Even if we cannot be absolutely certain that like is being compared with like, the claim that 16% of Americans are annually made ill by the food they eat compared with only 3.5% of people in the UK is both striking and concerning (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/28/we-are-what-we-eat-so-were-right-not-to-trust-what-goes-into-american-food). Food production in the USA is clearly much more driven by cost/profits than any other consideration (animal welfare or human health). There also seems little doubt that, if the UK desires a trade deal with the US, it will come under enormous pressure (the Agricultural sector in America is extremely politically powerful) to accept (perhaps without labelling about origins) a variety of foods that are currently banned (on welfare grounds or by using problematic chemical treatments) by the EU. This would mean (as we couldn't guarantee common standards) that UK farmers would face the double whammy, of being undercut by US producers and having export restrictions imposed by Brussels. The UK might find it harder and more expensive to import fruit and vegetables (we get most of these from Europe), whilst being inundated with cheap meat (from the USA). It has already been noted that one thing that we can do to, at least partially, counter climate change is to change our diets to include less meat. The financial pressures of a US deal would clearly push things in the opposite direction. Given the impact of American food on illness, no wonder that country would also like part of the NHS action?
No comments:
Post a Comment