Long ago (September 11, 2003), in a far away galaxy (the old Crumbtrail blog), while the great and good were making a mess in Cancun, I argued, as did many others, that the whole idea of developing countries bootstrapping themselves on agricultural trade was a hustle fueled by big players and sloppy statistics. An Economist article said some of those things with more authority.

If, as promised, the EU eliminates export subsidies on products “of interest” to poor countries, the price of those products would rise on world markets. This would benefit big agricultural exporters, such as Argentina and Brazil. It is not all good news, however. Arvind Panagariya, an economist at the University of Maryland, points out that 85 out of 148 developing countries are net importers of agricultural goods. Raising the price of those goods on world markets would leave them worse off. Farm-trade reform is at the centre of the Doha round, but Mr Panagariya’s results suggest it is not at the centre of development. . .

Even for a country like Brazil, agricultural trade barriers pose less of an obstacle to progress than barriers to trade in manufactured goods. The World Bank calculates that import tariffs lowered returns in Brazilian farming by 5% in 1997, whereas tariffs reduced returns in capital-intensive manufacturing by a full 22%.

Most countries get rich by selling manufactured goods—first labour-intensive, then more skill-intensive—on world markets. In 1980, the World Bank reports, such goods represented just 20% of the exports of poor countries. Now they account for 80%, and many of those countries are no longer so poor.

Those arguments were largely ignored since they ran counter to the political agenda of the government/NGO complex that was using the issue for other objectives. It may be that these issues will get a new hearing now that tainted food is in the news.

Dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical.

Frozen catfish laden with banned antibiotics.

Scallops and sardines coated with putrefying bacteria.

Mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides.

These were among the 107 food imports from China that the Food and Drug Administration detained at U.S. ports just last month, agency documents reveal, along with more than 1,000 shipments of tainted Chinese dietary supplements, toxic Chinese cosmetics and counterfeit Chinese medicines.

For years, U.S. inspection records show, China has flooded the United States with foods unfit for human consumption. And for years, FDA inspectors have simply returned to Chinese importers the small portion of those products they caught -- many of which turned up at U.S. borders again, making a second or third attempt at entry.

This is an entirely different reason to doubt the ag trade agenda, but the fear factor may disrupt the momentum of the government/NGO complex enough to reconsider the broad subject.

We certainly don't want to import bad foods, but that isn't the worst consequence of shipping massive amounts of low value biomass around the globe, and it isn't a route to development for those most in need of such. It's a bad idea any way you look at it. It has negative environmental consequences for countries least able to bear them, it retards reform of more consequential trade barriers in manufactured goods among LDCs as well as with developed countries, and it makes food less available for the poorest of the poor, the hungriest of the hungry.

» Tainted Evidence from University Update
...[read more]
Tracked: May 20, 2007 06:03 PM