metal tasting noodles-Aluminum!

Weird Science

Posted on April 5, 2012

It’s our reaction to science that is weird. Modern societies seem to distrust science and prefer to rely on gut feelings, especially if the science disagrees with pre-conceived notions. And especially if the science conflicts with the trade protection that governments wish to provide favored industries.

Typical WTO meeting

The WTO’s Committee on Sanitary & Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) met last week in Geneva – with some disturbing results. The WTO press release I have linked to has to be non-prejudicial, but it is clear that there are a lot of countries that are putting on trade restrictions, using the excuse they are necessary for health and safety, but which have little or no scientific justification. An unusual joint complaint about non-science-based trade barriers came from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines and the United States – and it picked up additional support from Mexico, South Africa and the European Union.

“The increase in the number of SPS measures that are not based on international standards, guidelines and recommendations or that have inadequate scientific justification is a point of concern readily raised … These measures often unduly restrict trade and appear to be associated with objectives that are not deemed as legitimate under international trade rules.”

- joint paper submitted by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines and the United States

Let’s get into some of the specific complaints:

Indonesian port closures. The United States, backed by the EU, Australia, Chile, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, questioned Jakarta’s plan to close four major ports to imported shipments of fruit and vegetables. The United States and New Zealand say this will close off 90% of Indonesia’s fruit and vegetable imports. Jakarta says it has to close the four main ports because it has insufficient laboratory facilities at those ports to look for “threats found in imported products”. The threats are not specified, no increase in health problems has been noted, nor has construction of new lab facilities been announced.

China’s food additive tests. India asked questions about China’s new testing methods to discover the ingredients of food additives. India says the new tests do not conform to any known international standard. The Chinese delegation said they’ll get back to us.

EU standards for aluminum in pasta. I knew that spaghetti wasn’t al dente. China complained that the European Union has set its standards too high for aluminum content in flour products, including noodles. Aluminum can apparently be naturally present in flour, so Brussels has set a content limit of 10mg/kg. Chinese noodles apparently have 50mg/kg, so Beijing says that the EU is discriminating against China. If your penne tastes metallic …

Taiwan’s ban on ractopamine. The United States, Canada and Brazil say that Taipei’s embargo on pork and beef containing ractopamine ignores findings by the Food & Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization that the growth agent is safe for humans. That said, a proposed international standard for ractopamine content is still being debated in the FAO and the WHO.

EU regulation on novel foods. Brussels has for years had restrictions on importing so-called “novel foods”. These are foods that may have been consumed elsewhere for centuries, but that are new to Europe. Peru, backed by Cuba, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Paraguay, is leading the charge to loosen European limits on their food exports.

Chinese standard for methanol in alcoholic beverages. Beijing is considering a new maximum limit on methanol alcohol in distilled spirits not made from grain. Mexico, worried that the limit may be used to embargo Chinese imports of tequila, is raising questions about the scientific basis of the Chinese proposal.

U.S. and EU standards on pesticide in rice. India raised issues with numerous European limits on pesticide residues and with a specific U.S. limit on the amount of the pesticide tricyclazole that can remain in Basmati rice. The Indians argued that the residues in both big markets are not based on scientific findings.

Argentina’s restriction on book imports. Argentina, seemingly insanely, is stopping imports of books if they haven’t been tested for the lead content of their ink. Seems they are worried about people who lick their fingers while reading. This isn’t a formal WTO case yet, but a new restriction spotted by one of our readers, a fellow trade blogger. Check out Tread The Middle Path.

These are just the latest cases. The WTO says that 331 complaints have been brought to the SPS Committee since it was founded in 1995. The peak was in 2002 when there were 43 cases, so we are some better off today. There were only 16 new cases in 2011. Many of the 331 complaints have been resolved and most never hit the headlines, but – just from the newer complaints above – you can see that these can be contentious.

The language of the WTO, the GATT before it, and the WTO’s SPS Agreement all say that members have the right to protect the health and safety of their citizens. But they also say that this is not an excuse to install trade barriers without scientific basis. A fine line to walk