|
|
|
CONSULTATION - IFPRI/SAIS Center for Transatlantic Relations
Food Safety, Food Security, and Trade - How to End the Conflicts Location: International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC Fourth Floor Conference Facility Saturday, June 21, 2003 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY
Food safety is making international headlines, as the United States and the European Union continue to take dramatically different positions over this contentious issue. The collision of biotechnology, food safety, and international trade are at the forefront of global debate. In recent days,
Though much of the discussion centers on conflicting U.S. and EU policies, hunger is the bottom line for millions of poor people in developing countries.
The opinions held by the U.S. government and the European Union on food safety issues affect developing countries through restrictive agricultural trade policies and agreements. Conflict between the two economic superpowers further dampens market prospects for poor countries. As Wilberforce Kisamba-Mugerwa of Uganda pointed out, conflicts and obstacles stemming from different perceptions of food safety "remain one of the major constraints to [achieving] food security and maximizing the benefits of free trade" in the global economy. Noting that the session's title rightly reflected the issues that needed to be at the center of a global effort to address and resolve such disputes, Renate Kuenast added that doing so now was vital because of the upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, in September. Esther Brimmer, Deputy Director and Director of Research at the SAIS Center for Transatlantic Relations commented that food safety issues had been politicized, making them more difficult to talk about. "It is harder to discuss these issues because of the rawness of the political sensitivity, but it's also very important because of the value of cultural choices." Lester Crawford emphasized that politicization had in fact caused the conflict of understanding in the first place. In light of this, he emphasized the importance of the World Economic Forum and other events that gather together national leaders, academicians, venture capitalists, and other stakeholders. "Even if they don't reach consensus," he remarked, at least "they are discussing the issues." Furthermore, Crawford declared the need for a science summit to serve as a forum for continuing discussions. Though everyone recognized that talking was the first step, some panelists argued that there was an urgent need for consensus on some issues. We all need to agree that "there can be no compromise on food safety," noted Lorenzo. "Ambiguity in international agreements…must be clarified." Kisamba-Mugerwa illustrated the problem his country faces when food safety standards differ. "We sell a lot of things to Europe, but we apply the technology from America." Beyond reaching consensus on food safety issues, Kisamba-Mugerwa pointed out the need to build capacity in developing countries in the field of biotechnology. Several other participants concurred, though Lorenzo added that each country had to define capacity building for itself. Walter Ruiz noted that developed countries should not lose sight of the needs of the smaller developing countries. Panelists agreed that all parties must continue efforts to reach consensus if problems of food safety, food security, and trade are to be resolved. Rodney Brown stressed the importance of taking a long-term view to reach accord. Renate Kuenast agreed, adding that the WTO meetings in Cancun would be only one step toward resolving conflict. Another critical step, panelists felt, would be to help developing countries build the capacity to fully address food safety issues. IFPRI and its 2020 Vision Initiative will soon be releasing a set of briefs on food safety issues. |
|
|
TOP of the page
|