be a net food exporter through much of the period since 1980. Korean President Lee Myung-bak signed an agreement It is the major international supplier of many fruits, vegetawith the United States on April 18, 2008, to fully reopen bles, and fish products, markets with a history of sensitivity to South Korea’s market to all US beef and beef products conadverse food safety inforsistent with international Reflective of weaknesses in United States and mation. China’s presence standards and the OIE in international apple The decision European Union approaches, assignment of oversight guidelines. and fish markets cannot was linked with the counresponsibilities from farm to kitchen has left gaps. tries’ bilateral free trade have been helped by incidences involving child agreement, then under nutrition. While domestic motives should be paramount in debate in US Congress. This deal faced heavy public opposithe calculation, China may have to adapt its institutions and tion in South Korea, in part because of widespread percepcommercial culture in fundamental ways if its food products tions that it fails to protect South Korea from BSE. are not to be foreclosed from important markets. The agreement was less restrictive than those reopening Japan and Taiwan to beef from the United States in that it allowed imports from cattle 30 months of age or older, which Sanitary Issues in Trade are considered to be at higher risk of BSE. The Korean public Besides adulteration, diseases borne by animals, plants, viewed the beef deal as a humiliating concession to the Unitor food products often cause food safety incidents. Food ed States. Tinged with nationalism, the case turned into one safety concerns have assumed a prominent role in limiting of the South Korea’s biggest political crises in recent memory. the expansion of international trade. To protect animal or Hundreds of thousands took to the streets across South Koplant life or health within a territory, national regulations in rea to protest the decision to lift the beef ban. In response the areas of plant, animal, and human health have increased to the protests, President Lee Myung-bak conceded, “I and over time. At a time when trade liberalization has widened my government should have looked at what the people want access to affordable food throughout the world, trade conregarding food safety more carefully. But we failed to do so flicts have arisen because of national diversity in technical and now seriously reflect on the failure.” standards pertaining to such issues as labeling, food safety, The case of the Korean beef crisis illustrates many imporand the environment. tant facets of food safety politics. The political and technical The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the challenge for advocates of free trade is to reduce trade distorWorld Trade Organization aims to promote international tions while still accommodating differences in SPS measures trade by requiring countries to base their sanitary (human across countries. Intervention approaches rooted in the state and animal safety) and phytosanitary (plant safety) measures of scientific understanding with free trade as the default may on science-based international standards. However, the SPS not satisfy consumers who seek the illusion of risk eliminaagreement allows a country to decide “an appropriate level tion. South Korean consumers remained skeptical despite of protection” for its plant, animal, and human health. As the assurances of both governments and pertinent internathere are clear differences among countries and cultures retional organizations. The United States did not help its case garding the types and levels of risk their citizens are willing by allowing for export several beef shipments that included to take, there are discrepancies in SPS standards across counprohibited bone fragments. The case of the Korean beef critries. With increased globalization, trade disputes related to sis also shows that when a government dismisses consumers’ SPS issues will become more frequent. Differences in atconcerns about food safety, public support can be eroded for titudes toward the use of hormones in beef production and the domestic food safety infrastructure, for the government in toward the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in general, and for trade liberalization. foodstuffs are striking examples. The role of culture has long been recognized by social scientists as one of the critical factors in comprehensive risk analysis. Culture influences deeply the ways in which people approach risk. For example, the choice between seeking to control risk and seeking to eliminate risk as the preferred scientific strategy for responding to a particular food safety problem is often affected by people’s cultural background. Incorporating culture into risk analyses adds complexity to SPS management. However, culture is an integral part of SPS trade issues and cannot be ignored. The U.S. beef crisis in South Korea has shown that conflicts resulting from differences in views on what is an acceptable level of risk can impede free trade and even result in political crisis. The government of South Korea banned most imports of US beef in December 2003 because of fears over bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. A positive case had just been detected in Washington State . In May 2007, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) classified the United States as a controlled risk for BSE. Controlled risk countries can trade live cattle, all meat and meat products, including bone-in beef, offal, and processed products, from animals of all ages. Accordingly, the US government pushed hard for South Korea to revise its import health protocol for US beef. 18 Harvard Asia Pacific Review | Spring 2010
Challenges for US Food Import and Export Sectors
The United States imports foods from all around the world, and it is inevitable that some adulterated foods are presented and gain entry. For example, in 2007, a total of 16,360 food product shipments were refused entry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Over 40 percent of these, mostly from developing countries, were due to adulteration. The agency, which oversees about 80 percent of the US food supply, inspects only about 1 percent of about 9 million food shipments annually, and less than 0.5 percent of imported foods are sampled and tested. With continuing contamination problems in the food import system, it is important for the FDA to improve its sampling and testing protocols to detect adulterated food coming into the U.S. food supply. Supported in part by public concerns about imports, country of origin labels covering many fruit, vegetable, and nut markets came into law in March 2009 in the United States. Pressure has grown for more stringent food safety legislation, including providing the FDA with the authority to recall produce. US food producers and processors are facing challenges in export markets too. The U.S. regulatory system for BSE