Internal Politics as Baffling as International Politics
(Colorado Springs, CO Jan. 11, 2006) -- With the
long-awaited opening of the Japanese market, we bring to a close a
tumultuous and eye-opening two-and-a-half year chapter for the U.S. beef
industry. Despite the rapid expansion of world commerce, American
cattlemen discovered international trade is affected as much by
politicians and activists as it is by world consumer demand.
Let's look at where we've been and what we've learned since the
discovery of BSE North America in May 2003.
The nature of the BSE issue changed from a threat to a presence.
Suddenly front and center in the news, threats to American consumers and
to animal health and trade became real issues -- not potential problems.
Most shocking was the willingness of activists within the industry to join
radical activists outside the industry to make the issue a political
football, with potentially devastating commercial consequences. Attacks on
consumer confidence in beef by factions within the industry, led by
R-CALF, OCM, WORC and others, have left scars that won't soon be
forgotten.
The need developed for safe and realistic trading rules between
countries with low incidence of BSE, as more of the world's major
beef-producing countries were affected. As a world leader, the USDA took
the lead in establishing such rules. R- CALF and its allies portrayed this
updating of standards as "weakening" standards.
Activist groups in countries around the world further challenged the
"rights" of governments to regulate and conduct trade, as well
as the rights of corporations to conduct business.
Courts intruded on world trade in a way highly visible to the average
feeder and rancher, as well as consumers. Luckily for cattlemen, consumers
were satisfied by scientific evidence and their confidence in the USDA,
and largely ignored the "threat." Organic beef producers and
radical activists were disappointed
Sadly, government authorities and politicians were unable to quickly
deal with activists -- armed with lawyers -- and their unspoken agendas,
selfish motivations and ancillary causes. The USDA handled the food safety
crisis adroitly and effectively. However, it was helpless to ward off
structural and monetary damage to the industry.
We saw the effect of trade disruption on industry structure, including
markets, packing plants and jobs. The results are permanent: a
self-sufficient Canadian packing industry, lost American packing plants
and their decreased demand for cattle.
New political and activist alliances emerged that stretched the
imaginations of many cattlemen. Long-time anti-beef activist groups,
allied with trade unions and radical cattlemen's groups, were a phenomenon
mainstream cattlemen found shocking and counterintuitive. The spectacle of
a cattlemen's group defying established and proven science, embracing
speculative and unreplicated experimentation and extrapolation, and
serving as a credibility prop for avowed enemies of the beef industry, was
unimaginable to mainstream cattlemen. Whether the radical cattlemen are
serving as allies, credibility props or just mouthpieces, the effect to
the public is to question the foundations of mainstream agriculture. These
groups oppose trade among nations. They prefer the interaction as direct
foreign aid in dollars to developing nations, not foodstuffs.
The close vote on CAFTA served as a spur to both free traders and
protectionists. Both were served notice that free trade -- once a slam
dunk obvious avenue to increasing revenue through new markets -- was not
so obvious to some. Opposition to trade and to an increasingly ordered but
freer trade system through the World Trade Organization drew the attention
of people beyond the rioting disrupters and their hired guns.
New philosophical alliances between free trade and free market
believers across national lines emerged. Free traders in Canada and the
U.S., as well as Japan and the U.S., found they had more in common with
each other than with their own countrymen. Such alliances became necessary
in order to improve trade flows, while meeting increasingly strict
requirements for animal health, food safety and consumer quality. Without
those alliances, the economy would have reverted to isolationism (which
cheats consumers and producers) and protectionism (which artificially
raises costs and prices, cheating consumers again and shrinking markets
for producers). Protectionism favors certain relatively small groups at
the expense of the rest of the economy. Far from an improvement, such a
stifled economy would be reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, reviving economic, political and social struggles we thought
were settled decades ago.
There is perhaps no greater example of the cost of isolationism and
protectionism than China. With all its tremendous assets of natural
resources, population and knowledge, China has been struggling for over
100 years to catch up with the rest of the world.
There are those who constantly work counter to demands of the consumer
marketplace. Their message is always, "Slow down, go back, don't
change what we know." This attitude is directly opposite to today's
worldwide mantra of, "We want what we want. We want more, better,
faster, cheaper -- or we will go elsewhere." The message is that
producers can make things more difficult, slower and more expensive if
they wish, but consumers will either force an industry to adapt or flank
the industry and choose other options.
Changes in the marketplace can be expected to continually force new
requirements on everyone. BSE has forced new age and source verification
requirements on beef for Japan. In turn, domestic consumers may eventually
want the same info for themselves. For our own needs, improving our
product, age and source verification is a must.
So what are the bottom line conclusions we can draw from two and a half
years of trade and political turmoil?
Existing trade and foreign markets must be continually safeguarded from
external health and safety issues. We also must defend them from internal
opposition. Political, legal and communication battles will be necessary.
The price of inaction can be great -- in foregone dollars as well as
industry structure.
Fights for new foreign markets will become more difficult and more
important. The potential is great. So also is opposition and funding from
traditional activists and unions, and from radical allies within
agriculture who oppose trade. Understanding underlying motivations and
agendas will continue to be crucial. The AFF will do its best to keep you
informed.
The Agribusiness Freedom Foundation promotes free market principles
throughout the agricultural food chain. The AFF believes it is possible to
value the traditions and heritage of the past while embracing the future
and the changes it brings. The AFF is a communications and educational
initiative striving to preserve the freedom of the agricultural food chain
to operate and innovate in order to continue the success of American
agriculture. |
