"Bubba" Sparks Is Messing With OUR China Policy

Why not allow a Southern local politician to hijack U.S. policy?

We have certainly allowed Detroit politicians to hijack U.S. policy (no CAFE fuel requirements), Ohio valley politicians to hijack U.S. policy (Ethanol subidies at the expense of anything else corn based like Chicken), and Pennsylvania politicians to hijack U.S. policy (tariffs to protect steel producers).

After all, all politics is local. If they can push enough to get it through, let them...of course don't complain to me when the price of catfish goes through the roof or the Chinese government reacts and bans soybean imports from the U.S....

Unfortunately it's not the first time some branch or another of American industry has launched some dubious campaign to protect itself. Nor do I think this will be the last time we see such things. Nor are such things limited to America. New Zealand and Australian sheep meat exports were the target a few years back. Now it's Chinese fish. What's next? I only wish America's (and Europe's and Japan's and New Zealand's) politicians had the intelligence and integrity you display, Dan.

PeterPaul --

If "Bubba" succeeds, this will not be the first (nor the last) time that an apparently demagogic local politician has mananged to harm the national interest, I agree. But it is still our job to fight against this sort of thing and to expose it for exactly what it is.

Mike Niforng (the prosecutor in the Duke rape case) was eventually stopped from using his legal fiefdom to advance his political career and we need to stop Sparks here. I am not drawing moral conclusions here about Sparks, I am just saying this is power politics and we as a nation need to assert the power, as it is in our own best interests to do so.

chriswaugh --

You are absolutely right that this sort of stuff constantly goes on and that is because it is inherent in government, particularly in democracies. I am not going to take any credit here as I have no idea how I would be acting if I were in government or interested in a government position. I am of the view that power corrupts....

Dan has clearly pointed out "that's the ticket" at the end. The point is not to lie. Don't fire US attorneys by accusing them of poor performance when the president can fire them for any or no reason. Don't say you are concerned about safety when you actually want to protect local industry. I would prefer the politicians to tell the truth, or at least let someone like Dan to warn us about their dirty tricks.

Dan, I strongly take issue with the "bubba" trash talk. "Bubba" is an offensive term, and you just painted all of the south with that broad brush. You may as well slam all Mexicans as "wetbacks" the next time a Mexican politician does something you don't like.

Dan,

I'm concerned about your response to nh; I think he/she raises a good point. It seems it is up to the people of Alabama to decide what is and is not in their best interest. If Alabama consumers want to pay more for their peace of mind, who are the rest of us to stand in their way? Could we not say similar things for California's higher standards for fuel emissions?

A couple other points:

1) You say "particularly when I have been told that its testing standards are without any real scientific basis." Are you referring to the testing for fluoroquinolones? Also, can you give us any background on who you've heard that from?

2) Particularly when it comes to issues like these--which presumably have some effect on your business, and almost certainly affect your clients (or prospective clients)--your readers may be somewhat concerned about what degree of impartiality you can obtain. I felt a little uncomfortable when reading the last part of your post, especially when you bolded the word "our." I think you would agree that the US is no monolith; indeed, exactly as your post illustrates, we have varying interests. As a consumer, I may be thinking: I don't want to eat fish raised on antibiotics, and if I do, unknowingly (and am somehow injured), I want to be able to sue, and sue (relatively) easily. Perhaps what I'm suggesting is that Ron Sparks's concerns, no matter how they motivated, still resound to many consumers within and without Alabama.

"they [China, or all foreigners?] couldn't grow fish if they didn't use those antibiotics."

----Sure there are selfish motives and the farmer might be saying it without ever visiting a Chinese fishery farm, but this accusation might as well be quite close to truth. Just try asking a Chinese fishery farmer to eat his/her own product.

John --

Me too. I was actually just talking yesterday about how Seattle lawyers are so troubled by Gonzales' firing of the US Attorney in our area and how nobody I know really believes the reasons given for it. Is it too much to ask for government to be credible?

Robert --

I had no idea and I apologize. I have so often heard Southerners use the word "Bubba" either jokingly or even endearingly that I did not know it is viewed as always being offensive. Growing up as a kid, I was a big Michigan State football fan and my favorite player was Bubba Smith. Not once did I hear anyone say that term was used derogatorily against him.

I also certainly did not mean to paint the South with any brush at all. I was focusing on Sparks and I called him "Bubba Sparks" because I loved the fact that there is a rapper out there with that name (a favorite, actually, of both my daughters) and I would be able to be hip and talk about provincialism simply by using that one word. I used the word to convey what I saw as Sparks' self-absorbed politics only, certainly not to convey anything about the South as a whole, or even about any other person in the South.

Again, though, I am sorry to have offended anyone by using this word and if it is as offensive as the word "wetback," (which I would never use) than I am both hugely embarrassed and doubly sorry.

Wendy Jackson --

You get the best comment on this post award and I am a bit surprised nobody went after me on your points until now, as when I was writing the post, I knew I was weak here.

1. "It seems it is up to the people of Alabama to decide what is and is not in their best interest. If Alabama consumers want to pay more for their peace of mind, who are the rest of us to stand in their way? Could we not say similar things for California's higher standards for fuel emissions?" If Alabama consumers want to pay more for their peace of mind, they absolutely should be allowed to, within the confines of our constitution. In other words, if AL wants a tougher standard for the seafood that goes on sale IN AL, they should be allowed to do so. But that is not really what is going on here, as here what is being tested is imports into AL that may be going anywhere else in the US. Does AL test all its seafood so rigorously, or just imported seafood? Is it testing its meat and other foods so rigorously, or just seafood?

Good analogy to CA fuel emissions, but I think there is a difference. I think the better analogy would be if CA said that all cars must meet certain MPG standards. That would not be allowed because that is left to the federal government, unlike clean air, where states are much freer to enact their own standards. Also CA fuel emissions apply to all cars IN CA, not just foreign cars and it is not clear AL testing applies to anything other than foreign seafood and even if it does apply to all seafood, it appears particular "Chinese" problems are being singled out, rather than an overall safety standard.

2. "You say "particularly when I have been told that its testing standards are without any real scientific basis." Are you referring to the testing for fluoroquinolones? Also, can you give us any background on who you've heard that from?" I fretted about this sentence more than any sentence I've written since starting this blog and I somewhat hoped it would slip through, but at the same time, it really should not. I learned about this from someone I have known a long time who is involved with imports. He uses a customs lawyer to assist with import issues, not my firm. I will be very vague here, but I will say I have known this guy for a very long time, know him to be truthful, and know him to really know the business. His education is in this area. He tells me that his understanding of the testing in AL is that it is done to prejudice Chinese seafood. He says that the amounts of antibiotics for which AL is testing seafood are so small that it is a real question in the literature as to whether the testing is even accurate. He also says that the amounts are lower than the amounts deemed safe by those in the know. Lastly, it is my understanding that AL allows higher amounts in other foods. I believe him.

3. "Particularly when it comes to issues like these--which presumably have some effect on your business, and almost certainly affect your clients (or prospective clients)--your readers may be somewhat concerned about what degree of impartiality you can obtain. I felt a little uncomfortable when reading the last part of your post, especially when you bolded the word "our." I think you would agree that the US is no monolith; indeed, exactly as your post illustrates, we have varying interests. As a consumer, I may be thinking: I don't want to eat fish raised on antibiotics, and if I do, unknowingly (and am somehow injured), I want to be able to sue, and sue (relatively) easily. Perhaps what I'm suggesting is that Ron Sparks's concerns, no matter how they motivated, still resound to many consumers within and without Alabama."

You can raise the issue of my bias in just about every post I write, and you should. But this post is not going to help my business at all, I would not think (as my firm really does not do customs work) and our representation of seafood companies almost certainly leans more heavily towards those who hate imports from China, as opposed to those who actually import from China. I do have a very strong bias here and it has nothing to do with clients. What it has to do with is that I am a very strong believer in free trade and I absolultely loathe backhanded attempts to impinge on that. Though I oppose protectionism, I can respect those who call for it because they think it is in the best interest of the US to have it. That is a difference of opinion and I recognize I could be wrong. But, I have always had a big problem with protectionism disguised as something else.

When I was at Indiana University Law School, there was a course every third year wanted to take because both the workload and the grading were easy. The course was taught by an Indiana judge and the topic was the judicial system. The judge would often brag about how great Indiana's judicial system was because the judges would be initially appointed and then would run for reelection and so far no incumbent had ever been defeated. Every time he would say this I would absolutely fume and for the first few weeks I would remain silent (because the grading in that class was so subjective). One day, I had enough, and told him in front of the class that I thought this was the worst system for electing judges possible. I told him that it smacked of the Soviet Union where votes would pass with 98% and that what was going on here was the worst of both worlds. Indianda was telling its people it could vote, and yet setting it up so the vote would be meaningless. This was a denigration of democracy and dishonest to the people. I said appointing judges is fine and voting on judges is fine, but lying to the people is not and that the system made a mockery of democracy. The teacher said very little and, as I recall, I ended up getting a grade in that class below my usual. So I have a long history of being unable to keep my mouth shut on these things and I see what Sparks is doing as the same sort of thing and it really bugs me.

Dan,

First, I appreciate the responses you've given both to my comment and to those posted by others. To respond:

1. "[I]f AL wants a tougher standard for the seafood that goes on sale IN AL, they should be allowed to do so. But that is not really what is going on here, as here what is being tested is imports into AL that may be going anywhere else in the US. "

I believe that the "stop-sale" order Sparks issued could only apply to sales taking place in Alabama. I believe you are correct, however, that they were testing all such imports from China. Is the implicit assumption that even though the fish may be destined for sale elsewhere (i.e., AL is only the port of entry), the fish are still quarantined by the state?

2. :) Let me help you out.

Sparks was critical of Dr. Robert Cox, director of the Mississippi Poison Control Center, who recently was quoted saying he saw no problem with serving tainted Chinese catfish to his family and children. Cox told The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., last week that a person would have to eat 220,000 pounds of the fish to get a full adult dose of the antibiotic. Cox reviewed the Mississippi test results and said the catfish showed traces of the antibiotics at a level of about one part per billion.

3. Please don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the post. And, ultimately, I agree with all of your major points. I think some of the facts came across a bit sketchy at first, so some questioning commentators are to be expected. Though, I hope you'd do the same for any of us.

Wendy:

Dan's response is simply part of the "tow the line" mentality that exists within the China-US business community both in the US and especially in China. If you were to ever sit in an American Chamber of Commerce meeting in China you'd want to puke, hit people in the head or both.

Therese --

I understand that, but did you find my use of Bubba unseemly? Is it really the equivalent of calling an Hispanic a "wetback," as one commenter has suggested?

Dan:

Our protectionism punishes countries/regions that really don't have quality problems that aren't readily solvable via education, assistance and some technology transfer while we turn the other way with regards to everything that is imported from China and now we are shocked at the results.

It is not so much due to direct lobbying from Beijing but lobbying by Amcham China on behalf of Beijing due to "over exuberance" in gaining access to the vast pool of cheap labor and to gain access to the "vast potential of 1 billion customers (see your newest entry)".

Outsourcing to China has always been a "bill of goods" and everyone since Nixon has looked the other way for the benefit of corporations, now collectively grouped into a trade union called Amcham China. Have more than a few drinks with these guys and you'll learn that they think that US consumers should be brought down to the level of crap Chinese consumers have to accept.

CLB -- It could be seen as that, considering the tone of this article and your not being a Southerner. However, as I stated, I didn't see you meaning any harm, as people generally don't.