Dr. Alfonso A. Gardea, Professor and Ex General Director of CIAD, Mexico (Gardea@ciad.mx), February 2009.
According to FAO officials the 2007 food crisis escalated the number of undernourished people to a peak high of 923 million, worldwide. Furthermore, estimates consider that food production must doubles by 2050 in order to secure food for a planet population of nine billion.
At the same time, the current financial crisis facing developed countries at present, is taking a heavy toll in their productive structure, since credit problems prevent growers to borrow money to expand or even maintain their current levels, affecting their export capacity and therefore food availability. From the consumer standpoint, it is expected that a shift in people preferences will lean towards less expensive items. If so, commercial exchanges will be severely affected.
The agribusiness commercial exchange between Mexico and the US has gone through deep changes since the establishment of NAFTA in 1994. At the beginning, such exchange meant a deficit for Mexico in the order of 477 M US Dlls, but 2002 closed with an increased deficit of 1,459 M US Dlls, for an accumulated total of 4,685 M US Dlls for the whole period. Under such scenario the most significant exports have concentrated in few produces. Current figures show an even more drastic scenario.
In a parallel story, the current financial crisis affecting the US economy is resulting in unprecedented budget cuts that will cause profound changes in government expenditures, and most agencies, if not all, will see their capabilities reduced, while other financial strategies are intended to increase jobs and support a steady return to previous economic standards, through a series of economic stimulus packages. Such condition prevailed in most of the world and was worsened by the current use of grains for biofuels. China was an exception due to the precautionary measures they established, and as today, China can feed itself and even export certain amounts of food. Although any problem affecting their food supply will result in an aggravated crisis worldwide. Should recent urbanization trends maintain the same rates in China, farmland shortage will inevitably lead to food shortages, which in turn will affect food global availability and security. Farmland use for biofuel production elsewhere will cause the same effect, while increases in fertilizers cost only aggravate this condition. So far the situation from the food security standpoint was addressed as affected by the food and the economic crisis, as well as their interaction. Food safety on the other hand may result as an effect of the above. Food safety being a key component of any product exchange may become jeopardized if regulatory agencies do not have the economic means to strengthen their activities. Even if consumer purchase capacities are diminished, assurance of safe produce should still score high in public health priorities.
In the US, in 2008 alone, serious health problems were caused by Salmonella infected hot peppers, and the largest beef recall ever recorded hit that industry strongly; while at present, the Salmonella outbreak in peanut butter products is causing an uneasy situation for a big segment of the food industry, aggravated by the fact that, according to FDA reports, the processing plant knew long in advance that problems along processing could result in consumers health risks. Ever since September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, careful guidelines were devised to face menaces like those and significant advances were made; however a 25 % cut in federal funds has already caused serious limitations to protect the American consumer. This is determinant for commercial exchange, since food imports are regulated under such rules, not to mention that timelines are extraordinarily important when dealing with perishable products. According to a joint report by Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) found among other key issues that ¨in addition to the federal decreases, 11 states and D.C. cut their public health budgets in the past year. In the coming year, 33 states are facing shortfalls in their 2009 budgets and 16 states are already projecting shortfalls to their 2010 budgets. Twenty states and D.C. did not meet or exceed the national average rate for being able to identify the pathogens responsible for foodborne disease outbreaks¨.
In short, budget cuts in the US may affect dramatically the guidelines for produce exports towards that market and most likely stringent control measurements will be established affecting profit margins.
Turning our attention to the situation for Mexican exporters and consumers alike, we can foresee that safety rules for our exports will become even tighter, which is understandable since the bottom line for US agencies is protecting the health of their consumers. However, the unavoidable question is who will pay for the costs associated for implementing measures to achieve access to that market? Although Mexican officials announced that our economy was strongly armored, past experiences do not support that claim, and even more, recent statements proved otherwise. Mexico federal budget faces strong cuts as well, adding to the effects of the world crisis, we must consider falling oil prices and significant reductions in dollars remitted by Mexicans working in the US. Added conditions that will result in a deficit budget affecting all activities sponsored by federal money.
While stimulus packages are being designed in the US to foster their economy, we still have to find out what will be implemented by the Mexican counterparts. Nonetheless, big expectations are out of order.
Clear and strict guidelines for food imports should be established to protect the health of Mexican consumers as well. Although, seemingly logical, there is always room for surprises, like the abolishment by Mexican officials of microbial analysis for beef product imports, on the grounds that ¨no violations are found on a regular basis¨. Taking as an example the past melamine scandal in Chinese milk and milk products, three officials are facing sentences, one for life in prison and two by death. Indeed a strong punishment for negligence! Is it necessary to relay in such extreme measures? Hopefully not, but consumer health safeguard should be a top priority for all parties involved, and not pretending that problems should be resolved solely on growers pocket. We -producers, distributors, retailers and consumers, taxpayers all, regardless of the side of the border we live in- deserve the best choice our money can buy, and our governments have the responsibility to assure that the proper conditions are met. At the end that is why we elect them and pay them for. Yet, resilience from our own experiences seems to oblige.