- Email: [email protected]
Scientific bases for harmonizing the meat trade
Comment
Ronald E. Engel, Catherine E. Adams and Lester M. Crawford present a US view In 1987, the US tabled a proposal at the Punte de1 Este meeting of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The premise behind that proposal was that every citizen of the world has the right to have available foods that meet nutritional needs and are offered at an aflordable price. This should be true for all nations regardkss of economic or technological status, or political system.
Trade, by it’s nature, is more than the means of sharing world resources. Since the dawning of man, it has not been by coincidence that the most successful trading partners have been predominant world powers. Reality is that world trading systems have been and are likely to always be politicized. Trade barriers emerged in the form of tariffs and quotas. Competition, the foundation of trade, became distorted because of these artificial forces. In this skewed picture, even health and sanitary regulations are affected. One basic trade ‘rule’ should be that domestic national health should not be compromised. However, it is important that the perception of health is not altered or distorted in order to support artificial trade barriers. Another basic rule is that when scientific facts are used as the basis for determining health and sanitary regulations for all nations, a level playing field is created where the natural forces of competition run their course. This is fair. Trade is fair, and all countries, from the most technologically developed to the developing countries, have the opportunity to participate. While trade is and should be competitive, the protection of health for each nations’ citizens should be assured. This is the result when international scientific experts are called upon to harmonize health and sanitary regulations. It is a card game where everyone plays with the same deck of cards. There are international rules for sports matches. The score in a game of tennis or soccer is kept the same
R. E. Engel, C. E. Adams and L. M. Crawford are from the Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Washington DC, USA 0!356-7135/90/010011~2
way in England as it is in Brazil, or the same way in China as it is in the United States. There are ways in which we can level the international playing fields. Harmonized health and sanitary regulations are the analogy for the game of world trade. The GATT discussions are forging new ground which will aid the countries of Latin American as much as they will the North American, Asian and European countries. The system being developed relies on recognized international bodies of scientists to determine domestic health and sanitary regulations for all 96 member countries of the GAlT. These bodies of scientists would not be inexperienced. The GA?T could rely on their scientific assessments as the basis for settling international trade disputes. And, while these international bodies may not be perfect, reality dictates that any newly developed system would not be any closer to perfect. The three international bodies proposed as the world’s scientific experts include the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) for food products, the International Office of Epizooties (OIE) for animal health, and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health issues. The OIE has existed since 1924 and the IPPC since the 1950s. Relatively speaking, Codex is the infant of the group (started in 1%3), but it is mature in its status among international governments. Each of these international scientific commissions exists for the purposes of establishing commodity standards, codes of hygiene, methods of certification, and dissemination of regulatory information. Multilateral organizations of the United Nations either directly
$03.00 @ 1990 Butterworth 8 Co. (Publishers) Ltd
or indirectly coordinate their activities. The Codex is a joint function of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The IPPC is a function of FAO. The OIE is independent of an umbrella organization, but is well established. Many foods are currently excluded from trade between some nations because of differing interpretations of scientific information and differences in analytical capabilities by government food protection agencies. The Codex subject area committees actively work to resolve these barriers to agricultural trade. The commodity committees focus on development of standards for products within a given commodity group. The committees are forums of scientists who review technical data related to the development of product standards. Expert committees are convened by the Commission to provide additional review of the scientific data for particular issues. Currently, three expert committees are in operation. One of these expert bodies is dedicated to looking at food additives - an area already of great international interest. This group recently reviewed and passed judgment on the safety of the hormones embroiled in the ongoing international dispute. Codex standards exist to ensure that food available to consumers worldwide is safe and wholesome, free from adulteration, and is correctly labelled. The Codex Food Standards Program performs an advisory function in worldwide efforts for harmonization of food standards. The Codex Commission is a powerful network for multilateral industries working to introduce new food products in international markets. In addition to its standard-setting function, it provides informal forums for international government and industry representatives. This informal network is an effective tool for promoting an understanding of each nations’ regulatory policies relating to food. Although the objective of the Codex is for complete harmonization of international food laws, a notable indirect effect is to promote international trade through a network of commercial and govemment contracts. It is certainly our belief that, 11
Comment
based on the scientific assessment abilities of Codex experts and the network inherent in the process, the international hormone dispute would not exist today if the Codex Committee on Veterinary Drug Residues had been conceived by the early 1980s. This is one example of where Codex could have a significant impact in preventing international disagreements before they became disputes. While Codex is the dominant international body for development of food product standards, the OIE is its parallel regarding animal health issues. International standards for plant health and protection are developed predominantly by the IPPC. The IPPC was developed in the 1950s and is administered by the FAO. Each of the above organizations and commissions serves an advisory function. However, GATT is the one organization that has a regulatory function for enforcement of internationally agreed-upon standards. This is the GATT Standards Code. The GAIT Standards Code, also called the ‘The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade’, seeks to establish international rules among governments regulating the procedures by which standards are prepared, adopted, and applied. The GATT Standards Code was developed through the Tokyo Round of the GATT. It has allowed for a new openness in the promulgation and revision of standards by governments. The Code requires that signatories publish proposed standards or revisions to present standards, and allow time for international response. In doing so, the Code recognizes the concept that
governments do not adopt standards in isolation, and that a nation’s regulations impact other countries’ people and economies. The purpose of the Code is to ensure that products introduced into international trade cannot be discriminated against or treated unfairly because of arbitrary standards imposed by governments. The GATT Standards Code requires uniform implementation and states that imported products cannot be held to more rigorous standards than those applied to domestic goods. Application of the GATT Standards Code for all countries would etablish the GATT in its designated role, that is, to facilitate free trade between bilateral and multilateral trading partners. In its Uruguay Round, the GATT is being requested to endorse and enforce its own Standards Code that was adopted in the most recent Tokyo Round. It is recognized that harmonization between nations for health and sanitary regulations is a complex undertaking. Many differences in nations’ health and sanitary laws exist as protection from devastating economic health risks. It is not the intent of harmonization to ‘equalize’ the world in terms of health and sanitary actions. However, it is possible through the application of sound scientific information to identify those regulations that exist for political versus scientific reasons. It is the intent of harmonization to facilitate free trade and to protect nations from exclusion from trade opportunities due to capricious import and expert restrictions.
Education in food control A New Zealand perspective from Gordon Robertson and Malcolm Reeves Food control became an important area of focus within the food industry during the 197Os, although it has been an implicit area of concern for both technical and production personnel in the food industry for decades. The recognition of quality assurance as a management requirement has led to the emergence of food quality assurance/control as an acadenric discipline worthy of support at a tertiary educational level.
Food control was described in a document published by the FAO, 12
(Gerard, 1975) as follows: ‘In the broad sense food control is often
The GATT discussions are moving forward, and, while there are many issues yet to be refined and agreed upon, there is no discord when it comes to the decision about the potential benefits of harmonization. A level playing field is universally a good thing. The method of achieving this goal is more difficult to agree upon. However, the time has come to answer these questions. Codex has already made great progress in forging, or actually reforging, a relationship with the GATT. The GATT and Codex are redefining a liaison first established ~10 years ago. The relationship fell into disarray once, but the consensus is now strong that it should work, and should work for the long run. Settlements of international trade disputes, that are based on scientific consensus, are fair. Each nation of the world is rich in natural resources and has specific food commodities to offer to the international marketplace. The success of the GATT negotiators will assure that all nations may join as team members in the international sport of trade. In summary, it is not the intent of harmonization to equalize the world in terms of health and sanitary regulations. However, it is possible through the application of supportable scientific data to identify those regulations that exist for political verse scientific reasons. It is the goal of harmonization to facilitate free trade and to protect nations from exclusion from trade opportunities due to capricious imported or restrictions on exported product.
understood as comprising all those measures, of whatever kind, which the government sees fit to introduce, with a view to protecting consumers of food. In the strict sense, however, food control consists of all those institutional and procedural arrangements whereby the effective observance of the food regulations by producers and tradesmen may be verified and enforced’. Blanchfield (1980), in discussing the philosophy of food control, avoided giving a definition of food control. Rather, he indicated some
09567135/90/010012-03$03.00~1990
Butterworlh8Co.(Publishers)Ltd
Ronald E. Engel, Catherine E. Adams and Lester M. Crawford present a US view In 1987, the US tabled a proposal at the Punte de1 Este meeting of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The premise behind that proposal was that every citizen of the world has the right to have available foods that meet nutritional needs and are offered at an aflordable price. This should be true for all nations regardkss of economic or technological status, or political system.
Trade, by it’s nature, is more than the means of sharing world resources. Since the dawning of man, it has not been by coincidence that the most successful trading partners have been predominant world powers. Reality is that world trading systems have been and are likely to always be politicized. Trade barriers emerged in the form of tariffs and quotas. Competition, the foundation of trade, became distorted because of these artificial forces. In this skewed picture, even health and sanitary regulations are affected. One basic trade ‘rule’ should be that domestic national health should not be compromised. However, it is important that the perception of health is not altered or distorted in order to support artificial trade barriers. Another basic rule is that when scientific facts are used as the basis for determining health and sanitary regulations for all nations, a level playing field is created where the natural forces of competition run their course. This is fair. Trade is fair, and all countries, from the most technologically developed to the developing countries, have the opportunity to participate. While trade is and should be competitive, the protection of health for each nations’ citizens should be assured. This is the result when international scientific experts are called upon to harmonize health and sanitary regulations. It is a card game where everyone plays with the same deck of cards. There are international rules for sports matches. The score in a game of tennis or soccer is kept the same
R. E. Engel, C. E. Adams and L. M. Crawford are from the Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Washington DC, USA 0!356-7135/90/010011~2
way in England as it is in Brazil, or the same way in China as it is in the United States. There are ways in which we can level the international playing fields. Harmonized health and sanitary regulations are the analogy for the game of world trade. The GATT discussions are forging new ground which will aid the countries of Latin American as much as they will the North American, Asian and European countries. The system being developed relies on recognized international bodies of scientists to determine domestic health and sanitary regulations for all 96 member countries of the GAlT. These bodies of scientists would not be inexperienced. The GA?T could rely on their scientific assessments as the basis for settling international trade disputes. And, while these international bodies may not be perfect, reality dictates that any newly developed system would not be any closer to perfect. The three international bodies proposed as the world’s scientific experts include the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) for food products, the International Office of Epizooties (OIE) for animal health, and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health issues. The OIE has existed since 1924 and the IPPC since the 1950s. Relatively speaking, Codex is the infant of the group (started in 1%3), but it is mature in its status among international governments. Each of these international scientific commissions exists for the purposes of establishing commodity standards, codes of hygiene, methods of certification, and dissemination of regulatory information. Multilateral organizations of the United Nations either directly
$03.00 @ 1990 Butterworth 8 Co. (Publishers) Ltd
or indirectly coordinate their activities. The Codex is a joint function of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The IPPC is a function of FAO. The OIE is independent of an umbrella organization, but is well established. Many foods are currently excluded from trade between some nations because of differing interpretations of scientific information and differences in analytical capabilities by government food protection agencies. The Codex subject area committees actively work to resolve these barriers to agricultural trade. The commodity committees focus on development of standards for products within a given commodity group. The committees are forums of scientists who review technical data related to the development of product standards. Expert committees are convened by the Commission to provide additional review of the scientific data for particular issues. Currently, three expert committees are in operation. One of these expert bodies is dedicated to looking at food additives - an area already of great international interest. This group recently reviewed and passed judgment on the safety of the hormones embroiled in the ongoing international dispute. Codex standards exist to ensure that food available to consumers worldwide is safe and wholesome, free from adulteration, and is correctly labelled. The Codex Food Standards Program performs an advisory function in worldwide efforts for harmonization of food standards. The Codex Commission is a powerful network for multilateral industries working to introduce new food products in international markets. In addition to its standard-setting function, it provides informal forums for international government and industry representatives. This informal network is an effective tool for promoting an understanding of each nations’ regulatory policies relating to food. Although the objective of the Codex is for complete harmonization of international food laws, a notable indirect effect is to promote international trade through a network of commercial and govemment contracts. It is certainly our belief that, 11
Comment
based on the scientific assessment abilities of Codex experts and the network inherent in the process, the international hormone dispute would not exist today if the Codex Committee on Veterinary Drug Residues had been conceived by the early 1980s. This is one example of where Codex could have a significant impact in preventing international disagreements before they became disputes. While Codex is the dominant international body for development of food product standards, the OIE is its parallel regarding animal health issues. International standards for plant health and protection are developed predominantly by the IPPC. The IPPC was developed in the 1950s and is administered by the FAO. Each of the above organizations and commissions serves an advisory function. However, GATT is the one organization that has a regulatory function for enforcement of internationally agreed-upon standards. This is the GATT Standards Code. The GAIT Standards Code, also called the ‘The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade’, seeks to establish international rules among governments regulating the procedures by which standards are prepared, adopted, and applied. The GATT Standards Code was developed through the Tokyo Round of the GATT. It has allowed for a new openness in the promulgation and revision of standards by governments. The Code requires that signatories publish proposed standards or revisions to present standards, and allow time for international response. In doing so, the Code recognizes the concept that
governments do not adopt standards in isolation, and that a nation’s regulations impact other countries’ people and economies. The purpose of the Code is to ensure that products introduced into international trade cannot be discriminated against or treated unfairly because of arbitrary standards imposed by governments. The GATT Standards Code requires uniform implementation and states that imported products cannot be held to more rigorous standards than those applied to domestic goods. Application of the GATT Standards Code for all countries would etablish the GATT in its designated role, that is, to facilitate free trade between bilateral and multilateral trading partners. In its Uruguay Round, the GATT is being requested to endorse and enforce its own Standards Code that was adopted in the most recent Tokyo Round. It is recognized that harmonization between nations for health and sanitary regulations is a complex undertaking. Many differences in nations’ health and sanitary laws exist as protection from devastating economic health risks. It is not the intent of harmonization to ‘equalize’ the world in terms of health and sanitary actions. However, it is possible through the application of sound scientific information to identify those regulations that exist for political versus scientific reasons. It is the intent of harmonization to facilitate free trade and to protect nations from exclusion from trade opportunities due to capricious import and expert restrictions.
Education in food control A New Zealand perspective from Gordon Robertson and Malcolm Reeves Food control became an important area of focus within the food industry during the 197Os, although it has been an implicit area of concern for both technical and production personnel in the food industry for decades. The recognition of quality assurance as a management requirement has led to the emergence of food quality assurance/control as an acadenric discipline worthy of support at a tertiary educational level.
Food control was described in a document published by the FAO, 12
(Gerard, 1975) as follows: ‘In the broad sense food control is often
The GATT discussions are moving forward, and, while there are many issues yet to be refined and agreed upon, there is no discord when it comes to the decision about the potential benefits of harmonization. A level playing field is universally a good thing. The method of achieving this goal is more difficult to agree upon. However, the time has come to answer these questions. Codex has already made great progress in forging, or actually reforging, a relationship with the GATT. The GATT and Codex are redefining a liaison first established ~10 years ago. The relationship fell into disarray once, but the consensus is now strong that it should work, and should work for the long run. Settlements of international trade disputes, that are based on scientific consensus, are fair. Each nation of the world is rich in natural resources and has specific food commodities to offer to the international marketplace. The success of the GATT negotiators will assure that all nations may join as team members in the international sport of trade. In summary, it is not the intent of harmonization to equalize the world in terms of health and sanitary regulations. However, it is possible through the application of supportable scientific data to identify those regulations that exist for political verse scientific reasons. It is the goal of harmonization to facilitate free trade and to protect nations from exclusion from trade opportunities due to capricious imported or restrictions on exported product.
understood as comprising all those measures, of whatever kind, which the government sees fit to introduce, with a view to protecting consumers of food. In the strict sense, however, food control consists of all those institutional and procedural arrangements whereby the effective observance of the food regulations by producers and tradesmen may be verified and enforced’. Blanchfield (1980), in discussing the philosophy of food control, avoided giving a definition of food control. Rather, he indicated some
09567135/90/010012-03$03.00~1990
Butterworlh8Co.(Publishers)Ltd