Thalidomide, a drug (teratogen) of German origin sold in the 1950s and early 1960s, caused one of the most serious tragedies that the health industry has inflicted on thousands of patients and their offspring throughout the world. Except in the United States where the drug did not receive marketing authorization. Indeed, the FDA regulations in force, at the time already, require tests on drug substances that have been found to be insufficient in the case of this molecule. Similarly, the food safety component of the FDA regulation was equally robust and many of its prescriptions, the most common of which relates to the sterilization scale for destroying botulism bacteria, were duplicated by many countries in the world. This regulation, which made it possible to eradicate the series of fatal intoxications of botulism which the USA suffered in the sixties, is known under LACF for Low Acid Canned Food. Since then, new plagues have emerged, such as allergies and others. As a result, the new US Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), recently implemented, goes even further. It broke new ground by including, for the first time, a codification of the safety control of fresh fruit and vegetables. The FSMA has also extended Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) to control risks to hazards arising from allergies, environmental hazards or working conditions, or intentionally caused by humans (terrorism). These risks must now be managed by the new Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (HARPC) system. The US thinks, and this is legitimate, that the FSMA will be the reference for working in agribusiness for decades to come. They intend to publicize the merits of this new regulation as part of the control of imported products for the US market through FDA regional offices that they intend to install around the world. Africa should host one of these regional offices. The free trade agreement linking us to the US makes Morocco a good candidate to host such a domiciliation.
Before the Americans, the English had, until the last Great War, played a pioneering role in the development, in particular, of standards for food products and health products. The English standards have been used as a basis for setting standards for the ISO family. The American and British regulations were then close to each other. But the two countries’ standards for food products began to distance each other as Britain built its integration into the EU. Now that the British are preparing to separate from the continental European market, they will have to redefine their regulatory positions to EU and US standards. If they choose to keep the EU standards, that means, as far as the food trade is concerned, maintaining the regulatory logic they currently apply. This logic leads EU officials to tell that 70% of the products consumed by the British come from the European market. In fact, many of the products in question, including fruits and vegetables, come from our African continent. By the way, the Russians were in this situation a few years ago and bought our products (Moroccan for example) via European intermediaries. Following the dispute with the EU over the Ukrainian case, they opted to buy directly from us for what they bought from European intermediaries. Our direct sales to the Russian market then exploded from a few hundred million dollars to more than three billion in less than three years. Thus, by eliminating opportunistic intermediaries, Russian importers and Moroccan exporters both earn, some saving on purchase prices and others by receiving a better price on the same products. It’s a safe bet that the English will also choose this type of win / win approach by trading, especially, directly with our Continent, including our West Africa region. Brexit will then have the effect of further boosting the African export of our agri-food sectors.
That being so, it is unlikely, after the departure of the English, that the countries that will remain in the EU Bloc will change in any way the rules they impose on us on very asymmetric trade. Indeed, against highly protectionist and discriminatory practices, which have given a hard time to Americans who have solid standards and laws, we are very poor on our continent to stand up to them or question the rules of trade that they make us suffer. Among the reasons is that, as a de facto colonizer, the EU Bloc authorities have put in place a system that favors dialogue with our African governments and denigrates the expertise of the private sector. Their long experience accumulated on our Continent instructs them on the inefficiency of our public authorities which results in very slow changes of our societies. Also, it amounts de facto to an indefinite extension of the status quo which better arranges the continuity of their business. It’s a kind of trap that’s hard to get out of, but not impossible.
In this connection, several years ago (my archives), I had to give my expert opinion on a dispute between a client and a large European multinational. The client was not strong against the large group and, moreover, the multinational disregarded our judicial system and its auxiliaries (experts) like me. So, it was difficult to have a dialogue in those conditions. The client was then studying the possibility of communicating on the matter with the press and I agreed that, in such a case, I will give my own opinion on the dispute. The news was felt by the leader of the group in question in Morocco as a cold shower. He then took the trouble to engage in dialogue and seek a compromise. It seems that the prospect of bad publicity is scarier to these people than a court decision.
In this respect, the data (see elsewhere in this blog) show that our agri-food export operations to the European market are dependent on a multitude of barriers that UE consultancy firms (there are consultancy firms for each EU country in Morocco) promise to find solution for it for a fee. But, these private firms are working to open the EU market in front of our operators by privileging the dialogue with our states authorities on agribusiness field and denigrate royally any local private expertise. On the other hand, in the sense of our imports, the expertise of these private Cabinets is received like words of prophets as well by our importers as by our authorities. So, I wonder what would happen if, on our side, we began to treat these people as they treat us, that is to say, “denigration for denigration”. In this context, over thirty-five years of activity in Casablanca, there are examples in my archives of malpractices of number of EU exporters whose operations have been certified by consultancy firms we are talking about. This deserves reflection.
