Bush v Kerry: Food production and safety policies examined

This year's US election campaign has been one of the bitterest in living memory. With just a week to go, both senator John Kerry and president George W Bush are neck-and-neck, and the mudslinging looks set to intensify.

But what actually divides the candidates? The hostility and negativity surrounding both campaigns has often made it difficult to identify discernible strategies.

The issues of food production and safety are not hitting the headlines, but are significant nonetheless. Food production in the US employs millions and is worth billions to the economy. Recent fears over BSE have cost the beef industry a fortune in lost revenues.

Food safety is a growing concern. In 1994 an outbreak of salmonellosis due to contaminated ice cream affected an estimated 224,000 US citizens.

A working group on salmonella infection at the US government FoodNet body claimed in 1999 that estimated annual costs (in 1998 dollars) of medical care and lost productivity due to foodborne Salmonella infections were $0.5 billion (€0.4bn), based on the human capital approach for calculating forgone earnings. Using the less conservative labour market approach, the total annual costs were $2.3 billion (€1.85bn).

So what both candidates propose to do to improve production and protect Americans from food-borne sickness will have a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans.

President Bush claims that his administration would continue to work around the clock to protect the US from intentional and accidental risks to the safety of its food supply.

"My 2005 budget provides $470 million for this important work, an increase of almost 15 per cent over last year,"​ he told the Associated Press​ on Sunday. "This includes an increase for the Animal Drugs and Feeds programme, which ensures that food from animals is safe, and has the primary role in preventing the introduction and spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or 'mad cow disease,' in the United States."​

In his first term, as part of the renewed focus on countering terrorism post 9-11, Bush revamped the FBI's mission with a focus on domestic threats and pushed for better integration of the intelligence community. Bush also got the FDA to kick-start a moribund food safety inspection programme.

The Bush administration claims that over the past three years, the administration has bolstered America's food defence through increases in port security, food import inspections and additional food security personnel, and laboratory capacity, research, and monitoring and surveillance.

However, Kerry believes that not enough is being done at present to protect the food supply. He argues that the Bush administration's handling of mad cow disease, beef imports, and BSE testing have made it clear that the US needs a renewed effort to protect American consumers and farmers.

"As president, I will put public health first and will not take any action that might jeopardise our nation's food supply, like having lax border inspections of imported food,"​ he told the Associated Press.​

"We must do a better job of inspecting and identifying cattle that are exhibiting signs of a neurological disease or that can't walk to ensure they do not enter the food supply."​

The Kerry administration says that it would increase testing and inspections and enhance surveillance to prevent the risk of BSE. Significantly, Kerry would also push for the establishment of a national animal ID tracking system, something that has been called for by certain sections of the US cattle industry.

Both candidates are supportive in principle of GM crops. According to Nature,​ Bush believes it is important that the "regulatory framework keeps pace with science,"​ a hint that it can be too restrictive. In contrast, Kerry says it is important to "give government agencies the power to effectively regulate genetically modified food products".​

In the magazine, Kerry also recognises international concerns by saying that he would work to address these while Bush stresses the role of GM food in "meeting the world's demand for food"​.

The Farm Bureau, a body that represents US agricultural interests, recently asked both candidates about the issue of energy consumption and the move towards renewable fuels in food production. Both candidates supported expanding the use of renewable fuels and eliminating estate tax impacts on farm families, but had differing perspectives on issues such as extending Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and promoting acceptance of biotechnology.

Bush said that Congress should pass the comprehensive energy bill, and promised he would continue to press for new market opportunities. "Given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, they will be able to increase their share of markets here at home and across the globe,"​ he said.

Kerry said as president he would "fight for fair trade policies, reduce concentration in agribusiness, enhance conservation measures and expand non-traditional uses for agricultural products, such as ethanol and bio-based energy products."​

He said he would also maintain a "strong safety net to protect against low prices, improvements in the risk management programs and emergency federal disaster assistance."​

But Ralph Nader, the independent candidate running on a platform of consumer rights and corporate reform, argues that US food production needs to be radically overhauled. He believes that agricultural production is being destroyed by low prices and lack of market access due to mergers and acquisitions by big agribusinesses.

Federal policy should therefore advance the production, marketing, use and disposal of food in accordance with consumer and environmental interests.

Barring a rather unlikely upset, the US will choose either Bush or Kerry to dictate policy for the next four years. For the majority, food production and safety will not be the pressing concern, but their choice of candidate will nonetheless affect food production policy.