The world of food production and safety is an increasingly complicated world to understand.
On one hand we have countries trying to find common ground with trading partners to create framework agreements to smooth trade.
In Canada a recent example is this country being a signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
“The TPP is a trade agreement among 12 Pacific Rim countries concerning a variety of matters of economic policy, which was reached on Oct. 5 2015, after seven-years of negotiations,” detailed Wikipedia. “The agreements stated goal had been to “promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections.” Among other things, the TPP Agreement contains measures to lower trade barriers such as tariffs, and establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.”
There are proponents of the TPP, with some seeing it as the key to stimulating our economy.
And others the TPP is an abyss we are about to be sucked into, with great detriment to our ability to create Canada-only policy on a host of trade goods.
As is the case in most of these things history will likely show it is neither a complete disaster, but hardly a lynchpin moment in Canadian trade.
But it will be intriguing to see how the deal shakes out because there are significant differences country to country in what is deemed reasonable and safe, especially in terms of food.
That is a critical consideration for farm producers, as they are the primary producers of our food.
In terms of extreme differences I was intrigued by an online posting forwarded my way recently on a U.S. judge’s decision.
“A California judge recently dismissed two lawsuits that claimed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) illegally approved a harmful drug additive – ractopamine hydrochloride – used in animal feed,” reported www.healthy-holistic-living.com
Now I will not suggest the website does not have a decided tilt in its view of what deems safe food, and do not agree with much of the rhetoric you will find there.
But ractopamine is something that is not without controversy.
“Ractopamine is a feed additive to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat. Pharmacologically, it is a beta-adrenergic agonist. It is the active ingredient in products known as Paylean for swine and Optaflexx for cattle, developed by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company, for use in food animals for growth promotion,” from Wikipedia.
“Ractopamine use has been banned in most countries, including the European Union, mainland China and Russia,,while 27 other countries, such as Japan, the United States, Canada, and South Korea, have deemed meat from livestock fed ractopamine safe for human consumption.”
It is interesting that a Yorkton-area cattle producer who is marketing beef directly to stores in China under his own labelled packaging noted that one key aspect of accessing that market is testing each carcass to make sure it is ractopamine-free.
That is interesting when you think of the sheer size potential of the Chinese market moving forward, a barrier such as ractopamine could be something of a detriment to accessing the market.
There is obviously something to think about with ractopamine is some 150 countries have banned it.
Certainly in North America we have come to trust the agencies which approve what drugs and additives are safe for us to put on the dinner table and consume.
But many countries are far from sure ractopamine should be on that list.
And then you over lay trade deals, and wonder what the fine print might mean in terms of accessing country-to-country markets in spite of bans and barriers.
Interesting food safety issues set against trade access times seem to be ahead.
Calvin Daniels is Assistant Editor with Yorkton This Week.
