Fish pharmacy

Maybe the Department of Commerce finding last week that some Chilean salmon producers are dumping their product on the U.S. market was a modest victory for American fish farmers. Or maybe the DOC finding that the Chilean government is not subsidizing its producers and that not all producers are dumping was a small triumph for Chile.

To find out who really wins, both sides now have to wait until July 15, when the International Trade Commission rules on whether penalties are in order. If things go the Americans’ way — which, to a great extent means Maine’s way — Chilean salmon could be tagged with a 5.1 percent tariff. If not, the new industry that just a decade ago held so much promise for Downeast Maine, that never had a chance to recover fully from Norwegian dumping in its early years, may become extinct.

On the surface, the Chile case is about various levels of government support and a cut-price attempt to destroy competition by flooding the market, much like the Norway case of 1989, with cheap labor thrown in for good measure. Americans say only dumping can explain how Chile, with its considerably higher transportation costs, is able to sell salmon here as much as 40 percent cheaper than can U.S. growers. Chile says its a matter of efficiency, work ethic and all that good stuff.

What it’s really about is standards, about the unfair things that happen when two sides compete under different rules. Americans raise their smolts in the controlled conditions of expensive hatcheries. Chileans raise theirs in lakes, using the infrastructure nature provides. The resulting pollution from waste and feed degrades the lakes and is causing an uproar within that country’s tourism industry, but a practice that would not be condoned in this country continues. American employers are held to certain standards regarding wages, working conditions and benefits. Chile takes a more dispensible approach.

And, as Sen. Olympia Snowe pointed out to the ITC the other day, Chile uses a lot more drugs on its salmon to keep them healthy, or at least looking that way. Chilean growers have access to some 20 drugs — antibiotics and other therapeutic agents — while Americans are allowed but three. This chemical imbalance should be a greater cause for concern for consumers than a potential 5.1 percent price hike.

The issue is not whether humans can get fish diseases, since warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals don’t swap germs very well. The issue, as Snowe noted, is about chemical residue in food, especially as it pertains to antibiotic resistence.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration limits the number of antibiotics that can be used in food production for a very good reason — bacteria and other harmful microorganisms can become immune to antibiotics through repeated exposure. The more antibiotics that are used to raise salmon in fetid Chilean lakes, the fewer that are left to effectively fight human diseases.

This might appear to be a straightforward matter of public health, but Chile has a powerful ally — the National Restaurant Association, 33,000 members and 175,000 restaurants strong. This particular NRA sees the potential 5.1 percent tariff as a hindrance, noting that Chilean imports have been a major factor in the boom in salmon’s popularity. The chemicals are just a side dish of needless worry.

So, while governments fight this out, the real solution may be found in the marketplace. Perhaps, when offered a Chilean salmon entree for $20, the fine diner might offer $21.02 for the Maine-grown variety. And hold the antibiotics.