Accords, private standards key to world food safety
Nov. 7, 2007Contact Information:
Mr. Michael Roberts, Venable Law Firm, Washington
202-344-4684 / mtrob@uark.edu
By Dave Edmark, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station
479-575-5647 / dedmark@uark.edu
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Americans going to China for next year’s Olympics may be wondering what the Beijing government will do to tighten up food safety rules following increasing reports of problems with safeguarding the nation’s food supply. It’s a fair expectation of the Chinese government, but the quicker solution may turn out to be the motivation behind private business maintaining a reputable product brand.
“If we have supplier contracts for grocers buying food in China, they’re going to expect a higher standard for protection of brand,” explained Michael T. Roberts, a University of Arkansas adjunct professor of law who specializes in food issues at the Venable Law Firm in Washington. Depending on private standards for a solution may be quicker than anything that China can do internally to tighten up its regulation, Roberts said.
Roberts, in an address to faculty and students at the UA System’s Division of Agriculture food science department, noted that China has announced a five-year initiative to improve its food safety system, but the rest of the world may not be so patient. The U.S. enacted its first food safety law in 1906.
“Are we going to allow developing countries 101 years to get it right?” Roberts asked. “I suspect the answer is no. It takes time but it’s unlikely that we can spare it in today’s global food system.”
China does have an extensive food regulatory system, with 12 separate government agencies responsible for various aspects. The nation has seven administrative statutes governing food safety with ministries to enforce them. Despite the system’s apparent complexity and sophistication, problems arise. The Food and Drug Administration reported that China ranked third in incidents of imported food being rejected at the U.S. border, Roberts said, behind India and Mexico.
Part of the problem is that Chinese food companies generally prefer to pay a fine associated with a food safety violation instead of paying the higher cost of investing in a state-of-the-art food processing facility, Roberts said.
“In the U.S., Europe and Western developed countries, the fines for breaking food regulatory standards are nominal,” he said. “If the FDA issues a fine, we’re talking about $10,000 or $50,000, sometimes more than that. But that’s not what motivates food companies to be compliant. It’s branding. If food companies in the U.S. and Europe have a food safety problem and it gets out to the public, that’s going to affect the bottom line because people aren’t going to buy your product. It hurts our brand. It’s that consumer-driven expectation that your product is going to be safe.”
International law is developing further to cover food safety issues with regulatory agreements among countries, such as those in the World Trade Organization. The WTO facilitated a pact among its member nations called the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure, which governs international trade of food products and their safety.
“This agreement basically means the countries that belong to the WTO agree that their vital sanitary measures will be based on international standards,” Roberts said. “Traditions and attitudes are not acceptable rationales for food safety determinations.”
To participate in such an international agreement, nations effectively agree to give up some of their sovereignty. The question becomes how much they give up, Roberts said.
Scientists develop standards set by similar international agreements. Roberts said they allow private companies to depend upon predictability as to what other countries will do, thus harmonizing and facilitating world trade.
If international agreements between governments aren’t sufficient to accommodate specific food safety issues, private law can step in. Roberts noted that many multinational food companies rely on private international law by writing private standards into supply contracts.
“Large grocery stores that have contracts with suppliers are imposing their will through contracts that sometimes cross countries. Private standards reflect this emergence of the retailer. The retailer has suddenly caught its sense of its own power in the food supply system. Retailers are interested in selling food to consumers. Hence, a retailer is going to give recognition to consumer preferences,” Roberts explained.
Sometimes, Roberts noted, the catch is that consumer preferences aren’t based on science. American officials, for example, would argue that European preferences against genetically modified food are not based on science. “It runs contrary to what all these public institutions are trying to accomplish with a science-based approach.”