOT have a comparative advantage to use their resources to produce something else (presumably something in which they do have a comparative advantage). Now consumers all over are getting their products at the cheapest prices and all resources are employed in the most efficient means possible.
The difference between the items you mentioned is food is a commodity, there is no excess profit so the incentive to cut costs at any means possible is strong. When 98% of the food is totally un-inspected and you life in a country that will cover your tracks if you use a carcinogen food coloring and are found out. You can just relabel your stuff as another brand and keep selling.
Inspection systems are actually fairly sophisticated and can be based on statistically valid sampling. You don’t have to inspect every ounce of a 5-ton wheat shipment to be pretty certain it is safe for consumption, if you plan your testing procedures properly.
Could mistakes happen? Sure they could, but if you’re that convinced that you can’t eat food that hasn’t been thoroughly tested, you’d better stop dining out anywhere in the US. After all, significant episodes of food poisoning (usually e coli or samonella) crop up fairly regularly in the US, and pesky foreigners are generally not at fault.
My concern was mainly about food exports regarding the recent deaths of pets and the wider implications of what’s being brought into our country. Our own food is regulated but food coming into the country that contains pesticides, heavy metals, toxins, etc. is not.
Aside from killing our pets, feeding kids this food bothers me. It’s a concern for women of child bearing age that want to have kids. We don’t know if this is a factor in increased rates in autism or ADD because most of this food isn’t even tested.
If you read the article even the FDA say’s that’t not true. Only 1.3% is inspected and the FDA said it has a long way to go. I’m not talking about food poisioning. I’m talking about cancer causing toxins that are being ingested. Gluten wasn’t even checked until after there were pet deaths and after it was fed to hogs in this country.
I don’t see any inconsistency between Eschenbach and what I said … we both agree that you can only test a limited portion of anything entering the country, and therefore you have to test intelligently to maximize the benefit. There’s always room for improvement in the real world, though, and I don’t doubt but what it’s theoretically possible to do a better job than is now being done.
Most public policy decisions, unless they are strictly political (which happens, for sure), rely on some kind of risk management strategy; there is no alternative.
As individuals, we all manage risks according to a combination of our own objective understanding of risks combined with our emotional assessment. In my case, I would not dream of having lasik surgery on my precious eyes, even though a lot of people have urged me to do so and I’m sure I could locate stats that would indicate the chances of success are quite high.
In your case, perhaps it means avoiding all imported food because you don’t trust it to be uncontaminated? If you are suggesting that the US government take responsibility for safeguarding your imported food to a level of certainty that you can live with, sorry, it isn’t going to happen. Neither the resources nor the political will exist for testing everything.
I recognize that you aren’t talking about food poisoning. My point is that, if you think eating imported foods is too risky, by the same reasoning process you should probably stop dining out . If what worries you is that we have evidence that (a) sometimes the food is contaminated; and (b) flawless inspection mechanisms are not in place; then logically speaking, you probably ought to give up a lot of foods, not just imported ones.
We can thank the Regan Admin for the beginnings of deregulation which protected the consumers. It cost money to agribiz and it could not be allowed to continue. Profits must be maximized after all. safety is maybe secondary.
Well, thanks very much but this isn’t about me and my fear of contaminated food. As gonzomax said we’ve made safety secondary to maximizing profits especially for the big box stores. Not only is it a safety and moral concern due to the conditions of some of the workers in these countries our trade defiict is through the roof and is only getting larger. I think we ought to take a look at the price our county is paying to get a deal at Walmart.
So it’s not hard to see why I identified “contaminated food” as being a central concern.
Look, we’re probably more on the same side on all of this than you realize. I am no abitrary fan of big business, and I hate what the Bush administration has done to gut the regulations that are needed to keep corporations from behaving in a manner that jeopardizes consumer safety.
That having been said, I care about THE WORLD’s citizens, not only Americans. Adopting a protectionist stance of “American shouldn’t import food!!” hurts American consumers through higher prices, but (more importantly to me) hurts small producers around the world for whom America is one of the most promising markets.
Take sugar, for example. I haven’t kept up on the issue, so maybe American sugar is imported now. But last time I checked, American sugar producers were abusing labor in the US and making consumers pay much higher prices for sugar than the rest of the world was paying. If the US had allowed importation of foreign sugar, a lot of evil would have been mitigated.
Anyway, I have to stop commenting in this thread now … I am working on a time-sensitive document about Egyptian competitiveness, and have just received a lot of work I must attend to. You can be darn sure that I and the others working on the subject are advocating any safe and reasonable measures that are necessary to help Egyptian small business owners and farmers increase their production and exports (of food to the US, for example). Those poor Egyptians deserve a decent livelihood, and if that means an American on a limited income gets to buy something a little more cheaply, then I’m all for it.
Regarding sugar…a few years ago, an entire shipload of suagr was condemned, because a dead human body had been found in the hold (he tried to stow away). Just about every food commodity in the 3rd world is stored under conditions where rodents 9dead and alive) are present. Do you think the Chinese would throw out a load of sugar, under the same circumstances?
No, this is completely backwards. Archer Daniels Midland LOVES regulation. The more regulation the better…because only a giant conglomerate like ADM can hope to comply with the minutiae of the laws. They use that regulation to crush their competition and screw over small farmers. And of course, “safety” regulations that are nothing but valentines to politically connected businesses are as American as subsidized apple pie.
Just about every food commodity in America is stored under conditions where rodents are present. This is part of the reality of farming. How do you kill each and every rodent in a grain silo and still have that grain fit for human consumption?
If you are concerned about rodents near grain silos you really don’t want to read consumer reports. I remember a comparison done on powdered chocolate milk mix. They compared the number of insect parts found per unit volume across the brands. None of the brands had zero.
Huh, who’d have imagined? Now if there were only some organization that could watch the food supply so we don’t all have to set up Kjeldahl apparatuses in our basements to monitor the nitrogen sources in our daily bread. I wonder who could perform that service? Perhaps the Lions club, or local churches? It’s worth some thought.