An international food fight between the United States and China has been brewing since American officials placed an 'import alert' on Chinese toothpaste. Spurred by extensive media coverage of several incidents, including the recall of over 150 brands of contaminated pet food, US and Chinese officials are actively reviewing oversight and safety mechanisms that govern bilateral trade in foodstuffs and medicines. These incidents have brought into question the quality of Chinese exports, raising concerns that a sharp increase in food imports from the mainland, and the limited capacity of US regulators to adequately monitor the massive import tide, places American consumers at risk. In the pet food contamination case, fortunately, the motive of the offending mainland companies was profit, not harming Americans. Regardless, the response to the incident reveals that the US food-monitoring system is functional and living up to commitments established in The Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. However, the US response to high levels of a dangerous chemical in Chinese toothpaste drew criticism from mainland officials, who called it 'self-contradictory'. The subsequent holding of US and European food products shipped to the mainland has raised questions about whether Chinese authorities are retaliating or seeking to divert attention. The US food defence system is not designed to prevent 100 per cent of adulterated foodstuffs entering the country. Testing all products would pose an unacceptable cost to industry, consumers and taxpayers. However, a system is in place to rapidly identify problems, trace products and processors, and recall products from the market to protect the population. The US system is being challenged as China becomes increasingly integrated with the rest of the world. Globalisation means greater access to world markets for Chinese farmers, including hundreds of thousands of rural cottage enterprises engaged in food processing, fish farming and animal husbandry. The central government faces significant challenges in assuring safe food production among small producers. Additionally, corruption has dogged the State Food and Drug Administration since its inception. The founding director and numerous officials have been convicted of, among other things, selling 'Good Manufacturing Practice' licences. The mainland also lacks elements which contribute to a relatively safe food-processing environment in the US, including a free media, a strong product-liability law and an independent legal system which protects the interests of the consumer over those of local governments and industry. Perhaps most importantly, the mainland does not have a robust civil society that represents and educates food processors, or 'consumer watchdogs'. The pet food recall can be viewed as a test of the US food defence system. The US Food and Drug Administration, Department of Agriculture and customs demonstrated that they were capable of carrying out their responsibilities under the Bioterrorism Act. That is, they were able to track and monitor food processing, including the registration of food and animal feed facilities and the maintenance of records that enable authorities to detect and detain suspect shipments. The US food defence system is a risk-based system, where resources are focused on products perceived to be the greatest risk. While Chinese producers do not pose a significant agro-terror risk, counterfeiting, pollution, overuse of pesticides and industry practices - such as the widespread use of antibiotics and hormones in animal husbandry and fish farming - should raise concerns, but not panic. Preventing future incidents will require working with the mainland authorities and processors, as well as US importers. The Chinese government has expressed its desire to improve food safety and demonstrated its commitment by working closely with the US Food and Drug Administration to investigate the two companies which caused the pet food contamination incident. However, responses to the toothpaste case illustrate divergent doctrines and a lack of understanding of each others' regulatory systems. To improve the situation, Washington should continue to actively engage Beijing, providing technical support and maintaining a dialogue on global health-governance issues within the structure of the two countries' strategic dialogues. For better food and drug safety, America can share its experiences and encourage greater involvement of Chinese non-governmental organisations in the sector. Both countries can jointly develop and fund innovative initiatives, such as training and awareness programmes for small processors, building knowledge of international standards and increasing willingness to voluntarily follow safe production techniques, a role to which NGOs are well-suited. Meanwhile, Beijing could consider a small tax on foodstuffs, channelling proceeds to regulate and educate the food processing industry. The US government can share its experience of inventorying North American facilities and handling chains. Dialogue could focus on mainland officials to help improve policy, foster better understanding of international requirements, share technologies and improve product traceability. Most importantly, the US response to the recent cases should not seek to limit trade. Both sides desire access to each others' market. Working together to improve quality and safety at the source is as valuable as having effective systems in place to identify problems and quickly take effective measures. Drew Thompson is the director of China Studies and Starr senior fellow at The Nixon Centre in Washington
