The town of Swindon is finally pushing back — if for the wrong reasons — by opting out of a traffic camera program. The town council accurately claims that the cameras generate money, but not safety. The real objection, of course, is that the money raised goes to London, not Swindon.

So their motives may not be pure, but at least the results should be good. Accident rates tend to go up at camera-bearing intersections; authorities sometimes shorten yellow light times to nab more drivers running red lights.

Let us hope more localities follow Swindon’s lead, whatever their motivation.

The hysteria started when the first U.S. case of mad cow disease was detected in 2003. To put it in context, mad cow afflicted a single cow out of the more than 35 million slaughtered that year. That 1-in-35-million ratio has roughly held since then. U.S. beef is safe.

But South Koreans don’t seem to think so. U.S. beef was immediately banned. After quietly simmering in the background, the embargo has been cautiously eased in fits and starts. Last month, President Lee Myung-Bak proposed lifting most restrictions on importing U.S. beef. Politically, the timing could not have been worse. The Korean media has been in hysterics, adding tension to already fragile negotiations.

Korea’s domestic beef lobby has been more than happy to stoke the flames of fear. “Our competitor’s product will kill you,” seems to be their message, with the implied “only buy from us.” People believe them, too.

This is a shame. The benefits to all Koreans from freer trade far outweigh the benefits to a single industry from preferential treatment.

Truth be told, both sides are to blame for the U.S.-Korea trade impasse. Here in the U.S., the tide has also been turning protectionist. The arguments that American liberalization opponents are using are about as sound as their Korean equivalents.

One news outlet said that 94% of Koreans carry a special gene that makes them more susceptible to mad cow disease. That claim has since been exposed as fraudulent. In America, people like Lou Dobbs are claiming that trade costs jobs; but America has gained 26 million net jobs since NAFTA was passed. Wages are higher, too.

Empirical data and economic theory are both on the side of free trade. The people negotiating the U.S.-Korea trade agreement would do well to remember that, even if both the media and public sentiment are against them.

Corn futures at the Chicago Board of Trade surged as much as 4 percent on Tuesday, with an all-time high of $6.60-3/4 a bushel set by the July 2009 contract.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s weekly agriculture summary, the pace of planting is significantly slower this year:

Corn: Twenty-seven percent of the Nation’s corn crop was planted by week’s end, 18 and 32 points behind last year and the 5-year average, respectively. In the central Corn Belt, Ohio Valley, Tennessee Valley, and central Great Plains, producers gained momentum and were able to plant 20 percent or more of their crop between rain showers, but remained well behind normal in most areas. Elsewhere, farmers planted at a slower pace, awaiting warm, dry conditions to resume fieldwork. Progress was the farthest behind normal from Missouri and Illinois northward.

If lower crop production occurs, higher prices could add to rising food costs.

And, of course, the increased use of corn for biofuels has exacerbated the rise.  As the USDA noted in a May 2008 report:

The data suggest that while U.S. corn used for ethanol production had only a small effect on global markets in the 1980s and 1990s, the increase in U.S. ethanol production over the past 5 years and the related significant changes in the structure of the U.S. corn market have had a more pronounced impact on the world’s supply and demand balance for total coarse grains recently. Importantly, since the United States is the world’s largest corn exporter, some of the higher prices resulting from increased U.S. demand has spilled over onto world markets.

But here’s another question: if cellulosic ethanol does take off, what impact would that have on the clichés we use?  Would we have to scrap the old saying about separating the wheat from the chaff, and instead talk about separating the chaff from the wheat?