I received a nice set of questions on this article from a reader in Vietnam:
1. Has the US experienced bans like this (on a product that’s cheaper, tastier and presumbaly better-liked by the American consumers) before? What were they and under what circumstances? What was the outcome?
It is done all the time. The United States has a program to protect domestic sugar growers, despite the fact that sugar grown here is three times the world price of sugar. In this case, one cannot tell the difference, since sugar is sugar. (No doubt, some sugar growers will raise “health and safety” questions about foreign sugar, but no one takes those arguments seriously.)
Our government blocks all sorts of imported goods from abroad, despite the fact that consumers here are willing to buy them. Remember that trade barriers, while called “protectionist,” actually are done to deprive consumers here of choices they would make in the absence of trade barriers.
2. Do you consider this ban as a non-tariff trade barrier? What are the ways to deal with it?
It definitely is a trade barrier. After my article was posted, some people emailed me to say that the health issues raised by the State of Alabama were legitimate, but I take a dim view of that. I answered one email by telling the writer that following his logic, we should ban sunlight, since excessive sunlight has been proven to cause cancer.
While I can understand the antibiotics issue, my guess is that the dosage to which consumers of basa fish are exposed is so low as not to have any bad health effects at all for people who eat basa.
3. Does this ban prove that the governments of states involved go against the spirit of true level playing field and free trade?
You are absolutely correct. As one who believes that free trade provides for the best international relations (as opposed to war, and especially the current U.S. war in Iraq), I think that this particular ban damages relations between our peoples, but, as you know, it is only one of thousands of protectionist actions taken by western governments against relatively poor countries.
We preach “democracy” and capitalism abroad, but time after time, our government engages in socialistic measures that ultimately make most people worse off in the end.
4. Who would suffer the most as a result of this ban?
First, Vietnamese producers of basa are hurt, and that is obvious. Their only “crime” was to raise fish that people like to eat. Second, American consumers are hurt, or at least consumers in Alabama and Louisiana. They are deprived of the freedom to make choices that they should have been able to make.
Third, fish importers are hurt, as many of them have invested money into their businesses only to have some government bureaucrats pull out the rug from under them. Fourth, restaurant owners and people who run fish markets are hurt, since a product that their customers wanted has been pulled from the shelves, which means fewer sales (and lower profits).
Lastly, I believe that domestic catfish producers also are hurt. While this might give them a very small advantage in the short run, in the long run this keeps them from doing things they should be doing in order to have a stronger industry.
For example, what might have been the case had Henry Ford managed to get the government to ban his competitors from making automobiles? Do you think cars would have developed differently? Remember the infamous East German Wartburg, which basically was unchanged from the late 1940s until the time that the Berlin Wall went down? That is what happens when government tries to create conditions via protectionism that do not hold producers accountable for their products.
5. If the ban goes nationwide, who would benefit the most?
I suspect that catfish pond farmers in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana would benefit, although it is hard to know by how much. The small gains those producers made would be dwarfed by the losses experienced elsewhere.
6. If you have a message to Vietnamese basa farmers, what would it be?
I would tell them to continue to develop relations with Sen. John McCain. While I disagree with McCain on many things, he has been a good friend to Vietnam and he has seen through this latest round of naked protectionism disguised as the Alabama and Louisiana governments trying to “protect our health.”
7. What additional comments do you have on this?
This has been a shameful action by government officials here. I would like to see us develop better relations with Vietnam. After all, the war ended 30 years ago and it is about time that Americans put all of it behind them. After all, we quickly established relations with the Japanese and Germans right after World War II.
However, better relations mean open relations, and that means free trade.
{ 13 comments }
While it is true that sugar is sugar, not all that that those who have been deprived of sugar at world market prices switch to as sweetening substitutes are necessarily the same sugar. Many packaged drink producers, carbonated soft drinks, for instance, now use something called “high fructose corn syrup.” I am certain that Coke doesn’t taste as good as it did many years ago and now I hear some say that the change is due to this particular substitution. Mebbe so.
There are a few different types of sweeteners, both natural and artificial. High fructose corn syrup (made from, you guessed it, corn) is cheaper than cane sugar and is the sweetener of choice in many types of food made in the USA. It’s mostly fructose (hence the name) which is a type of sugar. I’m not sure if it tastes any different.
Here in Texas we are very fortunate to have all the Dr Pepper we want, and in many different varieties.
One very popular kind is Dublin Dr Pepper, bottled only in Dublin, TX, is made with pure cane sugar, while regular Dr Pepper bottled elsewhere is made with high fructose corn syrup.
To my knowledge, everyone who is not a snobby prune wine (some people call it prune wine) conossieur such as myself, find no difference in taste between the two.
The difference is slight, and really only noticeable (forgive me) when drinking from a glass bottle. (The preferable way to enjoy any soda.)
Is it worth the extra money?
Well duh.
My favorite drink is a Dublin Dr Pepper in a glass bottle, cooled so close to freezing that it makes minute amounts of slush. Especially on a 105 degree Texas summer day.
Dr Pepper I would not recommend is any bottled in Houston… their water apparently sucks or something. It’s just horrid.
Fancy Leprechaun:
First off, you’re a-spellin’ your name incorrectly.
Secondly, do you know why Ireland is the wealthiest nation on earth? It’s very simple, actually–their capital’s been Dublin for ever and ever.
Third, I can remember drinking my favorite–Coke–in the old 7-oz. bottle in that hot Texas sun–from Houston and San Antone south to the border. They used to have flat roofs over the gas pumps and, though I was under the roof (to get the Coke from the machine or cooler–at a nickel or maybe 6 cents), once I had that bottle, I’d get out from under that roof so I could get the delightful, almost intoxicating feeling of utter contrast–chugging it in the hot sun. Once, back in the Guyana Highlands (SE Venezuela), after a particularly hot day on the river, a buddy and I reached a small village with a store–and beer!
I said “I ain’t gonna drink mine ’til I’m back out in that hot sun so I can feel it!” Well, we both went back out onto the dusty little street, chugged our (Polar Beer) canned brews, and were both instantly drunk–for about 5 minutes.
Though corn syrup doesn’t taste as good as sucrose (white sugar), and has more deleterious health effects on most, it’s predominantly used for sweetening soft drink in the US because it’s substantially cheaper.
The reason corn syrup is so much cheaper is because the production of corn and its products is far more cash-subsidized by the federal government than sugar beets, sugar cane, and their products. (Of course, US sugar production is very heavily indirectly subsidized by the trade barriers discussed by Anderson is his original commentary.)
Now I want to address a passage from Anderson’s second commentary under discussion:
“While I can understand the antibiotics issue, my guess is that the dosage to which consumers of basa fish are exposed is so low as not to have any bad health effects at all for people who eat basa.”
Anderson seems to imply by this that such a ban would be justified if it’s ever established that the amount of the antibiotic in question has harmful health effects for consumers. He seems to be ceding moral high ground to statism.
Natural rights empower individuals to purchase products from whomever is mutually agreeable. It’s the individual’s responsibility to seek to ensure that his consumer purchases are “safe,” according to his own criterion. It isn’t the State’s perogative, or the taxpayers’ rightful burden thereof, to regulate or mediate seller/buyer transactions. (Of course, consumers may organize and join product information and certification services, as they do all the time by joining Consumers Union or selecting Kosher-certified foods.)
Even if one believed that the State should somehow be the ultimate arbiter of safety, there’s no reason the State should provide anything more than consumer warnings. Why should it ever presume to prohibit purchases by people who supposedly live in a free land?
R.P. McCosker says;
Though corn syrup doesn’t taste as good as sucrose (white sugar), and has more deleterious health effects on most, it’s predominantly used for sweetening soft drink in the US because it’s substantially cheaper.
“The reason corn syrup is so much cheaper is because the production of corn and its products is far more cash-subsidized by the federal government than sugar beets, sugar cane, and their products. (Of course, US sugar production is very heavily indirectly subsidized by the trade barriers discussed by Anderson is his original commentary.)”
This is another reason the protectionist state has an advantage in the campaign for the hearts and minds of the people – it is so multifarious and indirect in its influences on trade that the effects of most of it are hidden. Take just for one example monetary inflation. It is now 2005, and most people still do not realize that the unbackerd printing of dollars is simply a hidden tax that falls especially hard on those who can least afford it. In reality, nearly all of the burden of government falls more heavily on the poor than on the middle class or the wealthy.
I think that dr. pepper is a pretty dang good drink. So good in fact that I’ve decided to do my history project on Dublin Dr. Pepper in Waco, Texas. You’ve never had anything quite as good as their Dr. Pepper. And I agree with that fancy leprechaun kid. San Antonio and Houston water is GAG-NASTY!!
I strongly disagree with your opinion on the basa issue. If Americans were truly aware that these fish were raised in a highly contaminated river in Vietnam, there is NO WAY they would be eating these fish!! One thing Americans do not like is eating fish from polluted waters (including polluted waters in the USA) and the Mekong Delta is known as “The Toilet Bowl of Asia” with enourmous amounts of feces going directly into the river, not to mention the pesticide and fertilizer runoffs into the river. There are even floating pig farms and floating filling stations on this river. When consumers get ALL of the facts, the choice will be obvious that Basa is simply an inferior product and it’s NOT the same as the highly regulated US Farm-Raised Catfish.
Check out some facts about Basa on this website:
http://www.catfishrestaurants.com
I have just read a lot about the Basa fish. I love the taste. If the catfish farmers think that if they ban Basa, I’ll eat catfish they have another think coming. I dislike the taste of catfish and would probably eat flounder instead. So who are they kidding.
Jeff
Jeff…dogs like the taset of antifreeze too. Does that mean antifreeze is safe for them to drink? Nobody’s stopping you from eating the Vietnamese catfish from the filthy Mekong river. Obviously taste and price is all you care about, you have little concern for your personal health now that you know the FACTS about these fish.
Jeff…dogs like the taste of antifreeze too. Does that mean antifreeze is safe for them to drink? Nobody’s stopping you from eating the Vietnamese catfish from the filthy Mekong river. Obviously taste and price is all you care about, you have little concern for your personal health now that you know the FACTS about these fish.
Becky, Read: http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/buyguide/issue_basa.htm
and:http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?contentid=4579
I think some of you are missing the point!
The fish farmers in the U.S. have to follow strict health and safety guidlines. So why should we allow impoted products into our country for our consumers to eat if the countrys exporting the food dont have to follow guidlines?? yeah their products are cheaper..ever wonder why? maybe cause they have no regulations. no one checks the quality of the products. they just catch it and ship it. here in the U.S. we have departments of agriculture and the FDA who make our farmers follow rules so that our products are safe for others to eat. I know that personally I will buy catfish from the U.S. before i would buy any fish from a foreign country like vietnam. They dont seem to care about the quality of the fish they are exporting. They just want to see the $$$$! The farming conditions that i have read about are absolutely unacceptible!!! so untill vietnam decides to CLEAN UP their industry then YES we should BAN the import of their basa (imitation catfish) products to our country!
Comments on this entry are closed.