Consumer Concerns and International Trade - the First Meeting of a Transatlantic Platform, June 15-17, 2000, Lelystad, The Netherlands

Volkert Beekman, Centre for Bio-ethics and Health Law, Utrecht University

The Transatlantic Platform for Consumer Concerns and International Trade held its First Meeting in Lelystad, The Netherlands on June 15-17, 2000. The European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EurSafe) initiated this Platform to stimulate and facilitate a transatlantic and multidisciplinary debate on a reconciliation of sincere respect for concerns about food among consumers and further liberalisation of international trade in prospective negotiations in the WTO (World Trade Organisation).

Caren A. Wilcox (Deputy under-secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture) was so kind to open the Meeting. Her inspiring introductory words set the stage for the two subsequent thought-provoking presentations. First, Lester M. Crawford (Georgetown University, United States) forcefully argued the case for an improved scientific risk assessment to abate prevailing consumer concerns about GM-food. Second, Christophe Bureau (INRA, France) explored the outer limits of neo-classical economics to argue that consumer concerns about animal welfare cannot justify the imposition of restrictive government interventions on livestock farmers. He provokingly asked the audience: "What on earth could justify such interventions, if consumers show no willingness to pay for animal-friendly products?" Both presentations promised lively discussions in the remainder of the Meeting and already identified some of the key issues in these discussions:

1) The relation between scientific risk assessment and public or private decision-making about food safety;

2) The behavioural ambiguity in people’s respective roles as citizens and consumers;

3) The role of civil society organisations in the establishment of representative or direct democratic procedures in international institutions.

Contrary to popular prejudice, the Meeting saw no great divide between the European and the American participants. It simply does not seem to be true that all people in Europe worry about, for instance, GM-food, whereas Americans couldn’t care less. The heterogeneity of food concerns and values within each of the two continents is at least as great as between both sides of the Atlantic. However, the ‘Battle of Seattle’ did signal a difference between the European Union and the United States in their answer to the question of how governments should respond to this plurality of consumer concerns about food.

The 'Battle of Seattle' probably needs a double explanation. First, the international institutional arrangements of today were constructed to address the issues of yesterday; i.e. they are still the expression of the cold war order. Nowadays, these arrangements seem terribly outdated since they, for instance, quite systematically exclude full participation by developing countries, don’t allow room for democratic procedures, ignore possible contributions by civil society organisations, and favour the interests of large multinational corporations. The WTO and other international organisations thus ignore that globalisation involves more than the economic unification of markets.

Second, the almost exclusive focus on food safety issues obscures that food consumption is more than finding safe and efficient ways to organise the daily human intake of nutrients. Food consumption is embedded in a wide range of socio-cultural practices and routines that shape people’s daily lives. Therefore, discussions about consumer concerns should always include this socio-cultural constitution of food consumption. Why? Because, as one of the French participants nicely expressed it, "in Denmark good food is clean, whereas in France it is a little dirty".

It may not be easy to deal with the globalising threats for people’s food-mediated cultural identities. However, this only adds another reason for the development of a set of criteria that should serve to protect these identities. On the other hand, why should French farmers and their communities be protected in their wish to produce and sell certain types of cheese? What’s wrong with a global McDonaldisation of food cultures? How does one distinguish between sincere consumer concerns and veiled trade restrictions, when it is obvious that governments make strategic use of the precautionary principle and animal welfare standards?

The discussion about these and other issues during the First Meeting will provide the materials for drawing an extensive agenda with research topics and future activities of the Transatlantic Platform.

More Information:

Volkert Beekman
Project Assistant Consumer Concerns & International Trade
European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics
Centre for Bio-ethics and Health Law
Utrecht University
Heidelberglaan 2
3484 CS Utrecht
The Netherlands

Phone + 31 30 2534399
Fax + 31 30 2539410
e-mail:v.beekman@theo.uu.nl