We’ve been known to address the issue of ‘labeling’ over the years through this forum.  Usually the topic du jour is food.  Not this week – the discussion point is ‘labeling’ but the topic specific was presented to us via a ‘public challenge’ issued to the American public by Senator Sherrod Brown (Dem, OH) in an April 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Don’t Call Me a Protectionist”.  So…who should or can be labeled a ‘protectionist’?  First, we should all agree on what or who a protectionist is.  Websters defines protectionist as:  “an advocate of government economic protection for domestic producers through restrictions on foreign competitors.”  Webster’s goes on to define a protective tariff as:  “a tariff (tax) intended primarily to protect domestic producers rather than to yield revenue.”

 Keeping Webster’s as the defining source, trade is:  the business of buying and selling or bartering commodities, to give in exchange for another commodity”.  

 Using those definitions and Senator Brown’s assertion that those who ‘want more trade but with a very different set of rules’ are not protectionists – do you agree?

 We respect Senator Brown for raising the issue and calling for a ‘real debate on trade’. But let’s get this straight, Senator Brown is defined as a protectionist not only because of what he says but by what he does ie…his Senate voting history.  There doesn’t appear to be a trade agreement that he has or will support.  Does protecting American citizens from making a profit for producing products that other people – in this country and around the world – want make him a protectionist? What do you think?

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (32) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 184

An article titled “Food for Thought” in the March 29 The Economist discussed how high prices for food staples like rice, wheat and corn are causing head aches for aid agencies and politicians. That article echoes much of what we are reading in headlines across the US and around the world these days – with many making the argument that high crop prices and food crops utilized in biofuel production may worsen poverty (and some will add to that – hunger). The article goes on to suggest that ‘the real challenge is not the volume of food available; it is the problem of food being in the wrong place and at a price the poorest cannot afford.”

One of the refreshing points made in this particular article stated that ‘today’s woes may lead to fundamental changes for the better in the world’s approach to hunger and food shortages.” While food aid may be the only option for some short term problems, it will not solve the issue long-term. A ‘silver-lining’ story that surfaced this week takes on that same topic in a slightly different light – laying out a plan of action that will get at the heart of the problem for a specific area. In this case, starvation due to crop failure caused by drought. The Water Efficient Maize for Africa Project (WEMA) is a public-private collaborative effort that has been designed and implemented to develop new breeds of corn that can withstand drought situations in uniquely African conditions. Now that’s getting to the heart of the problem. The ‘fix’ will not be instant and it will not be total – but it will definitely be a step in the right direction. Led by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center – supported by the governments of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa – funded with generous contributions from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation – and utilizing the technology of companies like BASF and Monsanto, it is in our best interest and that of the anti-poverty and hunger campaigners to support and applaud efforts like this one – and others just like it. I think that is food for thought!

Comments (5) | Add as favourites (81) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 694

There have been a number of articles and commentary recently on the US presidential candidates and comments on trade - including Dean Kleckner’s NAFTA Blame Game last week (which the Houston Chronicle printed in the Sunday 9 March edition). Obviously with the democrats bashing NAFTA there’s been a quite of bit of coverage from Canada and Mexico. But before this all hit the wires leading into the Ohio primary, it struck me with how much coverage other international sources were giving the trade issue in the US campaign, showing just how important this issue is, and in my estimation how poorly most of the candidates are handling it. The Financial Times had a pretty good editorial on March 10 “Primary politics and protectionism” which makes an excellent point in their closing that I think the candidates, and all elected officials need to keep in mind – “Liberal trade is a vital US interest. If a vigorous defence of that position is too much to ask at the moment, as seems to be the case on the Democratic side, a degree of restraint in undermining it surely is not. Once you have won an election, you have to govern. Stimulate protectionist appetites too much, and they will have to be fed.”

Comments (1) | Add as favourites (119) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 997

Comments (6) | Add as favourites (116) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1026