British-American Trade Deal Raises Questions About U.K. Food Standards \ stacker news ~econ

President Donald Trump announced a new trade deal between the United States and United Kingdom on Thursday that would drop certain trade barriers between the two countries. Though the details are still fuzzy, some of the main industries involved are agriculture, the auto industry, and steel and aluminum.

“The deal includes billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all of the products produced by our great farmers,” said President Trump. “This is going to boost trade between and across our countries,” said Prime Minister Keir Starmer. “It’s going to not only protect jobs, but create jobs, opening market access.”

The optimism being projected by the two leaders was quickly dampened when the details of the deal were examined. One question in particular became central to the conversation: how will this impact the U.K.’s food safety standards, which are more stringent than America’s and have historically been a barrier to importing American agricultural products? …

One final item that’s worth noting is that quality and safety standards act as a form of economic protectionism. As economist Murray Rothbard wrotes in Power & Market, “Another use of ‘safety regulations’ is to prevent geographic competition, i.e., to keep consumers from buying goods from efficient producers located in other geographical areas.” With this in mind, a cynical observer might be tempted to attribute the United Kingdom’s more rigorous standards to a relatively more powerful agricultural lobby, seeing as the domestic agriculture industry reaps financial benefits in proportion to the strictness of the standards.

But wouldn’t food become incredibly dangerous in the absence of government-mandated safety standards? Not at all. Voluntary certification agencies would almost certainly step in to provide assurances of quality and safety, just as they already do for thousands of other products.

The freedom to choose our own food should not scare us. What should scare us is politicians who want to tell us what we can and can’t eat.

I think that RFKjr is approaching this from the other side of the equation, too. He is bringing the US standards more in line with the stricter EU standards for foodstuffs. It is true that we should be able to decide what we will eat and not eat, but for that we need to know more than that some chemical is GRAS, when there have been no tests on it other than by the manufacturer! Perhaps opening up both the state and the companies to the possibility of some huge rewards in tort cases would help matters. The companies could self-police their products if they want to remain in business, or, conversely, use an independent certified, like UL (for electric and electronic products) but, in any case, accept responsibility for whatever they create for us to eat. However, the Brits seem to be using their standards as a protection device for their agricultural industry, aren’t they? Are we breaking down those barriers?

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 9h

opening up both the state and the companies to the possibility of some huge rewards in tort cases would help matters

Exactly what I've been saying. If you're selling something as food and you're including poison in the ingredients, that should come with giant liability, especially if they know the risks and aren't disclosing them to the consumers.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 9h

Yes, I also think that pharmaceuticals and every other good should be market regulated by the people buying the goods. I can’t wait to see the Big Pharma vaccine companies reap what they had sewn. However, I think they may be able to escape their responsibility by declaring it was the DoD that ”marketed” the jabs, not them and they were working directly under orders. If they do that, I hope they get Neuremberged good and hard. A few hangings and firing squads may straighten out their thinking processes! What do you think?

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Jerrian_thedeep 10h

Food safety or protectionism, UK standards may guard consumers but they also guard markets. Voluntary certs and tort law could replace bloated regs if there’s real accountability. The goal isn’t fewer rules it’s smarter ones that serve people, not politics.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 9h

Perhaps the UK has too much crony capitalism going on. Just look at what Gates is getting for his efforts with Starmer!! What a deal for the UK!!

I like the saying Stuck Farmer. I guess the Brits are finally figuring out the Uni-state. I look forward to Farage getting the nod, but when will he get it, after the collapse of everything good? Or before?