As we move closer to actual voting in primaries (it is May already, so I think we should, you know, start hearing some serious wonky stuff from the candidates), I thought it a good idea to discuss an issue that is kind of important on any number of levels, but is too often discussed as if it were much too lofty for mere mortals such as myself to understand - international trade. Via newly-added blogroll member Ezra Klein comes this piece on a proposal for increasing poultry trade with China. The post highlights an article that discusses Chinese poultry farming and the vagaries of regulating such a beast. In light of recent revelations concerning the Chinese practice of using high doses of lethal fillers to pet food, as well as detailed discussions of their shrimp farming methods in the article quoted in Klein's post (shrimp farms and poultry farms share space, with the shrimp feeing on chicken feces, leading to a huge increase in salmonella poisoning of Chinese farm shrimp), one would wonder why we are discussing with the Chinese importing foodstuffs, especially foodstuffs we grow in abundance.
Of course, the answer is simple - money. Meat producers and processors see dollar signs. Lots of them. As they are no fans of government inspection themselves, one should not wonder about their reaction to calls for halting discussions with the Chinese due to safety concerns. Of course, the talks should be halted, and all trade negotiations with the US on all topics stopped until a few details - such as regulatory oversight, the maintenance of safe working and healthy farming environments are guaranteed, and mechanisms for punitive actions that would not necessarily create WTO action - are worked out. Discussions of issues such as these are usually limited to meta lectures from "free trade" disciples who discuss the wonders of free markets, the necessity of open relationships, the possibilities for greater wealth for all, and on and on and on. The actual details of the particular situation do not seem to matter to these people, because they are either (a) ignorant of them; or (b) insouciant toward real-world detail. They have faith that the market contains certain occult mechanisms that will resolve all problems in the end. That such problems include death for American pets, and illness for American citizens is a messy detail, not to concern ourselves with. Free trade must be maintained at all costs.
This is the problem with the status quo and the limited options available for discussing the topic publicly. Every question is shouted down by "Free Trade!". Every insistence that US regulation exists for a reason is shouted down by "Free Trade!". Every offer of health, safety, labor rights, environmental rights being a part of serious international trade agreements is shouted down by "Free Trade!". Such stupidity is enabled by a press that drinks from the free trade well without understanding the historical necessity behind so much industrial regulation. After all, one need only read Sinclair Lewis The Jungle to understand why meat inspection was first introduced (you'll never look at sausage the same way, I guarantee it).
Health and safety - including the health and safety of our farms and the animals that come to our tables each day - is not creeping socialism, or the desire to destroy the American farmer. Rather, it has been the piecemeal result of responding to various problems, most having to do with preventing outbreaks of various food-borne pathogens. For the most part, farmers seem to have no problems with these regulations (I have yet to hear a serious complaint from a farmer because his or her pigs or cattle are to be well taken care of); it is, rather, at the processing end - where the animals are slaughtered and the meat divided up into consumable and industrial uses that problems arise. This is the real money-making end of the process, and this is where problems arise. What should be considered a legal additive to a consumable meat product, and what should not? As eliminating completely all traces of danger are impossible, what is the acceptable level of risk (a) overall, and (b) with regard to specific potential hazards? Are "non-consumable" meat and animal products still safe in small doses for human consumption, thus available for production in processed meats? What additives, fillers, and nutrient enhancers are safe, and at what quantities? These questions, and myriad others, are specific for each and every stage of the process, necessary to ensure both meat quality as well as the safety of the food supply, and should not be farmed out (no pun intended) to foreign firms or inspectors, especially those in a country notorious for its corruption, bad faith, and willingness to cut costs at the expense of human and animal health and well being such as China.
Rather than get lost in the Hall of Mirrors discussions over the benefits of "Free Trade!", I would rather hear serious discussions over specifics of our trade policies, not the least of them being, (a) why we are discussing importing poultry from China when we do not need to do so; (b) what kinds of guarantees do we have our food supply is safe, even now, before we start dealing with large-scale imports of foodstuffs from foreign sources; (c) what kinds of mechanisms should the US pursue, either through WTO-sanctioned methods, or independently, to ensure that the US maintains a safe food supply? These are just some of the questions we face, and for which we should demand more, better, and more thorough answers than "Free Trade!"; we should not leave matters of such importance to the believers in occult phenomenon, who always seem to tolerate a little human sacrifice for the greater good.
