The NYT polls its readers whether they believe that recent revelations of lax enforcement by the Chinese government of basic food safety regulations means that we need a "food safety agreement with China."
The question, and the readers' responses fail to recognize two basic facts:
1. The U.S. already has a "food safety agrement" with China. It is called the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. This agreement gives the United States the full legal right to prohibit imports of food products that are harmful to human health. It does, however, provide some basic guidelines about how the U.S. can do so.
2. The issue is not about rules--the issue is the cost of enforcing the rules. This could be done at the border through statistically-based samples or it could be done at the place of production by having inspectors on site. The former does not require any bilateral agreement of any kind--it merely requires us to pay the cost of hiring more inspectors.
In the mean time, private industry is taking some initiative here--and no surprise as they stand to be the big losers from dangerous products.
IPE @ UNC
IPE@UNC is a group blog maintained by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed on these pages are our own, and have nothing to do with UNC.
Bookshelf
Tags
Academia Adjustment Afghanistan Africa AIG America Argentina Austerity Bailout Banking Bargaining Basel Bernanke Bias Blogging Business cycle; recession; financial crisis Cap and Trade capital controls capital flows central banks; moral hazard Chavez China China Trade Climate Change Contentious Politics Cuba Currencies Currency Crises; financial crisis Current Account Data Debt Debt; China; United States; Decession Politics Decoupling Deflation democracy Democrats; Trade policy development Diplomacy Dollar; China; Currency Manipulation; Exchange Rates dollar; exchange rate policy ECB ECB; Fed; Monetary Policy Economic Growth Economics Egypt election EMU; monetary union Environment EU; Agriculture; Common Agricultural Policy Euro Europe; labor; immigration European Union Exchange Rates Farm Bill; Agriculture FDI Fed; Monetary Policy finance financial crisis financial crisis; subprime Fiscal Policy; monetary policy; elections Fiscal Stimulus Foreign Aid Foreign Policy France Free Trade Agreements G-20 G20 Summit Game Theory Germany global recession globalization Grand Theory Great Britain Greece health care reform Hegemony Human Rights Iceland imbalance IMF immigration Incentives income distribution income inequality; globalization India Inequality inflation institutions Interests international finance International Law International Monetary System International Relations Investment IPE Iran Iraq Ireland ISA Italy Japan labor markets Latin America Libya Macroeconomics Marxism Mexico Microfinance Miscellany monetary policy Monetary policy; Federal Reserve moral hazard Narcissism Networks Nobelist Smackdown North Korea Obama Oil PIGS Pirates Political Economy Political Methodology Political Science Political Survival Political Theory Power Protectionism Protests Public Choice Public opinion Rational Choice regulation Research Review Russia Sanctions Security Dilemma security threats Soccer Social Science Sovereign Debt Spain Sports Statistics stock markets Systems Tariffs TARP Taxes TBTF Technocracy technology terrorism Trade trade policy UNC Unemployment United States US-South Korea Venezuela WTO WTO; Doha
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Trade May Be Hazardous to Your Health?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment