Who Will Influence Policy if the U.S. Exit the W.H.O?

A Withdrawal From the World Health Organization Could Impact Food Safety Standards

What will happen if the United States withdraws from the World Health Organization? 

In our globalized world we have come to depend on the information sharing the World Health Organization facilitates between nations for the sake of safety standards. Member perspectives shape the policy we hope protects us all from contaminated food, pandemics and famines. These same policies allow WHO agencies to bring developing nations into the fold as safe trading partners. 

The question is, if we sever our connection with the global network, who will influence the next policy decisions?  What will it mean for future food safety standards and the trade relationships that depend on them?

Fewer Funds for Food Security Projects

In his initial comments while signing the executive order to begin the withdrawal process, President Trump cited finances as being a key factor in the decision. The United States contributes significantly more money, partially through private donors, to the WHO than other countries and that has earned America a prime seat when it comes to shaping safety standards for global trade. 

More than that, the funding allows for the planning, implementation and monitoring of actions that work to reduce food borne diseases from occurring and spreading. Monitoring food safety is crucial to trade on an international level. Without it, many regions of the world would see a decrease in accessibility to nutrient dense food options as it would be difficult to ascertain how food was handled and trade relationships could begin to deteriorate.

Expertise Void

But a withdrawal from the World Health Organization is about more than simply a funding decrease. Any U.S. government personnel working with a WHO agency will be removed creating an expertise void. The United States will no longer be part of any negotiations or discussions that aim to build collaborative responses to food safety issues that could have international impact. 

The fact that an estimated 1 in 10 people suffer sickness as a result of eating contaminated food, and an average of 420,000 people die from food borne illnesses every year has sparked concern that a U.S. withdrawal would be a catalyst for another pandemic situation. Without the expertise, perspective and funding from the United States it would be difficult for the World Health Organization to  respond quickly to a food safety crisis.

Are We Already in a Crisis Situation?

Some might say we are already in a crisis situation when it comes to food safety. The Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu has mutated, crossed into mammals and resulted in one documented human death here in America. Though biosecurity strategies have been strengthened in the last year, the situation continues to escalate around the world. If the U.S. does not continue to be part of shaping response tactics will it jeopardize our trade relationships? 

The United States exports more poultry and poultry products than any other nation, shipping $5.4 billion worth in 2023. HPAI was the cause of fewer exports in 2024. We also know the influenza has been found in dairy cows which continues to underscore the need for vigilance lest it spread into more animals we depend on as food sources. 

Does the World Health Organization Still Serve Its Purpose?

A withdrawal by the U.S. could act as a wrecking ball, a dismantling of an information sharing system that has achieved profound initiatives and been the catalyst for the development of food safety agencies and practices among its member nations. Perhaps Africa, China, India, the European Union and the United States, all of whom have food and agricultural safety agencies of their own are capable of negotiating food safety standards, trade expectations and responding to crisis situations without the facilitation or funds collected by the WHO.

The World Health Organization has come to be viewed as more than just a data collection agency responsible for categorizing diseases, tracking sources and systematically diffusing health crises. The international organization made up of member countries is also an economic stabilizer, and environmental supporter as well as a trade facilitator. When funding is pulled from projects that support efficient farming, sustainable commodity production and the development of economic security will other nations rally to fill the void?

In the past, when the United States has scaled back funding, European nations have been quick to fill the gap. However, inflation and economic downturns continue to be issues for all existing member nations.  If the United States does withdraw from the World Health Organization there may be fewer donors willing to step in or members able to increase donations. Agencies like the CODEX Alimentarius, which builds food control systems, is instrumental in food chain information sharing and risk management and is already set to begin major food safety projects in emerging nations could be left without the money or the expertise to operate at such a large capacity.

All member nations use CODEX standards to develop domestic policy which offers both a certain measure of guarantee when it comes to trade relationships with other member nations as well as protection in the event of trade disputes. Even though a nation can adopt its own level of safety protocols, nations who adhere to the given standard, particularly emerging nations looking to secure trade relationships and invest in economic development, have a better chance of entering into profitable agreements.  

Who Can Replace the United States?

The World Health Organization isn’t likely to dismantle itself over the course of the next year should the U.S. cut ties with it. Instead, nations already working to broaden their influence on global trade could step in to fill the void left by the United States. China and India have the potential to take a more prominent seat at the WHO table.

Although the African Swine Flu ushered in a new era of food safety standards for China, the nation has long been criticized for lax food production methods. From toxic levels of pesticides being used in produce production, to chemical additives used to make foods appear more appealing, to low quality feedstocks for livestock and fish, the country has prioritized fast production over food safety and nutritional contribution. China has also been on the radar lately for their large investment in trade route infrastructure. Funding increases influence and because it is an organization made up of members, it begs the question; would the United States be giving up global influence on food safety standards to China?

India is also working to become a bigger player in commodity trading. With multiple port projects underway as a means of linking itself to the rest of the world’s trade relationships, India could also move in with additional funding for WHO projects and aim to secure a voice among member nations. But, like China, India has also struggled with its food safety regulations. The country has had trouble monitoring the standards they have set and ensuring food production companies are adhering to safe practices. Investigations into suspect products have revealed false labeling and toxic levels of chemicals.

The United States has had to confront its own food safety issues as well and is currently experiencing a strong consumer demand for more transparency in food supply chains. With multiple years of agricultural trade deficits it seems a withdrawal would make supply chains less transparent for U.S. consumers. We might not want to give up more money to global initiatives, but are we willing to give up our voice on crucial issues surrounding food sustainability, efficient production methods, and trade standards?