`Trade Commission Report Fails to Consider Latest E.U. Measures - Olive Oil Times

Trade Commission Report Fails to Consider Latest E.U. Measures

Sep. 30, 2013
Virginia Brown Keyder

Recent News


The USITC report on Competition between U.S. and Major Foreign Supplier Industries,’ notably the EU, pro­vides a wealth of infor­ma­tion, although for seri­ous researchers it would have been more help­ful if the vast major­ity of this infor­ma­tion had not been sourced from tele­phone calls and emails with unnamed inter­locu­tors. Similarly, it takes lit­tle note of either major leg­isla­tive changes in the EU that will take full effect by the end of 2014, or the rise of what may well prove to be a major sup­plier to the world mar­ket, namely India, who, with the help of Israeli invest­ment and tech­nol­ogy and low labor costs is slated to put its oil on the mar­ket for the first time in the com­ing sea­son.

As is often the case with gov­ern­ment reports, one hand is pay­ing no atten­tion to what the other hand is doing. This Report needs to be read with the back­drop of the ongo­ing nego­ti­a­tions between the US and the EU, set to resume for a sec­ond ses­sion next week, towards a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Cries for gov­ern­ment help after a wrong-footed and highly spec­u­la­tive invest­ment

Central to US goals in these nego­ti­a­tions are: wide­spread dereg­u­la­tion; insti­tu­tion­al­iza­tion of cor­po­rate law­suits against states that take leg­isla­tive actions that have the pos­si­bil­ity of reduc­ing prof­its of for­eign investors, and min­i­miza­tion of the effects of the EU sys­tem of pro­tect­ing reg­is­tered des­ig­na­tions of ori­gin (PDO’s).

Labyrinthine leg­isla­tive pro­pos­als like those sug­gested in the Report (which some see as cries for gov­ern­ment help after a wrong-footed and highly spec­u­la­tive invest­ment) will only expose a hypocrisy that can­not but weaken the US posi­tion in those nego­ti­a­tions. In fact, a report on growth and jobs issued jointly by the EU and the US ear­lier this year talks specif­i­cally about reduc­ing redun­dant and bur­den­some test­ing and cer­ti­fi­ca­tion require­ments.”


What the USITC Report does elu­ci­date is the fun­da­men­tal dif­fer­ence between California pro­duc­ers, who report­edly have bor­rowed large sums of money in order to ren­der what is essen­tially gen­tle­men farm­ing prof­itable by emit­ting plain­tive cries for the iconic level play­ing field,” and tra­di­tional European pro­duc­ers — by and large small landown­ers to whom bank loans are often unavail­able, and who have often been pro­duc­ing for gen­er­a­tions. Like many agri­cul­tural sec­tors across Europe, these farm­ers rely on EU funds to main­tain their liveli­hood, sup­port rural devel­op­ment, ensure food secu­rity and pro­tect the land against ero­sion. These are not goals that the EU will, or can, aban­don.

Notable for its absence in the Report are the exten­sive leg­isla­tive mea­sures that the EU has taken over the past three years to ensure the qual­ity, purity and trace­abil­ity of its olive oils. These mea­sures will be enforced at the national level and their prime ben­e­fi­cia­ries will be pro­duc­ers of high qual­ity oil. Consumers will be made aware through promi­nent label­ing that Bottled in Italy” is no indi­ca­tion of Italian con­tents as all geo­graph­i­cal sources must now be indi­cated. These mea­sures have already enabled extra vir­gin pro­duc­ers in Greece and Spain — for the first time — and Italy (whose high-end pro­duc­ers suf­fered from the effects of low prices for blended oil) to mar­ket their oils directly to local and emerg­ing mar­kets instead of feed­ing sur­rep­ti­tiously into the mass-mar­ket Italian (and American) bot­tling indus­try.

Further, rely­ing on the Australian model” and its pleas for fur­ther test­ing and reg­u­la­tion, will not serve Californian pro­duc­ers well. For while the report indi­cates that imports have fallen with the rise of Australian buy local cam­paigns it fails to note that, accord­ing to 2013 USDA fig­ures, the over­all con­sump­tion growth rate in that coun­try has been falling steadily since 2009 (when it jumped from zero in 2008 to 10 per­cent, after hav­ing a neg­a­tive growth rate of 7 per­cent in 2007). Similarly, it has been reported that Australians are grow­ing tired of expen­sive local bou­tique” oils and are return­ing to super­mar­ket brands. The buy local” move­ment is not with­out con­tro­versy and food fads are real.

The report relies on the bro­mide that runs through much of what con­sti­tutes national dis­course these days: the enemy is for­eign. It strongly sug­gests that California could win over what is admit­tedly an East Coast con­sumer base if only for­eign com­pe­ti­tion oper­ated under free mar­ket” prin­ci­ples. Like for­mer US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich summed up in his blog recently: If some peo­ple [i.e. European grow­ers] aren’t paid enough to live on, the mar­ket has deter­mined they aren’t worth enough.”) In fact, a much more real­is­tic tar­get for the domes­tic healthy up-mar­ket olive oil indus­try would be chem­i­cal-laden (domes­ti­cally pro­duced) pre­pared salad dress­ing. Instead of striv­ing to edu­cate the con­sumer on oil chem­istry and human phys­i­ol­ogy (n.b., it isn’t going to hap­pen), the sim­ple slo­gan of Read the labels and then decide” might work mir­a­cles.

Do you have an opin­ion you’d like to share in an arti­cle? See our sub­mis­sion form and guide­lines here.

Related Articles

Feedback / Suggestions