Must Know: TPP e Sicurezza Alimentare, L’Avvertimento del 2016 (TPP and Food Safety, A 2016 Warning Revisited)

Food Imports, Trade Agreements and the American Food Safety System

In August 2016, Zafferano & Co. published a forceful warning about the Trans Pacific Partnership, better known as the TPP. The original article reflected a moment when the proposed trade agreement had become one of the most controversial economic and political issues in the United States. Food safety advocates feared that expanding trade could increase the volume of imported food moving through an inspection system they already considered stretched thin.

Ten years later, the political landscape is completely different, but the underlying question deserves more than a simple deletion of an old article: when international trade grows, how do we make sure that the food crossing borders remains safe?

That question is bigger than the TPP. It reaches into seafood, meat, poultry, eggs, chemical residues, veterinary drugs, inspection staffing, equivalence agreements, traceability and the fundamental responsibility of governments to protect consumers while allowing international commerce to function.

What the Original 2016 Article Was Warning About

The original Zafferano & Co. article focused on food shipments rejected at the United States border and argued that the TPP could increase pressure on federal food safety inspectors. It cited concerns raised at the time about imported meat, poultry, catfish, egg products and seafood, including shipments rejected for contamination, prohibited veterinary drug residues and other violations.

One of the examples discussed in 2016 involved Vietnamese catfish and malachite green, a chemical that has historically been prohibited for use in food producing animals in the United States. The larger argument was that international trade policy should never weaken a country's ability to stop products that fail its food safety requirements.

That principle remains sound. Where the old article now requires correction is in treating a proposed trade agreement as though its predicted consequences actually occurred. They did not, because the United States never became a party to the agreement as originally envisioned.

What Happened to the TPP

The Trans Pacific Partnership was signed in February 2016 by twelve Pacific Rim countries, including the United States. It was intended to establish a broad framework covering tariffs, investment, intellectual property, services, labor, environmental rules and many other areas of trade.

But the United States formally withdrew from the TPP in January 2017. That fact fundamentally changes how the original article must be read today. The 2016 piece captured a live political debate, not a description of the system that eventually took effect in the United States.

The remaining countries later negotiated the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership, known as the CPTPP. It was signed in 2018 and entered into force later that year. The United States was not part of it.

Food Safety Did Not Stop Being a Trade Issue

The disappearance of the original TPP from United States policy did not make the food safety question disappear. America imports enormous quantities of food, and different federal agencies oversee different parts of that supply chain.

Meat, poultry, certain egg products and Siluriformes fish such as catfish fall under the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. Most other foods, including the majority of seafood, fall under the Food and Drug Administration. Customs and Border Protection and other agencies also have roles at the border.

This division matters because the inspection systems are not identical. It is too simplistic to say that all imported food is inspected in exactly the same way. The level of oversight depends on the product, the exporting country, the establishment, the applicable law and the risk profile.

How USDA Handles Imported Meat, Poultry and Egg Products

For products under FSIS jurisdiction, an exporting country must first demonstrate that its inspection system provides a level of public health protection equivalent to the United States system. Equivalent does not mean identical. It means the foreign system must achieve comparable food safety objectives.

That process can include document reviews, audits of the foreign regulatory system, certification of eligible establishments and point of entry reinspection in the United States. Imported shipments are checked for eligibility, certification, labeling, transportation damage and other requirements, with additional examinations and laboratory testing used according to the inspection program and risk.

This is an important correction to the impression created by some of the rhetoric surrounding the TPP debate. Imported meat and poultry do not simply arrive from any foreign producer and move freely into American commerce. There is a regulatory architecture behind eligibility and entry.

Seafood Remains One of the Hardest Categories

Seafood deserves special attention because the United States consumes species sourced from an enormous range of countries, farming systems and wild fisheries. Production conditions can vary dramatically. So can the use of veterinary drugs, aquaculture chemicals, water quality controls, feed, handling and cold chain management.

The lesson for consumers is not that imported seafood is inherently unsafe. That would be both inaccurate and unfair. Excellent seafood is imported into the United States every day. The meaningful questions are where the fish came from, how it was raised or harvested, who handled it, whether the supply chain is traceable and whether the producer complies with United States requirements.

The same is true of domestic seafood. National origin by itself is not a guarantee of quality. Good regulation, responsible production and traceability matter more than a flag on a box.

Rejected Shipments Do Not Mean the System Failed

There is a natural tendency to see a rejected shipment and conclude that the food safety system is failing. Sometimes the opposite is true. A rejected shipment can be evidence that controls detected a problem before the product entered normal commerce.

The more useful questions are how often unsafe products are detected, how consistently high risk imports are targeted, whether agencies have sufficient resources, how quickly violations are traced back to producers and whether repeat offenders face effective consequences.

No inspection system can physically test every molecule of every shipment. Modern food safety therefore depends on layers of protection: approved systems, preventive controls, documentation, risk based inspection, laboratory testing, traceability, enforcement and recalls.

Trade Agreements and the Right to Regulate

The deepest concern behind the old TPP article was not really about tariffs. It was about sovereignty over food safety rules. Critics feared that trade disciplines could make governments more vulnerable to challenges when they restricted products for public health reasons.

This tension exists in international trade regardless of the TPP. Countries want access to one another's markets, but they also want to protect people, animals and plants from genuine hazards. International trade rules therefore distinguish between legitimate sanitary protections and measures that function primarily as disguised barriers to commerce.

The balance is difficult. Weak standards can expose consumers to unnecessary risk. Arbitrary standards can be used to block competition. Serious policy has to recognize both dangers instead of pretending that either unrestricted trade or unrestricted protectionism automatically produces safer food.

What Consumers Should Look For Today

Consumers cannot personally audit an overseas processing plant, but they can still make more informed decisions. Look for clear country of origin information when it is available. Buy seafood and meat from retailers with strong turnover and reputable supply chains. Ask questions about species and origin rather than accepting vague descriptions such as fresh fish.

For seafood, remember that wild caught and farm raised are not automatic synonyms for good and bad. A responsibly managed aquaculture operation can produce excellent fish. A poorly managed wild fishery can damage ecosystems and deliver inconsistent quality. The producer and method matter.

When buying imported specialty foods, traceability is also part of quality. A serious importer should know where a product came from, who produced it, how it was transported and how it was stored.

Why We Are Keeping This Article

It would be easy to delete this page because its original political campaign is over. We prefer to preserve it and correct it. Old journalism has value when readers can see how an argument looked at the time and how events later changed the facts.

The 2016 article was right to insist that food safety must never become an afterthought in trade policy. It was also written before anyone knew that the United States would withdraw from the TPP. A responsible update has to acknowledge both realities.

The Trade Architecture After the United States Left the TPP

The United States formally withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership in 2017, so the agreement described in the original warning never entered into force for the United States. The remaining countries later created the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership. That distinction is essential. It would be inaccurate to discuss the original TPP today as if it governed American food imports. The policy question survived, but the legal path changed.

American food trade now operates through a combination of domestic law, World Trade Organization obligations, bilateral arrangements and agreements such as the United States Mexico Canada Agreement. Each instrument has its own chapters, committees and dispute procedures. A trade agreement can shape tariffs, customs administration and how governments justify regulations, yet it does not replace the agencies that inspect food or the statutes that authorize them.

Different Foods Enter Through Different Regulatory Systems

The phrase imported food sounds like one category, but the United States divides responsibility. The Food and Drug Administration oversees most foods, including much seafood, produce, dairy products and packaged foods. The Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service has primary responsibility for imported meat, poultry and processed egg products. Customs and Border Protection controls entry and works with the responsible agencies. Agricultural authorities also address pests and animal or plant disease risks.

This division matters when reading alarming claims. A rule that applies to meat may not apply in the same way to shrimp, olive oil or fresh vegetables. Inspection certificates, establishment eligibility, import alerts, prior notice and sampling belong to different legal programs. Serious analysis begins by identifying the product and the responsible agency before drawing conclusions about whether a shipment was properly controlled.

Equivalence Does Not Mean Identical Rules

For meat, poultry and egg products, an exporting country must demonstrate that its inspection system provides a level of public health protection equivalent to the American system. Equivalent does not mean that every form, agency title or inspection procedure must be identical. It means the overall system must achieve the required level of protection. Countries and establishments must be eligible, shipments need certification and imported products remain subject to reinspection at entry.

This approach recognizes that sovereign countries organize regulation differently. The important questions are whether hazards are controlled, records are reliable, establishments are supervised and authorities can correct failures. Equivalence should never become a vague promise. It depends on audits, documentation, testing, enforcement and the ability to suspend eligibility when a system does not perform as required.

Border Inspection Is a Layered Risk Management System

No modern country can laboratory test every unit of every food shipment. Inspection systems therefore combine document review, facility oversight, history, targeted sampling, physical examination and risk based controls. A product from a supplier with a clean record may receive different scrutiny from a product linked to previous violations. That does not mean untested food is unregulated. It means control is distributed across the supply chain rather than concentrated in one border test.

The limitation is equally important. Sampling can miss a problem, fraudulent documents can be difficult to detect and new hazards may not fit an old testing plan. Effective systems learn from recalls, illness investigations, rejected shipments and overseas audits. The correct policy question is not whether every risk can be eliminated. It is whether agencies receive enough authority, information, laboratory capacity and staff to identify changing risks before they become routine.

Seafood Requires Special Attention

Seafood supply chains are unusually complex because species may be caught or farmed in one country, processed in another and sold through a distributor in a third. Frozen blocks, fillets and prepared products can make species identification difficult. Risks vary sharply by species, harvest water, aquaculture practice, temperature control and processing method. A broad argument about foreign fish therefore hides more than it reveals.

Traceability is valuable for both safety and honesty. Buyers should be able to connect the market name to a scientific species, production method, harvest area or country and responsible processor. Restaurants and retailers also have a role because substitutions can occur after import. Strong public regulation and disciplined private purchasing are complementary. One cannot fully compensate for the absence of the other.

How to Read Import Alerts, Refusals and Recalls

A refusal report can be evidence that a control system detected a noncompliant shipment. It can also reveal repeated problems in a product category or supplier network. The number alone does not tell the story. Readers should ask what was refused, why, how much entered the market, whether the same firms appear repeatedly and what corrective action followed. A single rejected shipment and a pattern of systemic contamination are not equivalent events.

Recalls need similar care. They demonstrate that a hazard reached distribution, but they also show whether traceability and communication worked after detection. The strongest analysis looks at cause, scope, speed, illness evidence and prevention. Sensational coverage often counts events without considering the size of the food system or whether reporting improved. Transparency can make a system appear worse precisely because it is documenting problems more openly.

What Better Policy Would Look Like

A durable import safety strategy needs precise country and establishment records, interoperable traceability, laboratories able to identify emerging contaminants, clear authority to detain risky products and enough inspectors to follow recurring patterns. It also needs cooperation with foreign regulators before a shipment reaches an American port. Prevention at farms, vessels and processing plants is usually more effective than attempting to discover every problem at the border.

Trade policy should protect the right to use evidence based food safety measures while discouraging rules that are merely disguised protectionism. Those goals can coexist. The standard should be transparent, proportionate to risk and applied consistently to domestic and imported food. Consumers deserve neither automatic fear of imports nor blind confidence in paperwork. They deserve a system whose claims can be checked against inspection, testing and enforcement.

Where Consumer Responsibility Begins and Ends

Consumers can reduce uncertainty by checking the country of origin, keeping perishable food cold, following recall notices and buying seafood from sellers who can identify species and production method. They can also resist claims that treat every imported product as dangerous or every domestic product as safe. Origin is one piece of evidence, not a substitute for handling, traceability and regulatory performance.

Individual attention cannot replace public oversight. A shopper cannot audit a foreign processing plant, test a shipment for residues or reconstruct a complicated supply chain from a small label. Government agencies, importers, distributors and retailers carry responsibilities that cannot be transferred to the person standing in a supermarket aisle. The consumer's role is informed choice. The system's role is to make that choice possible with truthful information and enforceable standards.

The Kitchen Is the Final Safety Control

Import oversight ends at the point where normal food handling begins. A safe shipment can still become dangerous through broken refrigeration, cross contamination or inadequate cooking. Restaurants and home cooks should verify storage temperatures, separate raw proteins from ready to eat foods and follow product specific cooking guidance. These controls do not excuse failures upstream, but they remain part of the complete safety chain.

Professional buyers have an additional obligation. They should maintain supplier records, monitor recalls, reject damaged packaging and train staff to recognize unusual odor, temperature or labeling problems. A lower price is not a sufficient reason to accept uncertain traceability. Food safety policy is strongest when public inspection, responsible purchasing and disciplined kitchen practice reinforce one another.

The Zafferano & Co. Position

Food is international. Italian restaurants use seafood from multiple oceans. American consumers buy cheese, olive oil, pasta, produce, meat and fish from across the world. International trade is not the enemy of good food. In many cases it is what makes extraordinary regional products available beyond their place of origin.

But access to global food should never require lowering the expectation of safety. Producers should be held accountable. Importers should know their suppliers. Regulators should have the resources and authority to act. Consumers should receive truthful information about what they are buying.

That is the principle worth carrying forward from the original 2016 warning. The TPP debate belongs to history. The responsibility to protect the integrity of the food supply does not.

Wine Pairing

Choose an Italian wine with enough acidity to refresh the palate and enough body to match the richness of the dish. Delicate recipes generally benefit from lighter, fresher wines, while roasted, braised, aged-cheese, or deeply savory preparations can support more structured selections. Serve the wine at the correct temperature and avoid pairings that overpower the principal ingredient.

Chef Gianluca