THE PRESS FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1981. Hourly waging of meat battle

Press, 13 November 1981, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1981. Hourly waging of meat battle

The battle over exports of meat to the United States is now at its height. Although there is an air of compromise over conflicting amendments to the Farm Bill in the United States Congress, both of which would upset New Zealand meat imports, nothing has yet been settled. The two houses of Congress — the House of Representatives and the Senate • — have slightly differing amendments affecting meat hygiene and the use of agricultural chemicals. Either amendment to the bill, if adopted, would effectively stop New Zealand exporting meat to the United States. The joint committee of the two houses has yet to decide on a wording that is acceptable to both. So far the proposer of the amendment as it emerged from the Senate appears agreeable to the compromise; the proposer of the amendment as it came from the House, Mr Glenn English, is not. The soundest peg on which New Zealand can hang its hopes of Mr English is his comment that New Zealand and Australian fears that his action was designed to halt meat imports were “unfounded.” From here on the battle will rage with the outcome unknown. The New. Zealand Embassy is watching the events on Capitol Hill hour by hour. The Reagan Administration is profoundly concerned about the amendments and is doing its best to get the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to change their minds. There appears to have been a deliberate decision on the part of the President to fight the amendments at the present stage, his strategy being that, if the amendments are dropped in the meantime but the intention behind them remains, another battle will occur later. President Reagan may have some special regard for New Zealand, because some of the Reagan Administration come from California, a Pacific state, and the inclination is to be more aware than Eastern Administrations have been of the Pacific countries. More important, the President is firmly committed to free trade. This is certainly his strong reason for opposing a measure that would restrict imports. Another reason is that President Reagan wants the amendments resolved before the bill comes to him to sign or veto. If he vetoes it, he must reject the entire Farm Bill. He would be unable to veto, on its own, an amendment to one of the clauses. There are three separate aspects of the issue as it stands. The amendments passed by the House and the Senate both include references to hygiene and agricultural chemicals. If Mr English and others can be persuaded to separate the references to hygiene and chemicals, some progress might be possible. New Zealand has nothing to fear from the hygiene standards; it has to conform to various standards of hygiene imposed by other meat importers and generally has been able to meet those standards. The requirements about agricultural chemicals prohibited or not approved for use in'the United States is the troublesome factor. It is patently unreasonable for New Zealand to be

expected to use the same chemicals in farming as. do Americans when the farming conditions differ. The difficulty really lies in the blanket nature of the proposals. It is reasonable to ask what chemicals are used — though not necessarily to ask by means of confrontation; but it is unreasonable to say that no country may use chemicals which are not used for the same purpose in the United States. It is in formulations like this that a clue is dropped. The interest groups that want this legislation may be aiming not at the control of weeds or stock diseases but at growth-promoting chemicals, such as oestrogen, which are prohibited in the United States but not in some of the countries from which the United States imports meat. If Mr English were prepared to name the particular chemicals he is concerned about, something fairer could emerge. For its part, New Zealand has apparently made available to the United States a list of chemicals used in the production of stock for meat. However, the subject of agricultural chemicals is complex and it would be unlikely that nori-scientific bodies, such as the houses of Congress, would usefully consider the merits of a series of chemicals. If beef farmers in the United States believe that, say, Central American farmers are feeding oestrogen to their cattle to make them bigger, and that this offers unfair competition to American cattle feeding on grass or grain, Congress should be able to devise some way of stopping unfair competition without adopting a measure that is grossly unfair to other traders. It is doubtful whether so many members of Congress would have supported the amendments had it not been for the Australian meat substitution scandal. The third aspect is the constant fear that what Congress is trying to do is stop the importing of beef to the United States. If this is the real purpose of the amendments — and there are grounds for supposing that it is — this is the most serious threat of all. It would seem likely that if the hygiene requirements, or the agricultural chemicals requirements could not be made to stick, Congress would go on searching for something that would prevail. Doubtless, Mr Reagan would go on fighting for free trade but the President’s power with Congress lies in his power to influence and he has exerted a fair measure of influence recently. There is also the constant danger that . a compromise will be reached suddenly that affects some other part of the Farm Bill, which may relate to New Zealand exports to the United States. The President, for his own domestic reasons, including the passing of the bill, may agree to a compromise that does not so blatantly offend his free trade principles yet could restrict New Zealand exports of agricultural produce to the United States. In the meantime, Mr English’s reassurance that his actions are not designed to halt meat imports is welcome. The test is yet to come.