Free Trade Floods US With Imported Food

Southern Livestock Review ^ | Alan Guebert

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

To most American farmers and ranchers, free trade is like motherhood, apple pie and John Deere green: it's an unquestioned core belief of the farming faith.

A July report from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS), however, relates that freer ag trade over the last 20 years has allowed imported food--especially imported red meat, fruits and vegetables--to claim a larger share of the American stomach.

The big picture, according to Andy Jerardo, the report's author, shows the average share of food imports consumed by Americans has climbed from 7.8 percent in 1981-1985 to 11.1 percent in 1997-2001. That's a staggering 50 percent increase in America's taste for imported food in just 20 years.

Part of that steep climb, notes ERS, is due to our expanding appetites. We now eat 11 percent more food per year per capita than we did in 1981, 2000 lbs. versus 1,800 lbs. Much of that belt-busting increase, though, came from our off-shore free-trading friends.

For example, 8.7 percent of all beef consumed in the U.S. in 1980 was imported; in 2001 that import share stood at 11.6 percent. In round numbers, that means per capita consumption of imported beef rose 33 percent in the last two decades. ERS pegs the current value of those beef imports at $2.2 billion, a handsome sum in the chronically depressed domestic cattle market.

The story is even more dramatic for imported pork and lamb consumption. In 1980, 3.3 percent of all pork consumed per capita in America was imported; in 2001 the figure was 54 percent higher, or 5.1 percent. Likewise, 9.5 percent of all lamb eaten in the U.S. in 1980 was imported. In 2001, 40 percent was imported.

The rise in imported meat has many causes: a strong U.S. dollar, reductions or eliminations of import tariffs and quotas, cyclical changes in domestic production and free trade agreements like NAFTA to name just a few.

But one inescapable consequence of the flood is that rising imports drained domestic prices. In 1980, the average slaughter steer price in the U.S. was $67.64 per hundredweight; in 1999 average price was $65.56.

Changes in the American diet also hit producer prices. According to the ERS, consumption of fruits, vegetables and cereals has grown 20 percent since 1980 while consumption of animal products, which include dairy, has grown just 7 percent. Crops and products now take up 57 percent of the American dinner plate and animal products 43 percent.

That's a 3 percent rise for the former and a 3 percent drop for the latter.

American meat producers aren't the only farmers getting nipped by rising imports. Indeed, American fruit and vegetable growers are being slaughtered by imports. In 1980, 5.8 percent of the per capita consumption of fresh and frozen fruits in America was imported; in 2001 it was 23.1 percent. Likewise, 16.6 percent of all vegetables you eat today are imported; 20 years ago only 5.9 percent of veggies eaten in America were imported.

Even more shocking, imported wheat and wheat products claimed 10.7 percent of the American food market in 2001. Two decades ago they grabbed an almost invisible 0.3 percent. The numbers are almost identical for rice.

In fact, if you follow the numbers charted by ERS, American farmers are losing their grip on the American food market. And one big--and getting bigger--reason is free trade, says Alan Tonelson, a research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.

In an editorial posted at www.tradealert.org on July 31 (Are America's Farmers Turning Against Free Trade?), Tonelson senses that American agriculture's uncritical faith in free trade may be flagging. "Domestic ag producers are realizing--just like small manufacturers--that they have been sold a bill of goods on globalization," wrote Tonelson.

"Despite promises that new trade deals would open enormous foreign markets that world-beating American farmers and ranchers would dominate, the nation's historically huge ag trade surplus has been shrinking steadily (even as) ... most commodity export volumes have been stagnant since the mid-1970s, and prices have cratered."

He's right; the facts, just provided by ERS, prove it.

Alan Guebert is an award-winning free-lance agricultural journalist who was raised on an 800-acre, 100-cow southern Illinois dairy farm. After graduation from the University of Illinois in December 1980, he worked as a writer and senior editor at Professional Farmers of America and Successful Farming magazine.

In 1984, Guebert returned to his native Illinois to establish his free-lance writing business. His self-syndicated column, The Farm and Food File, began in June, 1993, and now appears weekly in nearly 60 newspapers from Maryland to Nebraska, Texas to Canada. It covers every aspect of farm and food production and policy.

---

Small Livestock Farms Disappearing

by John Brannon
Southern Livestock Review

Small livestock farms are scarce today. In 10 years they could be just a memory.

Their successor?

"Big corporations will have it all," said Roger Roehrig of Mascoutab, Illinois.

Roehrig was the judge at the Junior Swine Show August 14 at the Obion County Fair in Union City, Tennessee.

He's been judging since he was 17. It's a vocation he got into by...well, accident.

"It was at Belleville, Illinois. A fellow didn't show up to judge, so they sort of drafted me. I was forced into it. I was scared to death," Roehrig said.

"I've been doing it 27 years now. I stay buy. I've got to do the Tennessee State Fair and then one at Dexter, Missouri. That'll be 14 this year."

Roehrig said that wherever he goes, he sees good quality swine but less of them because there are less breeders. Big corporations don't buy from hog farms.

"Used to be, hot farms were all over the country. They're all about gone now," he said. "Big corporations are pushing the small hog farms out, like Walmart pushed all the mom and pop stores out. The small ones can't compete with the Tysons and Smithfields.

"There was a time when you could work a small hog farm and make a living at it. These days, if you don't have a trailer load, the big boys won't even talk to you. There's no market for the little man's hogs any more. They want to do everything under contract."

Roehrig, a hog breeder himself 50 years, raises purebreds - Hampshires. Yorkshires and Durocs.

"I'd say that in ten years, all the small livestock farms, especially hog farms, will be gone the same way small chicken farms went," he said.

Meanwhile, he said he enjoys judging events such as the Junior Swine Show.

"Most young people still in it stay focused. They have an interest in it, and that's good," he said. "These are the young people who'll go on and become something. Raising hogs helps them learn about life and competition. Keeping them involved is a lot cheaper than paying them out of trouble. I've had kids come up to me - they were kids when I first met them - who are now 40. I'd judged their hogs. They'd turned out to be good, useful citizens. They'd remember me and come up and speak. Made me feel good."

Roehrig, 63, has a 1,500-acre farm about 30 miles east of St. Louis, Missouri. He raises soybeans and wheat as well as about 100 head of purebred hogs.

[1rudeboy]

We can't use DDT in the US, but because of NAFTA, people are buying food from DDT using countries.

Source, please. How about one that identifies DDT-tainted food currently imported into the U.S. And since you mentioned NAFTA, make it one that specifically identifies foodstuffs imported from Canada or Mexico.

[1rudeboy]

You "thought?" That's funny. Have you tried to find out for yourself?

[hedgetrimmer]

As with meat, almost all of the fruits and vegetables imported into the United States each year are not inspected. Yet, foreign producers in Mexico and elsewhere use pesticides and practices long outlawed in the United States. They use DDT and fecal fertilizers that are known to cause illnesses. And when inspected, the USDA reports a high incidence of failure to comply with U.S. standards.

All this happened, of course, because the United States has rushed into trade deals with other nations that gave them virtually unlimited access to the U.S. market while not providing the necessary safeguards for food and safety purposes. Notably, the USDA has not sufficiently increased its budget to allow regular and surprise visits to the 1,200 foreign plants that supply U.S. consumers. Nor has it sufficiently increased its border inspections. Rather, it has relied on the governments of Mexico, Brazil, France and others to inspect the food that will be exported to the United States and consumed by Americans.


http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=mexico+agriculture+ddt+food+imports&ei=UTF-8&vm=i&n=20&fl=0&url=k7p7hgJzX74J:www.usadaily.com/Commentary/Choate/030411_sabotaging_us_food.htm

In 1996, the United States exported 687 million pounds of pesticides, mostly to developing countries. Workers in developing nations such as Mexico often lack proper training and handle pesticides without masks or protective clothing. In the highly agricultural Culiacan Valley of Mexico, nearly 3,000 field workers are hospitalized for pesticide poisoning each year.

Ten million pounds of 1996 U.S. pesticide exports were pesticides that were banned or forbidden for use in the United States due to their hazardous nature. In addition, testing of produce imported into the United States has uncovered traces of banned pesticides. Chlordane and lindane, extremely hazardous pesticides that are banned for food use in the United States, have appeared in canola seed imports from Canada and carrot imports from Mexico. Adding to the safety uncertainties of imported produce is the decline in the testing of imported produce since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/serpest.htm

FOUR MORE STATES MAY HAVE SERVED TAINTED BERRIES IN SCHOOL
September 17, 1997
Dow Jones News
AP
SAN DIEGO -- Court documents cited in this story contain an update from CDC
about the March hepatitis A outbreak linked to frozen strawberries, which says
that tainted berries may have reached school lunch programs
in Maine, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Tennessee, in addition to Michigan, where
more than 260 children and teachers developed hepatitis A.
The story notes that the berries were traced to Andrew & Williamson Sales Co.,
San Diego, which processed and supplied imported berries from Mexico to the
federal school lunch program in violation of federal law.
The story goes on to say that in court papers filed Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney's
office here ordered Andrew & Williamson to pay for the prompt pickup of batches
of suspected contaminated berries, many of which were still being stored at
schools.

http://131.104.232.9/fsnet/1997/9-1997/fs-09-17-97-01.txt

---

When I read the article at the time,it stated that the schools were using mexican strawberries because of a trade agreement with mexioc that required them to purchase mexican produce

[hedgetrimmer]

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) furthers this trend in two principle ways. First, it requires the United States , Mexico and Canada to "harmonize" (make equivalent) their food safety and technical standards in accordance with certain processes set forth in the Agreement. Second, it prescribes rules that such measures must meet in order not to be considered unfair trade barriers. If disputes arise under these provisions, NAFTA establishes a secret dispute settlement process in which unelected trade bureaucrats will determine the viability of the challenged measures with no input from domestic proponents of the measures and little, if any, input from scientific or technical experts.

Lowering standards

NAFTA furthers a recent trend toward harmonization of domestic health and environmental standards. It would require the United States, Mexico and Canada to use international standards as a basis for their own standards. Since the international standards are generally developed in secret with extensive industry input but no public oversight or participation, they are often weaker than U.S. standards.

By mandating that domestic standards be based on international ones, NAFTA may curb innovative responses to health, safety and environmental problems. After all, its purpose is to create uniformity in such standards. But uniformity prevents a country from being a leader in devising new, more hard-hitting solutions.

NAFTA creates additional, strong incentives for countries to adopt international standards. Any domestic standards that provide greater public health protection than pertinent international standards must comply with several pages of NAFTA rules. To avoid the need to justify a stronger standard, and possibly defend it against a trade challenge, a country may follow the path of least resistance and simply adopt the international standard.

Not only does NAFTA require the use of international standards as a basis for domestic ones, it requires the signatory countries to make their standards "compatible" to the greatest extent practicable, and to make their food safety standards "equivalent" or, where appropriate, identical. Some types of standards, such as truck driversÆ medical standards, truck and bus brake standards, automobile emissions requirements and rules pertaining to the transportation of hazardous cargo, must be harmonized within a specified number of years (between one and six) of NAFTAÆs adoption.

Because the United States has stronger standards than other countries, particularly in the areas of truck safety, automobile emissions and exposure to cancer-causing pesticides in food, the only way for the United States to harmonize such standards is downward. Even if a standard still seeks to guard against the same risk, it can be significantly weakened by using less effective means to get there. For example, a pesticide ban may be replaced by a rule permitting small residues of the pesticide, or mandatory labeling may be supplanted by a voluntary labeling requirement, or a ban on a harmful product may give way to precautionary measures.


NAFTA Fact Check
Unsustainable Development


NUMBER OF PESTICIDES THAT HAVE BEEN BANNED IN THE UNITED STATES BUT ARE STILL LEGAL FOR USE IN MEXICO: 17 (INCLUDING DDT)



PERCENTAGE OF CROSS BORDER FOOD SHIPMENTS THAT ARE INSPECTED FOR PESTICIDE RESIDUES BY THE US CUSTOMS SERVICE: 1 PERCENT



PERCENTAGE OF FOOD IMPORTS WHICH FAIL TO MEET THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATIONÆS TESTS: 40 PERCENT




http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/10/mm1093_04.html

[joanil]

I understand your concern.
Another thing..........
the imported food (rice/bulger etc.) costs a bit more than our nationally recognized brands.

However..............
Some of the higher priced rice/wheat/bulgar/macaroni dishes from the 'organic' aisle were pretty good.
They cooked up well and were quite tasty.
Not to take away from our country grain, but some of these imported grain packs were rather tasty.

Only one way to tell if you like the cooked product as we did, and that is to honestly try it for yourself.

Other than that.........
2 cups fresh cold water to 1 cup natural white rice
Add a dab of butter and salt to suit. Cover.
Takes 10 minutes to cook...
Enjoy.

[hedgetrimmer]

NAFTA has consistently championed downward harmonization for the United States, and we have been hurt by it.

[Willie Green]

Related thread: China Rivals World's Top Corn Exporters

[joanil]

Yep, in the supermarket aisles. Its all there for the taking. Judge for yourself as you shop.

[independentmind]

On(e) of the goals of globalism is to render America helpless and dependent on foreign sources of production.

Perhaps it's not a goal, but it most certainly is an effect.

[1rudeboy]

So you judge whether the U.S. is a net-importer or exporter of winter wheat based upon what you see in the grocery-aisle? OOOOOOOOOOOOO K

[1rudeboy]

Couldn't find anything on DDT? Didn't think you could. But you did find some press-releases from some special-interest groups and a Ross Perot hack. That's a start. Try Nader, I'm sure he's got more current material.

[forester]

Thanks for the link. I especially liked the link to an old thread about Clinton advocating that America stop farming. If I remember right, Gore said the same thing several years ago.

[redgolum]

As one who grew up on a family farm and is still involved in agriculture, the article if anything understates the situation.

The US is heading to a point where a realitivly small number of corporations control all of the domestic food supply. My father raised hogs for 30 years, and was the president of the Pork Producers. Now he works in a plant. He had to get out because of a disease, but if he had stayed in, he would have lost the farm.

What is worse, the people moving out into the country from the cities are also driving small farms away. The lawyer from down town sees the dust and smell from a farm, decides it is poisionous, and sues.

The US will regret this trend when we have no way to feed ourself.

[helper]

No your Dem "Death Tax" takes care of the Farm.

[Carry_Okie]

Not all ag exports are food. Some are animal feed, tobacco, catfish, etc. To get a food balance requires extracting market specific information. The data I have come from the Center for North American Studies at Texas A&M. It was prepared for the WTO Millennium Summit.

[Carry_Okie]

If, for example, we were to try and produce all of our own food, then when lo and behold the Great Dust Bowl II strikes, we're in pretty much the same situation we were seventy years ago.

You are clearly ignorant of the causes of the dust bowl.

However, if we also have markets in Argentina, China, England, and Russia then we can simply shift production away from agriculture and trade for food. Diversity == dependable markets.

It includes a dependable rate of introduction of both contagious diseases and exotic pests too. Pray tell, what is the impact of those externalities? Is the actuarial impact covered by the purchase price of the good or is the supplier accountable?

Of course not. Neither is the difference in environmental standards and regulatory overhead. The latter is being abetted by the acts of environmentalists who work for NGOs that take contributions from global food production investors, what is essentially racketeering at the expense of the American farmer.

What makes most sense for America IMHO is to accept all the economic benefits of free trade and rely on precautionary measures (such as oil reserves) and a strong military to make sure she never becomes victim of trade blackmail.

And there you have it folks: Globalism is a "good thing" because tax dollars subsidize it with military enforcement, subsidizing every other nation in the world in the process.

When there is an attack here at home, where will you run?

[hedgetrimmer]

Your defense of NAFTA, is to slam anybody who says that it has hurt Americans.

The USDA has a dataset that lists all the residues found in food from Mexico.

It says of the samples they tested from Mexico, 1% were contaminated with DDT. They also found foods contaminated with ETHOXYQUIN, ETHION,ENDOSULFAN, DIMETHOATE, FOLPET,METHAMIDOPHOS,OMETHOATE

Oh the list is a long one more than 100 different chemicals.

But NAFTA good. American food safety standards bad.

[gcruse]

. I am for equitable trade.

Free trade = capitalism
Fair trade = socialism

[Ben Ficklin]

Regarding NAFTA, it is important to remember that the benefits to American ag producers were backloaded to give Mexico a running chance to put their ag land reforms in place.

For example: Mexican tariffs on wheat, pork, chicken leg quarters, etc were not removed until Jan 03. Tariffs on corn remain in place til 2008, although Mexico has been importing a great deal of corn from the US without applying the tariff so as to keep consumer prices low.

Regarding FTAA: US producers refer to this free trade corridor as the "wheat and meat corridor".

[hedgetrimmer]

Mexico has been importing a great deal of corn from the US without applying the tariff

Which as put millions of people out of work in Mexico which is one reason they come here illegally.

The corn has directly affected the Chiapas area, which is why there is a rebellion going on there. Other farmers and farmer workers have been put out of business by the corn imports.

"Corn growing has basically collapsed in Mexico," Carlos Heredia Zubieta, an economist and a member of Mexico's Congress, said in a recent speech to an American audience. "The flood of imports of basic grains has ravaged the countryside,so the corn growers are here instead of working in the fields....

Free trade and Mexico's own farm policies "threaten the ability of Mexican farmers to continue to grow corn," said Alejandro Nadal, a professor at the Colegio de México and the author of a study on the issue.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/special/2002/0226corn.htm"

And Anti-NAFTA Sentiment Grows Since the passage of NAFTA, Mexico has seen a major increase in imports of inexpensive American corn from major producing states like Iowa and Illinois. Mexico currently is Illinois’ second-largest corn buyer, purchasing about $950 million of U.S. corn each year. The cheap imported corn is squeezing many Mexican corn growers out of the market. As a result, Mexican farmers are becoming increasingly outspoken in their belief that Mexico, under NAFTA, is getting the short end of the stick.

Corn prices south of the border have dropped 45% over the past three years—a devastating blow to Mexican growers. As many as 400,000 corn farmers in Mexico have either sold or rented out their farmland in the seven years since NAFTA’s implementation. Many have been forced to migrate to Mexico’s urban centers or cross the border to look for work in the United States.

Mexican farmers argue that the government needs to return to higher tariffs on corn imports, expressing fear that thousands more of them will be forced out of business when the corn market opens up completely to free trade in 2008. Mexico’s corn producers’ association is waging a legal battle for a 30% increase in tariffs on corn imported beyond NAFTA quotas. It opposes a recent government decision to decrease such tariffs to only 1-3%.

http://www.americaspolicy.org/borderlines/2001/bl82/bl82brief_body.html