26/10/2004
- The US election has been dominated by Iraq and fears
over international terrorism, but whoever wins next Tuesday
will also have to deal with pressing domestic issues such
as improving food production and safety. Anthony Fletcher
reports.
This year’s US election campaign has been one of
the bitterest in living memory. With just a week to go,
both senator John Kerry and president George W Bush are
neck-and-neck, and the mudslinging looks set to intensify.
But
what actually divides the candidates? The hostility and
negativity surrounding both campaigns has often made it
difficult to identify discernible strategies.
The issues of food production and safety are not hitting
the headlines, but are significant nonetheless. Food production
in the US employs millions and is worth billions to the
economy. Recent fears over BSE have cost the beef industry
a fortune in lost revenues.
Food safety is a growing concern. In 1994 an outbreak
of salmonellosis due to contaminated ice cream affected
an estimated 224,000 US citizens.
A working group on salmonella infection at the US government
FoodNet body claimed in 1999 that estimated annual costs
(in 1998 dollars) of medical care and lost productivity
due to foodborne Salmonella infections were $0.5 billion
(€0.4bn), based on the human capital approach for
calculating forgone earnings. Using the less conservative
labour market approach, the total annual costs were $2.3
billion (€1.85bn).
So what both candidates propose to do to improve production
and protect Americans from food-borne sickness will have
a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans.
President Bush claims that his administration would continue
to work around the clock to protect the US from intentional
and accidental risks to the safety of its food supply.
“My 2005 budget provides $470 million for this important
work, an increase of almost 15 per cent over last year,”
he told the Associated Press on Sunday. ”This includes
an increase for the Animal Drugs and Feeds programme,
which ensures that food from animals is safe, and has
the primary role in preventing the introduction and spread
of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or 'mad cow disease,'
in the United States.”
In his first term, as part of the renewed focus on countering
terrorism post 9-11, Bush revamped the FBI’s mission
with a focus on domestic threats and pushed for better
integration of the intelligence community. Bush also got
the FDA to kick-start a moribund food safety inspection
programme.
The Bush administration claims that over the past three
years, the administration has bolstered America's food
defence through increases in port security, food import
inspections and additional food security personnel, and
laboratory capacity, research, and monitoring and surveillance.
However, Kerry believes that not enough is being done
at present to protect the food supply. He argues that
the Bush administration's handling of mad cow disease,
beef imports, and BSE testing have made it clear that
the US needs a renewed effort to protect American consumers
and farmers.
“As president, I will put public health first and
will not take any action that might jeopardise our nation's
food supply, like having lax border inspections of imported
food,” he told the Associated Press.
“We must do a better job of inspecting and identifying
cattle that are exhibiting signs of a neurological disease
or that can't walk to ensure they do not enter the food
supply.”
The Kerry administration says that it would increase testing
and inspections and enhance surveillance to prevent the
risk of BSE. Significantly, Kerry would also push for
the establishment of a national animal ID tracking system,
something that has been called for by certain sections
of the US cattle industry.
Both candidates are supportive in principle of GM crops.
According to Nature, Bush believes it is important that
the "regulatory framework keeps pace with science,"
a hint that it can be too restrictive. In contrast, Kerry
says it is important to "give government agencies
the power to effectively regulate genetically modified
food products".
In the magazine, Kerry also recognises international concerns
by saying that he would work to address these while Bush
stresses the role of GM food in "meeting the world's
demand for food".
The Farm Bureau, a body that represents US agricultural
interests, recently asked both candidates about the issue
of energy consumption and the move towards renewable fuels
in food production. Both candidates supported expanding
the use of renewable fuels and eliminating estate tax
impacts on farm families, but had differing perspectives
on issues such as extending Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA) and promoting acceptance of biotechnology.
Bush said that Congress should pass the comprehensive
energy bill, and promised he would continue to press for
new market opportunities. “Given the opportunity
to compete on a level playing field, they will be able
to increase their share of markets here at home and across
the globe,” he said.
Kerry said as president he would “fight for fair
trade policies, reduce concentration in agribusiness,
enhance conservation measures and expand non-traditional
uses for agricultural products, such as ethanol and bio-based
energy products.”
He said he would also maintain a “strong safety
net to protect against low prices, improvements in the
risk management programs and emergency federal disaster
assistance.”
But Ralph Nader, the independent candidate running on
a platform of consumer rights and corporate reform, argues
that US food production needs to be radically overhauled.
He believes that agricultural production is being destroyed
by low prices and lack of market access due to mergers
and acquisitions by big agribusinesses.
Federal policy should therefore advance the production,
marketing, use and disposal of food in accordance with
consumer and environmental interests.
Barring a rather unlikely upset, the US will choose either
Bush or Kerry to dictate policy for the next four years.
For the majority, food production and safety will not
be the pressing concern, but their choice of candidate
will nonetheless affect food production policy.
