Food safety standards in rich and poor countries

Presentation at the workshop:

Ethics, Globalization, and Hunger: In Search of Appropriate Policies

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

November 17-19, 2004

Christian Friis Bach

Protection or protectionism?

StandardsContentResidues

Traceability, labelsEco-labelsSocial issuesetc.

RegulationDocumentationPackagingetc.

Ethical and political aspects - the price of a life

Environment Health Safety

Anecdotal evidence

Aphlatoxin

Citrus

GMOs

Beef hormone

Cut flowersFish from Lake Victoria

Sardines

Camel cheeseCatfish

U.S. Food Shipment Refusals, October 2004 02-Whole Grain/Milled Grain Prod/Starch 6

03-Bakery Prod/Dough/Mix/Icing 42

04-Macaroni/Noodle Prod 29

05-Cereal Prep/Breakfast Food 5

07-Snack Food Item 16

09-Milk/Butter/Dried Milk Prod 7

12-Cheese/Cheese Prod 57

14-Filled Milk/Imit Milk Prod 1

15-Egg/Egg Prod 6

16-Fishery/Seafood Prod 244

18-Vegetable Protein Prod 1

20, 21, 22-Fruit/Fruit Prod 124

23-Nuts/Edible Seed 8

24, 25-Vegetables/Vegetable Products 327

26-Vegetable Oils 6

27-Dressing/Condiment 10

28-Spices, Flavors And Salts 38

29, 30-Soft Drink/Water, Beverage Bases/Conc/Nectar 59

31, Coffee/Tea, 34-Choc/Cocoa Prod 12

33-Candy W/O Choc/Special/Chew Gum 90

35-Gelatin/Rennet/Pudding Mix/Pie Filling 2

36-Food Sweeteners (Nutritive) 9

37-Mult Food Dinner/Grav/Sauce/Special 32

38-Soup, 39-Prep Salad Prod 15

40-Baby Food Prod 12

Source: U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationImport Refusal Reports for OASIShttp://www.fda.gov/ora/oasis/ora_oasis_ref.html

ReasonPesticide: 153Filthy: 51Administrative: 161+ other reasonsNote: Sum exceeds total as several reasons may be cited for one refusal.

WTO disputes invoking the SPS Agreement

Formal (DSB): 20 formal complaints, three from developing countries No African LDC have made a formal complaint Developing countries have been successful in challenging developed

countries under other agreements

Informal (SPS Committee): 183 specific trade concerns raised during 1995-2003 40% of issues raised are about developing countries’ market access Issues mainly raised by a handful of countries primarily developing

country members of the Cairns Group.

Source: Jensen, M.F. (2004): Reviewing the SPS agreement - A Developing Country Perspective. FØI Working Paper no. 01/2002 and CDR Working Paper 02.3, February 2002.

Formal WTO disputes invoking the SPS Agreement

Violations recorded between 1 January 1995 and April 2002

DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Comments

WT/DS3 US complaint against Korea’s inspection procedures for fresh fruits Pending.

WT/DS41 US complaint against Korea’s inspection procedures for fresh fruits Pending.

WT/DS5 US complaint against Korea’s shelf-life requirements for frozen processed meats and other products

Mutually agreed solution

WT/DS18 Canada’s complaint against Australia’s import restrictions on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon Awaiting confirmation of settlement.

WT/DS21 US complaint against Australia’s import restrictions on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon Mutually agreed solution

WT/DS20 Canada’s complaint against Korea’s restrictions on treatment methods for bottled water Mutually agreed solution

WT/DS26 US complaint against EC’s import prohibition on imports of meat treated with growth-promoting hormones

Retaliation.

WT/DS48 Canada’s complaint against EC’s import prohibition on imports of meat treated with growth-promoting hormones

Retaliation.

WT/DS76 US complaint against Japan’s “varietal testing” requirement for fresh fruits Agreed solution

WT/DS96 EC complaint against India’s quantitative restrictions on agricultural and other products Mutually agreed solution

WT/DS100 EC complaint against US restrictions on poultry imports Pending.

WT/DS133 Swiss complaint against Slovakia’s BSE-related restrictions on cattle and meat Pending.

WT/DS134 India’s complaint against EC restrictions on rice imports Pending.

WT/DS135 Canada’s complaint against EC (French) measures affecting asbestos Decided

WT/DS137 Canada’s complaint against EC restrictions due to pine wood nematodes Pending..

WT/DS144 Canada’s complaint against US state restrictions (South Dakota, etc) on movement of Canadian trucks carrying live animals and grains

Pending.

WT/DS/203 US complaint against Mexico on measures affecting trade in live swine Pending.

WT/DS/205 Thai complaint against Egypt’s GMO-related prohibition on imports of canned tuna with soybean oil

Pending.

WT/DS/237 Ecuadorian complaint against Turkey’s import requirements for fresh fruit, especially bananas Pending.

WT/DS/245 US complaint against Japan’s restrictions on apples due to fire blight Pending.Source: WTO (2004): http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_agreement_cbt_e/c5s2p1_e.htm

Food safety requirements and Kenyan fresh produce

Motivation for change Time period

Food safety requirement

Markets concerned

Products concerned

UK Food Safety Act 1991 - Traceability UK Green beansSnow peasPassion fruitAsian veg.

Supermarkets' private quality assurance standards

ca. 1990 - TraceabilityHygiene rulesPesticide MRLs

Mainly UK Green beansSnow peasPassion fruit

EU harmonisation of pesticide residue legislation

end 1990s -

Ban on selected pesticidesHarmonised pesticide MRLs

EU All except mango

EU food safety reform 2005 -2004 -

TraceabilityHygiene rules

EU All except mango

Source: Jensen, M.F. (2004): Food Safety Requirements and Smallholders: A Case Study of Kenyan Fresh Produce Exports. Chapter IV. Ph.D. thesis. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University. Copenhagen. Denmark.

The future of small-holder participation

Expectations Empirical developments, Kenya

Fall in aggregate smallholder participation Mid-1980s: smallholders account for 50-75%End-1990s: smallholders account for less than 50%

Fall in smallholder participation for individual products destined for UK markets especially for products destined for the supermarket segment

Mid-1980s: smallholders account for 40% of green beans; 40% of passion fruitEnd-1990s: smallholders account for less than 40% of green beans; less than 30% of passion fruit

Possible reaction in smallholder participation for individual products destined for other European markets or for UK markets outside the supermarket segment

Mid-1980s: smallholders account for 50% of avocado; 50% of Asian vegetablesEnd-1990s: smallholders account for less than 50% of avocado; less than 80% of Asian vegetables

No fall in smallholder participation for individual products not destined for European markets

Mid-1980s: smallholders account for 65% of mangoesEnd-1990s: smallholders account for less than 80% of mangoes

Low degree of smallholder participation in the supermarket segment

18% of the exports of four of the largest exporters sourced from smallholders

Change in governance structure with a shift from open markets towards vertical integration

Disappearance of the open market for most products; 69% of fresh produce exports to the UK traded by vertically integrated companies

Source: Jensen, M.F. (2004): Food Safety Requirements and Smallholders: A Case Study of Kenyan Fresh Produce Exports. Chapter IV. Ph.D. thesis. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University. Copenhagen. Denmark.

Possible solutions

Capacity building and compensationDevelopment aid and technical assistance

HarmonizationIncrease pressure and mechanisms to harmonize standards

Domestic policy formulation requirements“Development principle” as a supplement to the precautionary principle

International agreementsWTO agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary standards and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade

Functioning of the SPS Agreement

Cases where international standards have already been agreed Cases where international standards have not been agreed Cases where a Member desires more stringent standards than the international ones Cases where a Member desires less stringent standards than the international ones Cases where the scientific evidence on which standards must be based is insufficient

harmonisation based on international standards

individual country measures (allowed when

based on a risk assessment and when the measures are non-discriminatory)

stricter measures (allowed when based on a

risk assessment and when the measures are non-discriminatory)

less stringent measures (should in principle be

based on a risk assessment and be non-discriminatory but in practice they are unlikely to be challenged)

temporary measures allowed

Source: Jensen, M.F. (2004): Reviewing the SPS agreement - A Developing Country Perspective. FØI Working Paper no. 01/2002 and CDR Working Paper 02.3, February 2002.

Possible solutions

Capacity building and compensationDevelopment aid and technical assistance

HarmonisationIncrease pressure and mechanisms to harmonize standards

Domestic policy formulation requirements“Development principle” as a supplement to the precautionary principle

International agreementsWTO agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary standards and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade

Conclusion

Public and private standards do increasingly act as barriers to trade.

This raises a number of ethical and political dilemmas

The SPS and TBT agreements address part of the problem but there are implementation costs and progress towards harmonisation is slow and undercut by private standards.

The long-term solution must lie in stronger mechanisms for international harmonisation

But there is a significant need for compensation and capacity building