|
|
Opinion & Comment: Developing standards for fairer trade
Posted by: JimEdwards on Oct 03, 2004 - 01:06 PM
Information
|
The Vet Record COMMENT 2nd October 2004
 At a time when the world seems to be becoming more divided, and the gap between rich and poor countries is getting wider, an article in this issue deserves attention. On pp 429-433, Dr Gavin Thomson and colleagues argue for a fairer system of international trade, in which the animal health and food safety standards governing trade in livestock and livestock products are based on an assessment of the risk posed by the products, rather than the disease status of the countries wanting to export those products, as is currently the case.
Any movement of livestock or their products carries the risk of spreading disease, and the existing standards aim to facilitate trade while keeping those risks to a minimum. The current arrangements are largely based on the principle that, in order to trade safely with other countries, countries must eradicate important specified ‘transboundary animal diseases’. The idea is that this reduces the risk to the importing country: if a country does not have a disease, it cannot export it. However, as Dr Thomson and his colleagues argue, the system is not foolproof. It also places many countries at a disadvantage because there is little prospect of their being able to eradicate the specified diseases. This, effectively, excludes them from world markets.
Read more ...
Any changes that significantly increase the risk of disease being spread through trade in animals and their products would be unacceptable, particularly at a time when concerns about food safety and zoonotic risks are growing. However, the authors argue that there is considerable scope for developing a commodity-based system which would be more equitable in terms of trade without increasing the risk of disease. They point out that freedom from dangerous infections is not necessarily a prerequisite for countries to trade safely in some livestock commodities, and that some products pose little risk irrespective of the occurrence of the transboundary animal diseases in the country of origin. They also point out that, for some commodities, the animal disease situation in the region of origin has less influence on the biological safety of the product than the fact that the animals from which it was derived were healthy at the time of slaughter, and the hygiene measures applied at the abattoir and packaging plant. This, clearly, is not true for all commodities, and for live animals the disease situation in the area of origin is vital in determining the risk.
The point is that the nature of the commodity largely defines the risks posed – and, as a result, management of those risks is largely dependent on the nature of the commodity. The authors suggest that, for countries in developing regions around the world, a commodity-based approach to risk management would be a pragmatic way of ensuring acceptable levels of risk for particular products without having to prove freedom from disease. This would provide opportunities for trade and generating income, without threatening the importing countries with disease.
A problem for developing countries is that new agricultural products are often exported at low prices, to be processed elsewhere, where relatively high value is added to the processed product. The authors point out that, for livestock products, well organised and regulated processing of commodities in the country of origin would enable that country to benefit from that added value and, at the same time, reduce the risk of pathogens being exported.
None of this is to suggest that efforts should not continue to be made to eradicate or prevent the establishment of disease, or that attempts should not be made to establish infection-free zones where possible. Indeed, it could be argued that, in the long term, a commodity-based approach to animal health and food safety standards could assist in those efforts, in that some of the income generated could be invested locally in disease eradication programmes.
The approach proposed will present challenges in terms of certification, in that the composite risk posed by different commodities will have to be assessed and managed to the extent that importing countries can be convinced that the risks are acceptable. The situation will be complicated by the fact that different commodities pose very different levels of risk, but the authors argue that the challenges are not insurmountable. They suggest that appropriate standards could be developed by the Office International des Epizooties and the Codex Alimentarius, with certification being devolved to bodies affiliated to international standards organisations specialising in certification.
International trade is a complex issue and, as the authors point out, animal and public health concerns are by no means the only factors inhibiting trade in livestock and livestock products. The system they propose would require a fairly fundamental change in approach but, nevertheless, the proposal has the potential to facilitate trade, and to allow developing countries better access to international markets. It deserves to be considered seriously.
|
|
|
