While
governments are unquestionably obliged to promote their economies and the businesses
on which they depend, there are few lines drawn and many seem to think that
bullying tactics and threats are more effective than talking sense and reaching
agreements. Bernice Hurst takes a frank look at globalisation, protectionism
and consumer behaviour in the food sector.
Canadians wanted the US ban on their beef lifted even though they had no idea
where the single BSE-infected cow they discovered during summer 2003 came from
or went to and in spite of being unable to guarantee that the disease isn’t
quietly spreading as they protest their cleanliness. Who can blame Canada for
worrying about the suffering of its meat market after what happened to the British
just a few short years ago?
Go deeper with GlobalData
Nor has there yet been resolution of the threats being made by the United States against the European Union for demanding that food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be labelled. Non-labelling is essential from the American perspective as European consumers are refusing to buy products with GMOs. Therefore, supermarkets are refusing to stock them and the only way to get American products on European shelves is not to admit anything about what’s in them or where they came from.
So far, the Americans have managed to prevent their own Country of Origin Labelling
(COOL) laws from being implemented, primarily by telling customers that they
will have to pay for the privilege of being informed by watching the cost of
their food increase.
Do consumers really care?
The extent to which consumers care is highly debatable. Many would say that
they prefer to support home producers and discourage vast sums of money being
spent on the fuel required to ship food from one country to another. Surveys
in both the US and UK during summer 2003, however, revealed that the more consumers
learned about GMOs, the less anxious they were to consume them.
Arguments also rage about geographic indications. Both USA Today and the New York Times have come out against fanatic Europeans who want to deprive multinationals of the right to use certain names for their products.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThey cite the millions of marketing dollars spent to promote Kraft parmesan
cheese, but omit to say that, over time, technology and methods of mass production
have transmogrified the original product. There is little or no resemblance
between the contents of Kraft’s little green cans and the wheels of Parmigiano
Reggiano from Italy. Which is not to say that Kraft’s fans wouldn’t prefer it
to the more traditional cheese, simply that it is different, rendering the fight
to use the same name meaningless and redundant. At the same time, USA Today
admits that “demand for European wines, speciality drinks and gourmet goods
has skyrocketed.” Price doesn’t always matter.
Catfish a case in point
The US wants the world to buy whatever it chooses to sell while simultaneously
resisting requirements to reciprocate. American catfish farmers have forced
the Vietnamese to change the name of the species it wants to export and then
imposed trade restrictions so stringent that Vietnam can’t compete in any event.
Meanwhile, Louisiana shrimpers claim their livelihood is being destroyed by
cheap imports from South East Asia where multinational corporations have created
farms that have changed the environment, perhaps forever. Is the American government
more right when it fights the Vietnamese or when it encourages its own manufacturers
to set up shop abroad, where labour and production costs are lower?
Semantics rule, OK?
Perhaps the European Union (EU) is more right than anyone when it bans individual
members from promoting their own products in their own, home, markets on the
basis of nationality alone. British territorial cheeses are acceptable worldwide
on the basis that they come from a specific area of the country but cannot be
promoted within the boundaries of the UK as better than French or German or
Italian cheeses.
British Food Fortnight held events across the UK in September 2003 to promote some of the tastiest food the country has on offer. There are no EU regulations against raising awareness of the quality of home-produced foods. Food from Britain (FFB), the government- and industry-sponsored organisation charged with helping to develop local and regional food producers, organised tastings and channelled much of its contribution through the Guild of Fine Food Retailers. What it could not do was to be seen overtly to say that British was Best. Abiding by EU regulations means that any officially sponsored British promotions must not use that adjective but, rather, focus on local and regional assets.
According to research association Mintel, half of British consumers try to buy British when shopping for meat, three in ten would buy more British produce if it were available and 13% actually object to having to buy imported fruit and vegetables. As with organic food, however, price is frequently an issue. What people say they will do and what they actually do, depends on how much cash they have available. Individual purchasing choices are inevitably determined by individual economic circumstances.
American publication Industry Week focused on this issue in its September 2003 edition. Strategic planning consultant Jim Altfeld, whose concerns focus on the exodus of manufacturing from the United States, believes that “with the consumer it is strictly price and they’re not going to pay more if it’s American made.” Citing Wal-Mart’s position as the largest employer in the country, the article maintains that the company’s “deep-discount prices also give consumers a greater ability to purchase goods, thereby creating more wealth…And so, Wal-Mart represents both the good, and the bad, of global capitalism,” they conclude.
This perfectly summarises the dilemma. Wal-Mart sources and buys the cheapest
possible goods, importing them from whatever country needs be then sells them
at prices low enough for their own low-paid employees to afford. Everyone earns,
everyone spends, everyone is happy. Nationalism and protectionism converge.
