There are many challenges involved in creating international trade agreements in today’s world. Part of the challenge when it comes to Europe is an almost complete lack of groundwork.
Philip Seng, previously of the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF), spent more than 40 years working internationally for U.S. beef trade. He told WLJ that one of the things that made the USMEF so successful in negotiations with Japan and other markets back in the 1980s was having an active presence in those countries.
“We talked to people and told them why doing this deal would be in their interest. People usually don’t vote against their own interests,” he explained.
“Like football, you don’t just have an air attack; you also need a ground game. We worked with the trade industry, with key opinion leaders, the press, cooking schools, importers, restaurants, and politicians; we covered the whole gamut.”
Seng explained that Europe became increasingly difficult to do business with by the 1990s. Then, after China joined the World Trade Organization, the U.S. started closing Agricultural Trade Offices (ATOs) in various European countries and moved those offices to China. Europe effectively got left behind on U.S. meat trade.
“It’s not just the ATOs that make us successful; it’s what an ATO means as a visible presence. If we don’t have a presence on the ground, like we did during the 1980s in Japan, it becomes more difficult,” he said, advocating for a renewed effort in Europe to lay the groundwork for trade relationships.
“We need to start doing that again, in a concerted campaign. We need someone extolling our science or risk assessment and the U.S. model of agriculture. This is something the industry needs to look at. We can’t just list a bunch of ideas or objectives for these negotiations. We need a strategy to accomplish these objectives in the market as well as a strategy in the U.S.”
More trade questions
The European philosophy is a precautionary approach to food safety. Seng said that, from a scientific standpoint, the UK is probably one of the most amenable to discussing science and standards going forward. But he stressed the British still have a different mindset on food than Americans.
“One of our primary negotiating objectives with the EU and also with the UK would be to have a conformity assessment system—a rapid acceptance of our standards, concurrent with their standards and vice versa. We’d accept their standards if they’ve gone through the rigor of a good scientific exam, and they would accept ours if they’ve gone through a rigorous exam or review,” he said.
It’s easy for our beef industry to become very excited about trade potential, since the UK imports 51 percent of their total caloric intake, but it’s not that simple.
“Their former agricultural minister, Michael Gove, has already said that in any negotiation going forward, they will adhere to the EU standards and principals,” Seng reported.
“This is going to be a very difficult pull. We don’t have the kind of presence in Europe anymore that we had during the 1980s and that’s a challenge. We’ve moved all our focus toward China. I am not saying that was the wrong decision, but when we left Europe the Europeans knew we’d left. When you close offices, it sends a signal. Now suddenly we are preparing once again to go back into Europe, but have we done the work with the press, the academics, etc., to create positive momentum for our objectives in the market? We’ve lost ground and we need to get it back,” he said.
Some of the things we do routinely in this country to assure food safety are not yet accepted in the EU or UK.
“Everyone says that the EU has to accept our sound science, but the key is that we need to have accepted science. That means we need to do a better job of communicating the benefits of science, technology or whatever we are doing, so people can understand that it actually is in their own interests.”
In summary, there’s a saying that adversity introduces us to ourselves.
“As the U.S. proceeds with the UK and the EU, we should really get to know ourselves and our closest allies much better than ever before. The politics of trade are as intense as they have always been, and they are intense on both sides because politics—and trade politics—always involve votes. This is why it becomes so divisive,” said Seng.
“It takes inspired leadership to find common ground to find the common good, so we all can enjoy common wealth.” — Heather Smith Thomas, WLJ correspondent
