Issue: Food safety and international trade are increasingly

intertwined as new food safety challenges have emerged

and as trade has expanded and changed to meet global

demand. Growth in trade means that U.S. consumers are

more dependent on the food safety measures used in other

countries and that there are greater opportunities for U.S.

food exports. ERS examined the conceptual relationships

between food safety and international trade and analyzed

empirical examples from the meat and poultry, produce,

food crop, and seafood sectors. This packet of briefs presents some of the highlights of the ERS report,

“International Trade and Food Safety: Economic Theory

and Case Studies.”

Background: For the United States, there is no evidence

whether food safety risks are increasing, remaining stable,

or decreasing with trade. Although the globalization of the

food supply could introduce new food safety risks, revive

previously controlled risks, and spread contaminated food

more widely, there has been relatively little disruption to

food trade for safety reasons. This is particularly true

when considering:

 The magnitude of global food and agricultural trade

($436 billion in 2001),

 Recent food system changes like increased consumption of fresh produce and greater livestock 

concentration,

 The vast number and variety of food categories and

products traded,

 The roughly 200 countries participating in food trade,

and 

 The array of food safety challenges, including

pathogens, pesticide and drug residues, food additives,

environmental toxins, persistent organic pollutants,

unconventional agents such as those associated with

“mad cow disease,” and zoonotic diseases. 

Findings: Three themes arose in the study.

Food safety regulations and standards evolve differently

around the world as countries respond to food safety

crises and prepare for perceived exposure to emerging

food safety risks. Regulations and standards worldwide are

shaped by:

(1) Countries’ experiences with food safety,

(2) Inherent food safety risk levels in each country’s

food supply (e.g., livestock host factors),

(3) Countries’ and industries’ ability and willingness to

allocate resources to control these risks, and 

(4) Differences in consumers’ food safety perceptions

and, hence, preferences for targeting risk reduction

efforts. For example, countries’ perceptions about

Salmonella risks in poultry vary tremendously, as do

their commitments and methods of control. As a result,

countries’ trade restrictions for Salmonella vary by type,

extent, and duration.

These differences in regulations and standards among

countries can lead to international trade conflicts, and

can ultimately affect global patterns of food demand and

trade. In particular, food safety-related disputes among

trading partners may arise from:

 New or more stringent standards and rapidly changing

food safety regulations,

 The role of non-science issues (e.g., consumer preferences) in regulatory decisionmaking,

 Difficulties in determining whether an equivalent safety outcome has been achieved when process (versus

product) standards are used,

 Strong differences in consumer risk perceptions and

preferences,

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic 

Research

Service

Issues in Diet, Safety, and Health / Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 789-1 February 2004

Food Safety and

International Trade

Jean C. Buzby, jbuzby@ers.usda.gov, (202) 694-5370

Laurian Unnevehr, laurian@uiuc.edu, University of Illinois 
2 Economic Research Service / USDA

Food Safety and International Trade / AIB-789-1

 Newly identified or unfamiliar hazards, and

 Increased trade volumes from new or less proven

sources.

Therefore, the causes of food safety-related trade disputes

are varied, complex, and tenacious. For example, the 1989

European Union (EU) ban on animal growth hormones

originated from concerns there about the effects of hormones used in beef production on human health. The scientific basis of the ban was later successfully challenged

by the U.S. and Canada, but the EU has still not lifted its

ban. This is the only food safety dispute that has advanced

to a World Trade Organization dispute panel.

Although differences in standards and regulations may

lead to conflicts and disputes, they may also spur fruitful

dialogue between countries, causing some countries to

alter and improve their food safety systems. For example,

regulatory agencies worldwide are increasingly adopting

the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system as a

foundation for new regulations to control microbial

pathogens in food.

Trade frictions related to food safety can be persistent,

and increased coherency between trade and food safety

goals requires private costs and/or public intervention

and investment. Global food trade will continue to

increase due to improvements in transportation, infrastructure, and marketing networks, and to global increases in

per capita income levels and populations. Consumers in

developed countries are demanding certain attributes in

food, like safety. Therefore, improving food safety and

expanding international trade are compatible—even mutually reinforcing—goals. Governments and the private sector must react quickly to new food safety crises in order to

minimize human illness and financial losses. But governments also invest in food safety to protect human health

and expand food markets. The private sector will also

invest in food safety where market incentives are strong. 

Information Source:

For full text, see International Trade and Food Safety:

Economic Theory and Case Studies. J. Buzby (ed.).

USDA, Econ. Res. Serv., AER-828, Nov. 2003.

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer828/

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.