People from European countries living here flock to our local, organic food co-op, not trusting what they might find in a supermarket. Unfortunately, BigAg has had its way with how food is both produced and labelled here in the U.S. Why should anyone have to buy chlorinated cluckers in the first place?
6
Doesn’t anybody in the world grow asparagus besides Peru?
1
@Richard - I know, how weird. I know my father grew up in New England eating the asparagus that my grandparents planted...
Define Populist? I bet you can't put a left or right on the word really.
3
There couldn't be a case more illustrative of why the world hates the USA. The very idea that the EU should subject itself to the bad agricultural practices and food products of this country because the US says so is beyond comical. I have far more confidence in EU standards than I do in those put in place by the FDA, USDA or any other of our government's regulatory bodies because they are guided by business and not science. The idea that poor pale copies of European cheeses produced in the Americas should be allowed to call themselves by the same name as the original protected product and be sold in the EU is laughable. Food is culture and what the USA wants to do is destroy that culture so they can make a profit. Hopefully the EU will stand strong against these ridiculous and unreasonable demands from this country and maintain their standards. This country deserves to be punished for it failure to address Climate Change and for the damage that it has done to the state of world agriculture.
15
@Marc Hutton. Please read the entire article. Quote: The European Union food safety agency has concluded that a widely used method for treating chickens with a chloride solution poses “no safety concerns for humans.”
1
Yes, they say that the chloride process itself does not pose an issue. It's that the process doesn't work that well and meet the hygiene requirements it is used to achieve.
3
Didn’t the world wars start from a depression caused by trade protectionism?
3
@Mathias
No. It resulted from an unprecedented, and until now unparalleled, inequality of income and wealth that led to a massive bubble on Wall Street and a crash in 1929. The protectionist tariff trend followed the collapse of the economy, as countries sought ways to keep their businesses and industries and employment afloat.
6
Actually no, but I agree with you on the danger
2
Yep, keep the disgusting swimming-pool chicken please. And the other meats stuffed with enough antibiotics to render healthcare a waste of time.
Popular view of a US Trade Deal with a MAGA government can be summed up here as a pictorial of a vulture being invited in to strip our country down to its bones.
We have our agricultural sector, they can’t compete with vast, vast plains of mass-produce. It would kill off our farming sector. And don’t get me started on if we invite the ever-rapacious US Pharma and Insurance into our health sector, then we would see riots...
7
Yes. Yes. And yes. Let the populists win! I would rather eat local food raised in my country. Honestly, I don’t need oranges in July nor melons in January. And I definitely don’t need genetically altered American products.
14
Without clean water and strict biosecurity measures in place in a global community, there can be no life at all on this planet. Without clean water there is no life and the effect of chemicals on the eco system has a domino effect on the whole planet.
Bees can't pollinate plants that have been sprayed, and birds don't drink out of polluted water supplies and neither do other animals. Without clean water your export markets are doomed.
6
Trump would be the worse diplomat ever. Even if he didn't agree with the UN global agreement to get rid of plastic he should've signed the agreement - all his rival nations did. Same can be said for not turning up at the International forum in France to control hate speech etc on the internet etc.
I can see a great trade deal coming our (New Zealand's way) with Europe, as our Prime Minister is diplomatic and has the gift of forming relationships with international nations. Also, European governments have a lot in common with New Zealand government and Trump is alienating USA from the global community.
You really need to look critically at the chemical use on USA product and how high your cancer rates are. Instead of cleaning up your water supply you just add chemicals. Not good enough as people want organic, free range, and chemical and GE free food like in the olden days.
9
There seems to be a significant problem with an institution like the European Union. Its very existence derives mainly from the regional security shield of NATO. (Read the American military and its taxpayers here.) Remove that defence and the European economic model most likely disintegrates. Yet, legislators of the EU are insistent on restrictions of American commerce into their market ranks. Without question, this conundrum will eventually be addressed by the American electorate. The EU either moves back from market restrictions of American commerce or the United States reduces, or ends, its support for NATO.
5
All countries will imitate Trump's America First policies and so big countries can squash small ones on trade , Europe allied with China on trade could hurt American trade big time . Nationalism leads to war as only bullies become presidents and macho posturing leads to war. Trump is a perfect example as he makes war threats on twitter all the time soon one country will take him on maybe Rusia who has no fear of trump as he is compromised by putin.
2
Will the Times never stop referring to investors' rights agreements, which contain a host of provisions which have a lot to do with corporate hegemony, but not trade, "free trade" agreements?
And then there's the matter"intellectual property theft", about which Americans are supposed to be outraged. A third country steals an operating system or a prescription drug protected by inordinately accommodating American patent laws, thereby lowering costs of their products, and Americans without stock holdings are supposed to be outraged -- on behalf of Big Pharma and Bill Gates?
5
@jrd
Thank you ! These have always been about investment, and not trade.
2
What's unspoken in this article is the idea that food is strictly a commodity and not, you know, food. The Europeans tend to want local food, because they think, rightly or wrongly then they know what's in it. And they don't trust big American Agribusiness. Hard to believe.
13
@Wah Interestingly enough parts of Asia prefer Australian beef over American because they don't trust or don't like what goes into American cows. Ironically it seems a number of Western companies would love to import Chinese food as the cheaper products would mean higher margins. Also possibly more dead or sick customers but hey buyer beware right? And of course wealthy Chinese are eager for safe healthy western food so it's win win win for the elites. Perhaps countries should start by making sure they have enough safe and healthy food for their own people before worrying about exports let alone imports?
13
The president of BelGioioso Cheese makes it sound like the French can sell Parmesan and that US companies can't in Europe. The French can't sell cheese with an Italian appellation any more than the Wisconsin maker can. That's a good thing and an important protection for small producers in appellation region who use the correct methods, no different than not labeling bubbly Chardonnay from NY as Champagne. THis also protects the consumer, so when we see a package, we don't have to read the fine print. Unfortunately, in the US, you better read the fine print. A sad situation indeed here.
21
It seems hypocritical that we started a trade war with China because they don’t follow our intellectual property laws, yet we allow cheese made in Wisconsin to be sold as Parmesan or Feta in violation of European intellectual property laws that say that those terms are basically trademarks for producers in certain regions of Italy and Greece.
I think there is nothing wrong with countries all making their own intellectual property laws that do not necessarily recognize the same types of intellectual property, but all of a country’s laws should end at its border. Europe should be allowed to stop Wisconsin Parmesan from being sold there, but not in the US. Our government is within its rights to stop infringing Chinese products from being sold in the US, but should not dictate what goes on in China.
3
@Aoy The problem is when one country e.g. China, steals the intellectual property of another e.g. America, or sets up a legislative or business environment that forces such a transfer, then uses its new property against the originating country. In the case of food however you're not really talking intellectual property as people and food have travelled around the globe for centuries. People likely know what Parmesan or Feta are, but they likely won't know that they relate to regions in Italy and Greece! And if their ancestors came from those regions, and brought the techniques with them, isn't it actually discriminatory to say they can't sell their product under the name it's known by around the world?
5
On Chicken and automotive tariffs:
A short economic history
In 1964, the US imposed a 25% import tax on "light trucks" in retaliation for EU taxes on chicken.
The chicken war long ended, but the 25% import tax (Pick ups and large SUV) is in effect to this day .
To the delight of the US automotive industry
7
@Woof it's a ban on chicken, not a tax. The US didn't ban the light trucks
4
@Woof Further reading would also show that the chicken tax (in the 1980s) did impact foreign automotive companies, but "tariff engineering" led to the importation of the stripped chassis and finally the creation of plants in the US to make the cars that were formerly imported. Now, the chicken tax has actually turned on domestic automotive manufacturers, as cars like the Ford Transit are made in Spain/Turkey and imported in with the 25% duty (which is currently a pending case between the US Customs and Ford, with $25m per year swinging in the balance), rather than 2.5%. This suggests that in a global world, tariffs never simply harm or help a company, but instead effects are spread throughout.