Posted on

Stalled Trade Deal Threatens U.S. Food System Gains

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here.

 

As the old saying goes, one hand washes the other.

That familiar bromide might be the best starting point in trying to understand what’s going on with the trade talks between the United States and the European Union. Trade between two of the largest and most significant economic entities in the world added up to 1.5 trillion euros in 2024. That is one-third of all global trade, worth about 43 percent of global domestic product.

Trade Deal Brings Everyone to the Table

This dynamic represents the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship on the planet – and a critical pillar of both entities overall economic health. The United States is the EU’s top export market and trails only China as its largest import source.

The trade and investment relationship is far from some kind of abstract, egg-head issue. Virtually every segment of our economy has a stake in that bilateral trade – including the full spectrum of American food and agricultural system.

Whether we recognize it or not, consumers depend on healthy trade as a cornerstone of our abundance and diversity of food.

Trade also provides the markets that keep the American farmer and rancher alive, thriving and capable of meeting ever-expanding consumer food needs.  In simple terms, healthy trade equals greater overall food security.

Trade Imbalance Sources

The EU is the third-largest agricultural exporter to the U.S., averaging $32.9 billion in sales annually over the past five years. Meanwhile, the U.S. exported about $13 billion in agricultural products to the EU in 2024.

The crux of the trade negotiations: the U.S imports nearly three times more agricultural products from Europe than Europe imports from the U.S.

The EU boasts a trade surplus of about $185 billion in goods but posts a trade deficit of $129 billion in services. The European Commission cites its own figures that place the EU’s advantage in the trade relationship at $57 billion in 2023, or roughly 3 percent of the overall value of bilateral trade.

From the U.S. perspective, as expressed by President Donald Trump, the “big idea” behind the trade initiative is to bring better balance to the overall trade relationship.  The U.S. deficit in agricultural trade was among the most commonly cited targets for U.S. negotiators.

The top five U.S. agricultural exports to the EU by value are soybeans, almonds, pistachios, whiskies, and food preparation products, totalling $521 million. The U.S. imports European wine, cheese, olive oil, pasta, chocolate, and spirits at a much larger clip.

Think of it this way: the wine aisle at your local grocery store tells much of the story. Those bottles of French Bordeaux, Italian Chianti, and Spanish Rioja flow freely into the U.S. market, while American pork, beef, and dairy face significant barriers getting into Europe.

U.S.-EU TRADE FACTS & FIGURES

  • Trade in agricultural and ag-related products between the U.S. and the EU reached $44 billion in 2023, making the EU the fourth largest export market for U.S. agriculture.
  • Soybeans top the list of U.S. products exported to the EU, worth roughly $2.6 billion.  The American Soybean Association notes that the EU is our second largest soybean export market, taking about 11 percent of our shipments abroad. (China remains the runaway top market, taking 54 percent.)
  • Other top exports to the EU include nuts, whiskies and food preparations.
  • Overall, the United States runs an agricultural trade deficit with the EU. The International Trade Administration placed the 2022 deficit at $17.6 billion — and notes that it has been in deficit for “more than 20 years.”

For greater insights into the numbers for U.S.-EU trade and the details of the trade agreement framework, click on these links from the European American Chamber of Commerce, U.S. International Trade Administration, European Council, USDA’s Economic Research Service, and U.S. Congress Tariffs & Trade Framework Agreement

So when the United States and the European Union last summer announced significant progress on a major trade agreement designed to spur future growth in the relationship, people paid attention. The proposed pact is a massive piece of negotiating achievement, with huge potential gains for both sides in the deal – but especially for the United States.

Defining Framework Components

The “framework” for The Cooperation Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair and Balanced Trade announced on July 27, 2025, promises to expand market access in the EU for U.S. goods and services.

Here is where they ended up:

  1. 15% tariff ceiling on EU goods entering the U.S.
  2. Industries exempt include airplane and airplane parts; pharmaceuticals and ingredients; semiconductors; and critical natural resources
  3. Steel and aluminum have a 50% tariff, but still being negotiated
  4. EU auto exports to the US will be 15%
  5. EU will eliminate or reduce tariffs on many US industrial goods; it will also suspend retaliatory tariffs for six months
  6. EU will purchase $600b in American energy and defense products; aircraft and aircraft parts

While many EU political leaders have voiced concerns about an increased cost of doing business with the United States, the majority have preferred to view the potential agreement as a sign of increasing stability and predictability in overall bilateral relations.

The framework announcement clearly represents a first step in a much larger process of trade liberalization. Lofty ambitions and imprecise goals don’t make up hard agreements. But optimists on both sides of the Atlantic rushed to sing the praises of an historic first step in achieving a more normal relationship between the U.S. and the EU.

What The U.S. Farmer Stands to Gain

Predictably, political figures weren’t the only ones using optimistic language. U.S agricultural interests have been at the forefront of that expression of hope.

Meat and meat packaging exports from the United States to Europe peaked in 2008 at about $2.8 billion.

But increasing restrictions on use of antibiotics and growth hormones, coupled with increasingly stringent animal welfare standards across Europe have fueled a steady decline in U.S. meat sales into the EU.

U.S. Meat Export Federation’s president and CEO Dan Halstrom explained what’s at stake for his members.

Existing EU barriers have made the United States a net importer of EU meat, he noted.  U.S. beef exports reached about $245 million in 2024, with imports of EU red meat (notably pork) came in at just under $700 million. “Addressing the EU’s tariff and nontariff barriers is essential to enabling U.S. export growth.”

Halstrom’s comments underplay the potential for gain in the U.S. share of EU imported beef. 

New EU regulations set strict standards and limits on imports from countries that  practice deforestation. Brazil provides about one-quarter of EU beef imports. Combined with other South American providers such as Argentina and Uruguay, the EU imports over half its beef from this area.

EU purchases of U.S. energy – including ethanol – would total $750 billion by 2028, with an additional $600 billion of EU investment in the United States. Such talk helped create optimism for a further expansion of demand for corn and other source material for the renewable fuel industry.  The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) points out that the EU has been a major market in recent years, ranking third with 197 million gallons imported last year and up 54% over 2023.

The National Corn Growers Association echoed the importance of any sign of an increase in corn demand.  With a record corn crop just announced and surplus stocks of corn growing, corn farmers have a huge stake in any agreement that could boost corn demand.

“Corn growers are already marketing their corn for extremely low corn prices, and this massive projected corn supply without market-based solutions to increasing corn demand is already causing corn prices to fall further.”

– Kenneth Hartman Jr., NCGA President and Illinois farmer

Where Does the Agreement Stand Today? (But before we cut the cake…)

The initial EU reaction could be best described as “cautiously optimistic,” as national leaders from the 27 EU member countries weighed in the differing degrees of enthusiasm and support for the deal.

Comments such as “positive” and “good, if not perfect” were typical.  “The best we could get under very difficult circumstances,” said EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic.

Both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union must give approval, and the U.S. Congress is expected to weigh in as the deal moves closer to actual implementation.

Unfortunately, the promise of sunny skies in the U.S.-EU trade relationship have darkened in recent weeks.

No one is yet willing to say the deal is dead. But the recent tension between the United States and the EU over President Trump’s plans to acquire Greenland has slowed the march to movement beyond a trade ”framework.”

Suspicion turned to outright anger in some European quarters when President Trump ramped up his claims to Greenland as a critical element of U.S national security.  Combined with threats from Washington of higher tariffs, the issue exploded on the global political stage.

European Parliament members immediately reacted by cancelling any further consideration of the trade deal, effectively putting the agreement in limbo.  But after President Trump met with European leaders representing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and announced a framework for resolving the Greenland dispute, cooler heads began to resurface – even if this latest “framework” was decidedly lacking in detail.

Few European politicians are inclined to predict what comes next, or when deliberations on the deal may resume.  However, Bloomberg has reported comments from European Parliament President Roberta Metsola indicating that Trump’s reversal in Greenland was sufficient to justify resuming the ratification process.

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic recognize the enormous value of a balanced, healthy trade relationship. The United States and the EU need each other, as both providers and customers for some of the staples of our modern diets. One hand does indeed wash the other – even if we occasionally forget just how important clean hands are.

Posted on

Venezuela: A Study in Economic Mismanagement

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Access our full podcast library here. 

The situation in Venezuela is indeed a royal mess. Decades of failed government socialist policies have had dire economic consequences for its citizens, including food consumers.

To really begin to understand what’s going on in Venezuela today, we need a little background — just a brief update so we can focus on what’s going on today.

What is behind the crisis in Venezuela?

After more than two centuries of Spanish rule, Venezuela declared independence in 1810 and embarked on the development of its infrastructure and basic economic sectors.  Education, along with farming and agriculture, blossomed in the mid and latter 1800s.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the country had emerged as one of the world’s largest oil exporters, drawing upon proven reserves larger than any others in the entire world.

With all that oil, it is no surprise that military leadership figured prominently in the political picture, despite the presence of democratically elected governments. The enormous value of oil became both an economic blessing – and a political curse.

Still today, Venezuela has one-fifth of the world’s oil reserves.

In the 1990s, military strongman Hugo Chavez twice attempted government coups before finally succeeding in being elected president in 1998.

Chavez capitalized on widespread public economic frustrations, much of it generated by years of corruption, and lack of economic development benefiting anybody but the elite. In response, he began an aggressive program of greater government control and management of key economic sectors, including food. A small ruling elite – not the marketplace, or sound economics – became the ruling master of the national economy.

Price controls on basic goods – such as food – disrupted markets and led to supply shortages. Land reform in the name of equality took a serious toll on long-standing, successful private farms and ranches. Nationalization of private enterprise spread across not just the food sector but also banking, communications, and especially the oil industry.

Double- and triple-digit inflation spiraled ever-upward. Market forces were non-existent and government control squeezed capitalism into nothing.

More and more oil dollars were used to fund numerous social programs designed to appease an unhappy public. Sadly, investment in new and better infrastructure wasn’t high on the list of government priorities.

That decision had long-term economic consequences – none of them good.  Old, outdated, and inefficient infrastructure across major sectors of the economy would require huge expenditures over a protracted period of time to modernize.

Decades of economic mismanagement and political agendas have created a nightmare environment of inflation and massive price increases, shortages of food and other staples, and significant decline into widespread poverty and despair.

In the early Chavez years, price controls on chicken, beef, pork, grains, sugar, coffee, sugar and other commodities ignored the actual costs of production and fell well below actual market prices.  Subsidies from oil income were intended to negate this economic unreality and appease frustrated and angry citizens. Important trade was restricted, shut off, or rendered economically impossible.

Chavez intended his aggressive land-distribution scheme to encourage greater production among smaller landholders. However, his plan failed to appreciate the counter-productive effects of limited access to credit, essential farm inputs and supporting infrastructure. Once again, good intentions (and perhaps a touch of political expediency) ran into the brick wall of economic reality.

When Chavez at last went to his eternal reward in 2013, Nicolas Maduro stepped into power to continue a decidedly socialist approach to economic management.  International relations continued to flounder.  Election fraud and intimidation ran rampant.  Economic sanctions increasingly complicate foreign trade.

And then came perhaps the worst blow of all – a global collapse in oil prices from 2014-2016, falling from $108 a barrel to $57 a barrel.  The economic spigot didn’t run completely dry – but a once-torrential flow of petrodollars slowed to a comparative trickle. Barter of oil for services and goods expanded, notably with Cuba.

The money simply was no longer there to try to appease discontented – and often hungry – citizens.

Now with our history mini-lesson complete, let’s deal with the real-world issues the different missteps in political leadership have created for everyday Venezuelans – and all the people who play a role in contributing to their food security.

Surprise! The American farmer and rancher are very high on that list.

What does this mean for Venezuelans?

To appreciate just how dire life had become for the average Venezuelan, consider this simple statement from the Human Rights Watch:

Over 20 million Venezuelans live in multidimensional poverty with inadequate access to rights – essential goods and services, including food and essential medicines.

Many are forced to adopt extreme survival strategies, including fleeing the country.

Today’s population is about 30 million but there has been significant exodus over the past 10 years.

Almost one-quarter of Venezuelans have chosen simply to leave the country since 2014.  The United Nations estimates the exodus at 7.9 million people, with an average of 2,000 individuals leaving every day.

Think of it this way… imagine the street you live on. Now think of it with every fourth house suddenly vacant. Imagine the entire population of my small hometown gone – disappeared into thin air – in just eight days.

The availability of food – or more accurately, its unavailability or inflated price – has been one of the most significant adverse manifestations of misguided economic policy.

YoY Inflation Rates: Venezuela

Inflation makes it impossible to purchase goods and save money.  Inflation today is around 225%.  Terrible, but not as bad as it was in 2018.

Shortages run rampant, and prices soar beyond the capacity of average citizens to pay. And to add icing to the cake, the drug trade flourishes, with all the corruption, violence, and social unrest that it brings with it.

Why can’t they just feed themselves?

Historically, Venezuela is not self-sufficient in food. The country has been highly productive and largely self-sufficient in tropical commodities such as coffee, fruits, vegetables, and rice. But vast areas of the country remain undeveloped for modern farming, with only about 3 percent of its total land area used for farming.

Agriculture accounts for only 5 percent of the country’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP). About 70 percent of its cereals and 98 percent of its needed oilseeds are imported.  In September 2025, the top exports from the U.S. to Venezuela were soybean meal, wheat, and cars.

Price manipulations by the government have been a strong disincentive to many producers. Economic instability has scared off serious investment in developing productive capacity. The government’s blatant seizure of private enterprise only exacerbated the fears. In such an environment, imports have played an important role – arguably a critical role — in helping feed the population of almost 30 million.

What about the poor Venezuelan food consumer?

Failed government policies created shortages and hugely inflated food prices, which have only begun to moderate slightly and begin the tough task of rebuilding food production and consumption.

The economic mess in Venezuela has hit food consumers hard. The United Nations estimates that 82 percent of its citizens live in poverty and 40 percent experience moderate to severe food insecurity.

The main culprit in this sad situation is not the Venezuelan farmer as much as the bad decision-makers dominating the Venezuelan political and economic scene for almost four decades. The country’s animal protein sector provides a good example of how well-intentioned but economically disastrous governmental policies and actions filter down to create an average empty dinner table.

Globally, pork and poultry traditionally provide the most popular sources of animal protein, at roughly one-third each of personal meat consumption. The National Institute of Health Library of Medicine reports that animal protein makes up 70 percent of total daily protein intake for Venezuelans (similar to the percentage for Argentina, and above the roughly 60 percent levels in Peru and Chile).

In the period roughly 2017 to 2019, the full negative effects of attempts to control the food system had become readily apparent. Production and consumption levels for proteins reached a nadir, from which the country is trying to slowly claw its way back to normalcy by allowing the animal protein sector to operate with comparatively fewer governmental controls and dictates.

Reductions in price controls have been a major factor in the rosier sector outlook. The ability of poultry producers to adapt, innovate and invest amid price and control gyrations also has been very important.

Misguided economic policies have severely compromised their ability to fully develop their productive capacity.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates total Venezuelan per-capita meat consumption at 45 kilos (roughly 100 pounds ), up significantly from its 2018 record low.  Pork production is projected to rise by about 12 percent, and poultry meat consumption is growing even more quickly — by 40 percent.  In contrast, beef consumption is projected to continue its slow decline.

Venezuela boasts a modern, efficient poultry industry, with the potential to meet the needs of the country’s citizens, if allowed to do so.

Poultry meat production in 2014 – the year of Maduro’s ascension to power – reached almost 1.5 million metric tons.

By 2018, that figure had declined to 211,000 tons. Poultry meat imports fell from the mid-2000’s levels (318,000 tons at its peak) to virtually zero.

Imports this year are forecast to reach only 14,000 tons. (Historically, most poultry imports come in as processed chicken from Turkey and various forms of poultry from Brazil, Colombia and the European Union.)  Industry investment suffered, and more and more people went hungry.

Mark Twain popularized the common quote on the existence of “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” 

Venezuelan protein consumption data may well reflect the truth behind the comment.

On a global basis, Venezuela ranks near the bottom quartile in global per-capita consumption of chicken — with at least 111 countries boasting a higher per-capita consumption figure. While we in the U.S. consume almost 120 pounds a year of chicken, Venezuelans are lucky to eat 35 pounds a year.

As positive as the most recent market outlook for animal protein in Venezuela may seem to some, the country faces a long, tough road to joining the front ranks of countries providing consumers with this critical element of a healthful diet.

Where does the U.S. farmer figure into this?

Venezuela relies on the United States for many of its important food and commodity needs. USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service notes that U.S. farmers and ranchers in 2024 had a 39 percent share of the country’s market, worth $800 million.

Venezuela remains an important market for U.S. agriculture, most notably providing many of the grains and oilseeds on which the Venezuelan animal protein sector depends.

Thanks to special exemptions from key trade sanctions, soybean meal, corn, wheat, and rice are top imports – and major factors in the ability of the animal protein industry to recover and expand protein availability for a hungry populace. U.S. trade officials and farm interest all express optimism that the elimination of the Maduro regime will open the door for further growth in Venezuelan market opportunities.

It could well be yet another example of the happy marriage of improved food security (for Venezuelans, in this case) and greater financial opportunity for U.S. farmers.

For more detail on Venezuela, its history and culture check out these sources of information:

BBC Country Profile: Venezuela

World Factbook, CIA

Nations Encyclopedia: Agriculture in Venezuela 

WSJ video: Venezuela Explainer excerpt from Jack Ryan

Posted on

Farm Bill for Dummies

What is the Farm Bill?

The Farm Bill is the comprehensive federal legislation that lays out our food and agricultural policies.  Think of it as a blueprint, or rules of the road, for guiding the production of the food consumers here and around the world depend upon.

The Farm Bill dates back to 1933, when in an effort to help farmers devastated during the Great Depression, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, providing basic commodity supports. Farm legislation traditionally has been renewed every five to six years, expanding with each bill to cover an ever-wide range of national policy objectives.

What’s in it?

Think of the Farm Bill as a great big bus – with enough seats from everyone from the farm field to the dinner plate, from the American heartland to the most distant export market.

From its initial focus as an economic support plan for farmers, the Farm Bill has grown, pardon the expression, like a weed. The last farm bill, Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, included 12 separate titles and ran over 800 pages.

From its humble origins, the Farm Bill now lays out a basic blueprint for commodity supports, crop insurance, farm credit, conservation programs, rural development, bioenergy, commodity market regulation, research and extension services, trade promotion, forestry, horticulture, food safety and nutrition – and more.  The table of contents for the last Farm Bill ran 16 pages – longer than the average piece of legislation placed before Congress.

The sheer scope of the legislation makes it one of the most complex and daunting tasks facing Congress.

The number of voices that must be heard in drafting the legislation has grown in lockstep with the bill’s span of goals and objectives. And with each Farm Bill, the task of finding consensus grows more and more demanding. Differences on policies and especially spending priorities have led to simple year-long extensions of the 2018 law.

How much does it cost?

As the Farm Bill has grown in size, so has the price tag. The total five-year tab for the 2018 Farm Bill is estimated at about $428 billion dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office during the last round of Farm Bill deliberations. That’s about $1,300 for every American over those 5 years, or roughly $260 per person per year.

That number again?

$428,000,000,000

As high as the numbers are, the five-year cost of the Farm Bill remains only 9 percent of the 2025 federal budget – and less than 2 percent of the federal budget on an annual basis.

In fact, it’s a pittance compared to federal spending.  Social Security spending ran about $1.354 trillion in 2023. Healthcare clocked in at $889 billion, Medicare another $848 billion in that year. Our national defense budget hit $820 billion, with another $302 billion for veterans benefits. Even interest on the national debt ($658 Billion) topped the cost of the five-year Farm Bill. Still, nearly a half-trillion taxpayers dollars should garner some attention – and it has.

Where does the money go?

Now before anyone goes all ballistic over how rich this makes the American farmer, let’s take a look behind those numbers.

The latest data from the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture notes that the overwhelming majority of spending comes through four specific areas (or titles) the bill.

Three are mainstream farmer-oriented program areas – commodity price supports, crop insurance and conservation. These three make up about 23 percent of the total Farm Bill tab.

Where does the rest go? All those other areas cited above – research, regulatory oversight, trade promotion and the like – make up about 1 percent of the bill.

The remaining 76 percent of spending goes to nutrition programs.

Yes, three-quarters of our Farm Bill spending is devoted to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), and programs such as the National School Lunch Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and others.

Programs authorized through what’s known as mandatory funding aren’t subject to the annual appropriations process in Congress. They are funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation and respond to market conditions and other economic considerations.

Discretionary funding covers programs with a price lid and require specific congressional action to exceed them through additional appropriations. The SNAP program is mandatory funding. As as more people sign on to the program, the costs automatically go up as well.

In other words, it’s very difficult – and maybe politically impossible — to shut off the spigot of taxpayer dollars.

What’s the math for consumers and taxpayers?

As we noted, the average American pays about $260 each year to cover the costs of the 2018 Farm Bill, according to figures from USDA, the CBO and other government sources.  For a family of four, that is just over $1,000 per year.

 If SNAP costs were eliminated from the calculation, those figures drop by almost $200, to roughly $60 per person per year.  For the family of four, the cost would decrease to $210 per year, a reduction of $790. 

If SNAP costs are kept in the Farm Bill, and the projected increases in costs prove true, the average per-person and family of four costs of the farm bill will increase beyond the $260 and $1,000 estimates.

So what’s the holdup on a new Farm Bill?

Congress has made a serious run at a new Farm Bill for more than two years, but with not quite getting over the finish line. The last Farm Bill technically expired during the national tumult surrounding the Covid outbreak, and the transition from a Democrat to Republican administration made agreement among legislators even more difficult. An extension and use of continuing resolutions added to congressional appropriations helped extend the bill.

But plain old politics also contributes to the impasse.

For some time, the rising costs of SNAP flew under the radar as federal spending on health care soared, and overall federal spending expanded at what many consider an alarming rate due to Covid and other factors. But a major debate is nonetheless present over the rising price tag for the Farm Bill, with the SNAP program the primary target for budget-conscious legislators. Questions about the likely need for some form of direct financial assistance for farmers due to the continuing global furor over tariffs and trade also are very much a part of the farm policy debate.

Critics of the SNAP program have floated the idea of separating the program from any new Farm Bill. Such a step would dramatically lower the price tag. But more experienced legislations say the nutrition and food assistance programs are in the bill for a very important reason.

Proponents of keeping SNAP within the bill point to the need to appeal to House and Senate legislators with largely urban and suburban constituents.  Absent the link to SNAP, they warn, there is a risk of push-back from those inexperienced in the importance of solid food and farm policies.

Or to put it more bluntly, there is a risk of Democrats from blue states looking for leverage against Republicans from red states in the Midwest and south. It’s a high-stake game of poker, with the Farm Bill sitting in the center or the table.

In simple terms: don’t be entirely surprised if a new and better Farm Bill remains elusive in 2025.

What will the Farm Bill cost in the future?

The future price tag can’t be accurately estimated at this time, obviously.  There simply are too many uncertainties about the decision to be made by a Congress made up of a high percentage of Farm Bill virgins – that is, legislators who have never before been through the process of crafting omnibus farm legislation. More than one-third of the U.S. Senate is made up of senators elected since the last Farm Bill was passed. In the House, the percentage is almost double – 67 percent.

After two years of frustrating delays in addressing the need for new farm and food legislation, Congressional and Administration leaders pledge their best efforts to see the Farm Bill through to completion in 2025.

The stakes are high.

Farmers need to know the rules of the road, and the policy directions that will shape their planting and marketing plans in an era of economic stress throughout the farm economy.

Consumers need to know that their food is available, safe, nutritious and affordable, which means some clarity in the way plans to reduce staff and funding in various food-related programs and agencies will play out.

Put the taxpayer on that list, too. Simply locking in the existing Farm Bill policies means the price tag for the Farm Bill will continue to escalate.

The world needs to know how reliable the United States can be as a supplier.

The cost of SNAP and comparable food-assistance programs administered by USDA already is estimated to rise to $110 billion in 2025 by the Congressional Budget Office.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimated a 10-year continuation of existing law would cost $1.4 trillion, with the SNAP share of the tab rising to 81 percent. CRS pointed out that such spending would be an increase of about $600 million.

Posted on

Food’s Huge Stake in Global Tariff Battle

President Trump called April 2, 2025, “Liberation Day,” citing a national emergency from the continuing trade imbalance between the United States and 185 countries, out of 195 in the world. The President announced an aggressive program of tariff increases and especially aggressive reciprocal tariffs against those countries deemed to have unacceptably inequitable trade relationships with the United States.

The reasons behind Liberation Day seem obvious enough. The United States had a trade deficit in goods – meaning more in the value of imports than in exports – of an estimated $1.2 trillion in 2024.  The Trump Administration’s objective is to bring jobs back to the U.S. and rebalance those tariffs that are higher in other countries than we have here. The largest deficits were with China ($295 billion), Mexico ($172 billion), and Vietnam ($123 billion). (Estimates of the deficits vary slightly among different sources but generally align with these numbers.)

The other compelling reason was the tariff imbalance.  For instance, the EU remains a major customer for U.S. agricultural exports but responded to the initial U.S. tariff action on steel and aluminum by announcing plans in March for their own aggressive tariffs on imports, affecting an estimated $20 billion in U.S. products, on top of $9 billion in tariffs on aluminum and steel from the United States. Targets include soybeans, beef, sugar, dairy and pork – including a tariff of 25 percent on corn, and as yet undetermined level for soybeans.

Trying to follow the evolving tariff proposals is like watching a jigsaw puzzle being assembled in real time—with new pieces added every day, and no one quite sure what the final picture will be.

Current trade situation 

Over the past year, the EU has purchased roughly 3.4 million tons of U.S. corn, mainly for use in their livestock feeding. Total 2024 sales of U.S. corn to the EU were valued at $359 million. The EU soy market is even larger, with imports of U.S. soybeans, meal and oil worth roughly $3 billion and accounting for over 10 percent of all U.S. soy exports.

U.S. agricultural exports to the EU have long faced significant roadblocks as EU legislators sought to protect their rural and farming sector. Phytosanitary standards and other food-safety claims have been used to prohibit or prescribe the food products allowed to be imported, on top of protective tariff levels from 6 to more than 30 percent.

The red numbers are nothing new.  In the month of February 2025, we had a deficit of $122.7 billion — a stark contrast to the last time we had a trade surplus of $15.9 billion back in 1975.  Coupled with rising federal deficits, the trade imbalance has been a thorny fiscal issue policymakers have been reluctant to tackle, due largely to the enormous implications for the national economy and the global international economic system. Presidential candidate Trump promised to take action, and President-elect Trump lived up to his word.

In the weeks since Liberation Day, the promised tariffs have roiled the international trade system and entire economic order. Critics quickly questioned the value of imposing such tariffs on two of the country’s most important trading partners.  The Administration and tariff supporters promptly noted that the highest agricultural trade deficits are with Mexico ($18.8 billion) and Canada ($12.5 billion).

In 2024, the United States is now on pace to reach a $39 billion agricultural trade deficit, the worst in our history.

This 2024 deficit is larger than any trade surplus year besides 2011.

– Andrew Rechenberg, Coalition for a Prosperous America, January 16, 2025

As might well be expected with such a dramatic step, the tariff announcement quickly produced more questions than clear answers. When would they actually begin? What products might be exempt? What are the chances for bilateral trade agreements to avoid or moderate the actual tariffs? The roster of questions continues to grow, with increasing uncertainty apparent in markets worldwide. 

How will tariffs affect farmers & producers?

Put agriculture at the top of the list of those seeking answers. Farmers still must make plans – on what to plant, what inputs, such as fertilizer coming from Canada, are needed and available (and at what price), how to anticipate market volatility and structure the marketing plans they need to find profitability amid low commodity prices and still-high input costs.

How do farmers weather the possible loss of key export markets, especially for soybeans, right now and potentially well into the future?  The U.S. currently exports approximately 50% of the soybean crop to other countries, China as the primary one.

Food manufacturers, distributors and retailers wonder about the reliability of supplies of all sorts of products, coffee, fish, spices and an extensive list of important items whose foreign origins are normally invisible to the consumer.  How much of a cost increase can I absorb, and how much must I pass along to the next link in the marketing chain?

But we don’t have to panic about our fruits and vegetables as they are USMCA compliant and not subject to the new tariff rates.  For example, the U.S. imports about 59% of fresh fruit and 35% of vegetables from other countries, notably Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Canada.  Well, maybe we can panic about tomatoes — now a casualty of the trade war, a 10% increase in the price of tomatoes is a possibility for the 70% of tomatoes brought in from Mexico.

What do corn, soybeans, and China have to do with tariffs?

Exports around the world are a large portion of demand for US agricultural products. They help balance the trade deficit. The U.S. has spent a lot of time and effort to expand market access.  As a result, just about 65% of US soybean production is exported in the form of seed or finished products like soybean oil, soybean meal, meat, and biofuels.  About 30 percent of corn is exported in the form of grain or finished products like ethanol, meat, and dried distiller’s grains feed.

The top three countries targeted for tariffs to date: Mexico, Canada, and China, are also our top three markets for agricultural exports at $30.3 billion, $28.3 billion, and $24.7 billion, respectively, in 2024.

– Betty Resnick, Economist, American Farm Bureau Federation, March 18, 2025

For agriculture, this is much about China.

Before the US-China trade war began in 2017, 40-50% of all global soy going into China was from the US and Brazil was 50%; now (2024) 20% of China’s soy comes from the US, 70% is Brazilian origin. The US has lost ground in China due to the growth in Brazil.

China’s place atop the list of countries facing the highest reciprocal tariffs has attracted extensive attention. The American Farm Bureau estimates that the cumulative tariffs imposed by China on U.S. agricultural products will climb to 71.5 percent for soybeans. As the New York Times observed, “More than half of U.S. soybean exports went to China last year, but the price just went up 135 percent under the tariffs China installed in response to President Trump’s 145 percent tax on Chinese imports.”

Relief for farmers?

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has been engaged with various leaders across the agricultural sector, discussing how to deal with the potentially adverse economic effects of the tariff action. Officials acknowledge the need to offer assistance, but details on just how much aid to provide, how to deliver it, and most of all how to pay for it still are under discussion.

Producers received an estimated $28 billion in financial support during the 2018 trade disputes. Officials worry that the price tag could be even higher this time around. Commodity prices remain well below estimated costs of production and input prices, while a bit lower this year, nonetheless still represent a substantial expense.

Worries about supplies of fertilizers such as potash from Canada and other suppliers also remain, despite progress in carving out some tariff exemptions.  Moreover, unlike the last time around, when the dispute centered on China, the global extent of the proposed tariffs also will affect the ability to market to other customers around the world, especially many of the key traditional markets facing tariffs above 10 percent.

Some officials continue to argue that income from the tariffs will help provide additional funds, but that income has yet to be realized. Hopes to fund the economic support through USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) are also being discussed. But the actual amount of money available under the CCC’s $30 billion authority is still in question.

The prospect of approaching Congress for additional funds poses big political issues, as both the House and Senate work to resolve an already contentious budget blueprint – not to mention how taxpayers would respond to spending more for farm relief amid the drive for spending cutbacks and fiscal balance.

And the consumer?

The effort to address the long-standing problem of the trade imbalance won’t come without a cost to the American consumer, at least as the negotiations needed for resolution of the problem play out and global markets stabilize.

According to the political website The Hill, the Tax Foundation estimates the tariffs could result in a de facto tax increase of $1,900 for each U.S. household in 2025, unless the issue is resolved quickly.  That figure includes the added cost of everything subject to the tariffs, not just food.

The Atlanta Federal Reserve estimates tariffs of 25 percent for Mexico and Canada on products ranging from beef, pork, grains, potatoes and canola oil (Canada) and vegetables, fruit, beverages and spirits (Mexico) could result in an increase of 1.63 percent in costs.

Threats to impose a 20.9 percent tariff on tomatoes from Mexico when the existing tomato import agreement expires in July could lead to a noticeable jump in prices, according to the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas.

While most economists seem to agree higher tariffs mean higher prices, few agree on exactly how much of an increase to expect. They point to the open question of how much of the higher costs portions of the food chain are willing to absorb and how much they feel compelled to pass along.

The answer may be some time coming, and still subject to further decisions and actions taken by the Trump Administration in refining and finalizing its trade strategy.

Posted on

What Are Consumers Doing about Food Costs?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) in late February announced an expected increase in at-home food costs of 3.3 percent for this year. That’s well below the roughly 11 percent hike we saw during the Covid peak.

But 3.3 percent is still well above the less than 2 percent increase in 2024 and the comparable 20-year average of food price increases.

The simple message behind all the numbers: consumers can expect the cost of their food to continue rising. It is in the news everywhere: “Food Prices are Rising Again” at the Wall Street Journal, “Why are food prices still high, five years after COVID?” on Axios, “US Inflation Seen Elevated in February, with higher Food Prices,” at Bloomberg, and “Foods to stock up on before tariffs raise prices again” at the New York Post…everywhere we look, there’s a headline about it.

The message didn’t surprise me as much as start me thinking.

I’ve read report after report from various government agencies and scholarly tomes on why costs have gone up, and even a few marketing reports about altered consumer behaviors.

What about us?

But what about the ordinary everyday food shopper?  What do he and she really think, and how have they responded to the food price inflation and spot shortages and other disruptions along our food chain?

Overall food prices rose 23.6 percent from 2020 to 2024 – almost one quarter.

USDA projects another 3.3 percent in 2025.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) using U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index data; and forecast from the ERS Food Price Outlook data product.

We’ve been fighting this battle since Covid. So the real people I live with have had time to adapt.

How have they changed the way they think about the food they buy, and what they actually do when it comes to selecting the food they serve their families?  Not the cold, sterile language of some government bureaucrat with acres of spreadsheets and mountains of data, or someone in an ivory tower focused on economic theories, or some VP of Marketing in Manhattan with grand plans for profitably accommodating the food-buying masses.

Real, everyday people.

So I started asking my own questions of a random collection of people I encountered in my own food forays. I asked simple questions and then just listened to what an incredible array of different neighbors and strangers had to say – men and (mostly) women, young and old, affluent and the paycheck-to-paycheck set. What I heard was illuminating.

I offer my observations from this effort for whatever you choose to make of it. I don’t pretend it is a comprehensive, serious academic exercise, or to boast a sample size that can be defended as statistically valid.

It’s what real people of all stripes had to say about how they go about buying the food their families need, from one miniscule slice of the Great American Public here in the mid-South.

But maybe you can see something of yourself or your community in what these folks had to say. And maybe Dirt to Dinner will ask people in other places what they have to say, too.

Q1: How often do you shop for food?

Responses varied widely. Shoppers for families generally said weekly, single consumers said several times per week but not daily.

  • I don’t just drop in the store as often as I used to. I go when I need to.
  • I go every two weeks. It’s a lot to spend, but that way I can discipline myself more to manage how much I spend. I have a list either written down or in my head and I stick to it.

“I’ll make a big buy every week or so, and just drop in if I need something specific, like milk or a loaf of bread. But not for a big buy.

And I don’t get side-tracked… in and out.“

Q2: How much do you spend on average – each trip, over a week, or a month?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2023 estimated the average consumer spends $6,053 per year on food – or $116.40 per week.

Our responses varied, according to the individual circumstance, but answers of $100 to $200 per week per person were typical.

  • It’s just me. But I still seem to spend $100-200 a week.
  • I’ve got a hard-working husband and a teen-age boy and girl. Spending $800 or $900 is nothing, and that’s being very, very careful in what I buy.
  • I can’t come in here without spending at least $80. and that’s just for a little.
  • Depends on how many of my son’s friends he brings home at supper time.
  • Oh, I don’t know a specific number. I just know it’s the biggest part of what I have to spend.
  • $116? Please tell me where those people live.  

Q3: How much have your food costs changed, especially since COVID? A little, a lot, how would you describe the increase?

Consumers thought less in terms of specific numbers than one big idea: they’ve gone up a lot.  When pressed for a number, most said 20-30 percent, and some as much as 40.

  • At least 20-30 percent.
  • Forty percent? Maybe more.
  • Seems like it’s up at least half since Covid.
  • How much? I don’t know. But it’s a lot, I know that.  I see it at the check-out every time I come in here.

Q4: How much has it affected your household budget? Is food taking up a bigger share of what money you have available, or have you cut back on how much you spend on food?

Food has become a larger share of household budgets – sometimes substantially so. Feeding the family remains a priority.

  • I’m spending more and more of my budget on food. It’s at least a quarter of it.
  • It’s not an option. My boys have to be fed, and they eat a lot.
  • We used to buy what we want. Now we buy what we need.
  • I try not to think about it. But I know it’s more all the time.

“I pay more now for food than I do on my mortgage.

It costs me more to feed my family than to put a roof over their heads.“

Q5: Has it changed the way you shop – the foods you select, the brands you choose, how if at all?

Rising food costs have prompted a major shift away from spontaneous, impulse buying toward a much more planned and thoughtful approach to shopping.

  • Mostly I look for sales. If it’s a good deal, that’s what we eat.
  • I look for cheaper or other kinds of meat… a lot more chicken, and maybe hamburger instead of better cuts of beef.
  • Meat-free meals? Not with two teen-age boys.
  • I go with a lot more of the store brands than I used to.
  • If you don’t plan it out, you’re going to spend a lot more. If you don’t plan it out, it’s going to be difficult to stick to any budget.
  • If you don’t have a list and stick to it, you’re in trouble.

Q6: What are you doing to stretch your food dollar?

“Shopping smarter” was a universal response, but far from the only one. Cheaper cuts of meat and protein was another.

  • I pay attention to the ads. I’ll go to more places to take advantage of sale prices, not just one store.
  • I use coupons a lot more than I used to.
  • I’ve cut back on things that really aren’t all that important to feeding my family – you know, impulse items like all that stuff at the check-out, and things that I normally don’t buy.
  • I’ll still buy the brand names. But they better be on sale.
  • I’m buying a lot more in bulk – potatoes, rice, beans, that sort of thing – and doing my own cooking. I’m going back to the Granny way of doing things.
“My home garden gets bigger every year.“
  • We eat the left-overs, even if it’s just a little. We waste a lot less food than we used to.
  • We always talked about using left-overs. Most often, we would push it in the back of the refrigerator and take it out when it turned green or blue and throw it away. Now we talk a lot less about our good intentions and actually try to do it.
  • I’ve got family in Iowa who farm. I have them send me meat. Even with shipping it I come out way ahead… just cut out that guy in the middle.

Q7: Do you expect prices to hold relatively steady, go up or go down in the coming weeks and months?

These consumers are cynical – or conditioned by almost five years of food cost increases.

They seem resigned to costs that will continue to rise – and rise substantially.

  • What do you think? Of course they are going to keep going up. Nothing I can do about that.
  • All depends on inflation.
  • How much more? I bet in three years they are up 30 percent from today.
  • Why will they keep going up? I don’t know. They just will. It’s not just food. It’s everything.
  • Depends on what Donald Trump does. He said he would bring food prices down. When are we going to see that?

Q8: Who is responsible for the run-up in food prices?

Responses were varied, with “the middleman” earning the most common response.  Farmers got a universal free pass.

  • I don’t know any one thing. It’s probably a lot of things.
  • Probably the big food manufacturers.
  • I know it’s not the farmer. I know farmers, and they aren’t getting rich right now.
  • Seems to me like the spirit of greed is alive in the land.
  • Anybody who thinks it’s the farmer is just wrong.

Q9: How often do you go out to eat? How much do you spend on food away from home? 

Eating out is still popular, but a lot more thought and planning goes into it.

Rising dining-out costs make it a bigger event than before, and if the cost is too great, people cut back or stay home. 

  • We’ll go out on weekends now and then, but not during the week. And we try to leave the kids home when we do. That saves us a lot of money.
  • We think about it before we do, and we look at how much it’s likely to cost. If it’s too much, then I just fix food at home.
  • Going out is more of a special event for us now. But we still do it. We don’t just get in the car and head out anymore without planning a bit.
  • Sometimes you just have to go out. You’re tired or busy or whatever. But you don’t go off the deep end with it, unless it’s a special occasion. And I mean special.
  • We still go out once a week or so. But we think about it more. We go to places we know we can bring food home if we don’t eat it all… not the fast-food places anymore. And it’s probably better for us, too.

“I like going out to eat. But I make sure my boyfriend pays.“

What did people say?

So what are my headlines from this non-scientific exercise?

  • My friend and neighbors think more about what to purchase and plan ahead to make smarter decisions about what to buy. They make food shopping even more thoughtful than before, and they look to avoid impulse buying.
  • They adopt a remarkable array of ways to save money and shop smart. Some use coupons aggressively. Shopping the sales at multiple retailers was a frequent practice. Cheaper alternative cuts of meat is a common responses. Buying more food in bulk and more in-home food preparation came up again and again. Growing more food in the home garden also is popular in this part of the world.
  • They still go out to eat. It’s a fact of modern life. But they increasingly think about it more, plan ahead and look for good deals. They think about the total cost before hand.
  • They focus a lot more on reducing the amount of food they waste. Eating more of their left-overs was an almost universal comment.
  • They continue to worry. Maybe it’s the explosion in egg prices that have rocked my area, but the people I spoke with seem resigned to continuing food price increases. Food cost inflation, to them, is the new norm, not an episode.
  • They don’t know who to blame. But they definitely don’t blame the farmer or rancher.
Posted on

How Will Tariffs Affect Overseas Trade?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

 

As we dive into the complex world of ocean freight’s role in U.S. food imports and exports, it’s clear that the agricultural trade and transport landscape is facing some pretty choppy waters ahead.

The Current State of U.S. Agricultural Trade

Before we delve into the potential impacts of new tariffs on ocean transport, let’s take a snapshot of where U.S. agricultural trade stands today.

According to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), U.S. agricultural exports for fiscal year 2025 are forecasted at a whopping $170 billion.

That’s a lot of soybeans, corn, and beef making their way to dinner tables around the world.

On the flip side, we’re also bringing in quite a feast from abroad. U.S. agricultural imports for the same period are projected to reach $212 billion.

From avocados to wine, our taste for international flavors continues to grow, leading to the largest trade deficit seen in over 65 years.

As an FYI, Garland’s recent post, Tariffs: Economic Boost or Negotiating Tool? does a great job exploring tariffs and their economic and political implications — we highly recommend the read.

The Ocean Freight Connection

Now, you might be wondering, how do all these agricultural products travel around the globe? The answer is primarily by sea. Ocean freight plays a crucial role in the movement of agricultural goods, both in and out of the United States.

Exports

If you’re surprised by this, you have good reason: while container shipments only account for a quarter of U.S. agricultural exports by volume, they represent over half of the value of our total exports. That’s a lot of high-value goods sailing the seven seas. The destinations receiving the bulk of these goods are China, Canada, and Mexico.

The busiest port in the U.S., the New Orleans Port Region, moves almost 40% of all U.S. waterborne ag exports alone.

Most of these exports were bulk grains and products, like corn, soybeans, animal feed, and rice. Other significant exports from this port include soybean and corn oils and frozen poultry.

But Gulf ports like New Orleans don’t just export ag products.

In fact, the value of ag exports is a small portion of the total value of all goods. Because of the relative proximity of products to Mississippi River, these Gulf ports constantly crank out enormous amounts of oil and gas, chemicals, and ores, providing a cost-efficient transport corridor. Houston and New Orleans alone account for about 65% of total U.S. oil and petroleum exports.

Imports

The European Union and Mexico are the second and third largest countries in terms of agricultural imports into the U.S. Products received from these partners are mostly comprised of tropical fruits, sugar, soybeans, and packaged grocery and beverage items.

New York and Philadelphia rank highest on the receiving end for 2023, accounting for 17% and 7% of imported goods, respectively.

Trump’s Tariff Proposal: A New Trade Storm Brewing?

Now, here’s where things get interesting.

President Trump plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada set to take effect in March 2025, postponed from February 1. This ongoing negotiation has the attention of food producers, as Mexico has become one of our largest trading partners and increasingly important export markets for U.S. farmers in recent years, with most goods traveling overseas.

Trump has also directed federal agencies to review trade pacts with China. This has many farmers recalling Trump’s first term in office. As a result of retaliatory tariffs from the onset in summer 2018 through the end of 2019, the USDA ERS reported that U.S. agricultural export losses exceeded $27 billion, with soy and pork producers hit particularly hard.

China’s swift retaliation accounted for about 95% of the value lost, but our losses were significantly mitigated by an outstanding trade agreement with China to purchase U.S. soybeans, leaving many questioning how losses might affect us next time around.

Potential Outcomes on U.S. Ag Trade

In what ways could these tariffs affect U.S. farmers and exporters? A number of things could happen that disrupt our current flow of goods, both incoming and outgoing. And these factors affect one another, leading to thorny diplomatic situations with various scenarios to navigate.

Let’s break down these potential situations:

  • Reduced Competitiveness: New tariffs could make U.S. exports less competitive on the global stage. This could open the door for competitors like Brazil to gain more market share, particularly in soybean exports.
  • Retaliation Risks: If history is any guide, we might see retaliatory tariffs from affected countries. During the 2018-2020 U.S.-China trade war, U.S. soybean exports to China plummeted from $14 billion in 2016 to just $3 billion in 2018 – a staggering 78% decrease.
  • Market Disruptions: The tariffs could disrupt established trade flows. For instance, Mexico is a major supplier of fresh fruits and vegetables to the U.S.
  • Price Fluctuations: Tariffs could lead to price increases for a wide variety of food and beverage products, affecting both consumers and the food industry.
  • Potential Export Losses: During the previous trade war, U.S. agricultural producers faced approximately $27 billion in lost exports between 2018 and 2019, with soy and pork producers hit particularly hard.

For more information on these scenarios, refer to our article, Tariffs: Economic Boost or Negotiating Tool?

Freight Impacts from Trade Tensions

Now, let’s consider how these potential tariffs might affect ocean freight costs. It’s a bit like predicting the weather – there are many factors at play, but we can make some educated guesses based on past experiences and current trends.

  • Demand Fluctuations: If tariffs lead to reduced trade volumes, we might see a decrease in demand for shipping services. This could potentially lead to lower freight rates in the short term.
  • Route Changes: Tariffs might cause shifts in trade routes as countries seek new markets or suppliers. This could impact shipping patterns and potentially affect freight rates on certain routes.
  • Uncertainty Premium: The uncertainty created by trade tensions and changing policies could lead to volatility in freight rates as shipping companies try to navigate the new landscape.
  • Capacity Adjustments: If trade volumes decrease significantly, shipping companies might reduce capacity by idling ships or slowing vessel speeds. This could eventually lead to higher freight rates as supply adjusts to demand.

The Bigger Picture: Beyond Tariffs

While tariffs are grabbing headlines, it’s important to remember that they’re just one piece of the complex puzzle that is international trade.

Several factors beyond tariffs can significantly influence U.S. agricultural exports and ocean freight costs.

Of course, there are the immediate costs of maintaining these ships and its transport across the world. Operators of these vessels must contend with the ever-changing costs of fuel, accounting for about 40% of total costs. Insurance and labor also factor in, but the fees associated with port and custom fees also command a significant chunk of its operations.

External factors out of the operator’s control make the industry far murkier. The overall health of the global economy plays a crucial role in determining the demand for U.S. agricultural products. And this is largely driven by the supply and demand cycle of the industry —  a constant balancing act between volume of goods and ocean freight capacity. Add in the effects of unpredictable weather patterns and crop yields, and you’ve got the perfect conditions for volatile capacity constraints.

Additionally, fluctuations in the value of the U.S. dollar can impact the competitiveness of U.S. exports in international markets. And the ever-changing landscape of environmental standards for shipping can also have implications for freight costs in the coming years, as the industry adapts to more sustainable practices and technological innovations.

But timing is everything when it comes to the ocean freight market. Because of these variables, operators will often book freight far in advance as an economic hedge for rising costs. This means the shorter-term factors cited above are a bit secondary to the market’s perception of overall economic drivers.

Looking Ahead: Navigating Choppy Waters

As we look to the future, it’s clear that U.S. farmers and exporters may need to brace for some chop ahead. The potential implementation of new tariffs could reshape the landscape of agricultural trade, impacting everything from commodity prices to shipping routes.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom. The resilience and adaptability of the U.S. agricultural sector have been tested before, and farmers have shown remarkable ability to weather economic storms. Moreover, the increasing global demand for food provides a strong foundation for U.S. agricultural exports in the long term.

And it’s important to note that tariffs can be used as a negotiation tool, as well as instigating action from our trading partners. Should Canada and Mexico curtail illegal immigrants coming across the U.S. border, tariffs would be expected to dissipate. We would also expect a similar change to tariffs with China, should fentanyl and other dangerous substances cease to enter the U.S.

As consumers, we might see some changes in the prices and availability of certain products, particularly those that rely heavily on imports or exports affected by the tariffs. However, the diverse and robust nature of the U.S. food system should help mitigate major disruptions.

Posted on

Here’s why we must vote…

This promises to be a very close race for President and many other state and local offices, so every vote counts. And our food and agriculture system has a lot at stake in this election…

We’re still without our long-overdue Farm Bill – the massive legislation that sets the ground rules for how our entire system for providing ample, affordable, safe and nutritious food operates.

This election could help clear the political air in Washington enough to allow this important piece of legislation to move forward – finally.

Food and agriculture have not been a prominent element of either presidential camp, apart from the expected vote-for-me rhetoric delivered in campaign swings through key farming states.

That’s probably because our food system continues to deliver a diverse, safe and nutritious supply of all the things our families want and need when they sit down at the dinner table.

The lack of prominent attention to farm and food in the national campaigns is a reflection of the success the amazing food system we have established over the years.

Other issues just seem to be more compelling than “tweaks” to a system that overall works very, very well. 

Overall Campaign Differences for Food & Ag 

This election may help clarify the future direction of the many, many policies and programs that help keep the system functioning. However, keep in mind that presidents have limited authority when it comes to agriculture regulation and policies. Congress determines most of these policies through the Farm Bill, which has been in a stalemate since 2023.

Both parties have issued platforms full of promises and noble intentions for food and agriculture, with ample pledges to all elements of the food chain, from the farm field to consumer plate. But exactly how many of those promises – and what kind of promises – actually will be pursued depends on the victorious presidential camp.

Harris/Walz

To many, the election of Kamala Harris signals a continuation of the basic direction of existing Biden-Harris Administration policies.

Accelerating a transition to a “greener” food system via environmental and climate goals would likely remain key elements of her administration’s agenda.

For farmers and food producers, efforts to help new, limited resource and/or socially disadvantaged producers would continue, as would the $42 billion spend on an underserved rural internet program.

Protecting consumer rights via the price of food also is expected to be a target, through a more aggressive approach by way of government attention to alleged price gouging.

Trump/Vance

Former President Donald Trump, in contrast, can be expected to take a more business-like approach, with less focus on the environmental and climate regulations, or for efforts to ‘manage’ the marketplace to control or bring down food prices.

A more aggressive approach to trade also might be anticipated, reflected in his campaign rhetoric of ‘getting tough’ with U.S. trading partners. That is an important issue for U.S. agriculture, which exported commodities and products worth $196 billion in 2022 and $178 billion in 2023. Improvements must be made to Reference Prices, Crop Insurance, Dairy Margin Coverage and Specialty Crop Insurance.

Trump will also invest in Starlink as the internet provider for farmers and rural America. This is cheaper than the $42 billion in infrastructure currently proposed with the Biden-Harris Administration.

A Deeper Dive into the Campaigns

To provide more context into the key differences of each campaign, we’ve compiled a summary from the recently-released Farm Bureau Presidential Candidate Questionnaire. We hope this helps you as we approach Election Day:

TRADE

Trump: Wants to end reliance on China for critical goods and strengthen American policies

During his presidency, he sent $28 billion to protect farmers from Chinese abuses. During his presidency he negotiated over 50 trade agreements to boost farm exports, create jobs, and support farmers. He replaced NAFTA with USMCA. Trump will not let states dictate or place barriers on their borders which makes it difficult for farmers to sell their products around the country.

Harris: Has stood up to unfair China trade practices as Vice President

She will not tolerate unfair trade from China or any competitor that undermines American farmers and ranchers. Regarding interstate trade, Harris will fight to reduce barriers and make it easier for farmers, ranchers, and other small business owners to earn a living and support a family off their hard work. She will modernize regulatory review/analysis and enhance public participation.

TAXES

Trump: Will protect the pro-farmer tax cuts from 2017

This includes the elimination of estate taxes, death taxes and family farm estate taxes. He will permanently keep in place the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Harris: Will end recently established tax cuts, thus raising taxes

This creates the foundation to form new tax codes that benefits the middle class and smaller farms and ranches.

LABOR

Trump: Will prioritize merit-based immigration

This means that those who are admitted to America contribute and strengthen the economy and the country.

Harris: Supports an earned pathway to legalization and eventual citizenship for agricultural workers

She will strengthen the H-2A visa program. The Biden-Harris administration invested $50 million to address agriculture labor challenges and protect farm workers by improving the immigration system.

CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT

Trump: Believes that it is critical to ensure America has the cleanest air and cleanest water

He states that the American farmers are the Climate Champions of the world because they sequester more GHGs than what they emit during production.  He will also end the Green New Deal, dismantle the ‘net zero’ energy policy, and restore America’s energy independence.

Harris: Believes in a collaboration between farmers and government

The Inflation Reduction Act put $20b to help the agricultural community adopt and expand conservation strategies – all while saving money, and ensuring the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes and increasing productivity.

ENERGY

Trump: Committed to having the lowest cost of energy and electricity in the world – which will help American Agriculture

Part of this is ending market distorting restrictions on Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal. He believes in ethanol and exporting it around the world.

Harris: Sees a future of American energy security, independence, and clean energy economy creating jobs

She voted in favor for the $10b Inflation Reduction Act for rural renewable energy, rural electrification, loans to producers, renewable energy and domestic biofuels.

REGULATORY REFORM

Trump: Transparency and common sense are key guidelines

During presidency, he cut 7 regulations for every 1 new regulation, saving American households $11,000

Harris: Will fight to reduce barriers and make it easier for farmers, ranchers, and other small business owners to earn a living and support a family

The Biden-Harris Administration has pushed to improve and modernize the process of regulatory reviews, enhance public participation and improve regulatory analysis.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Trump: Supports access to agriculture biotechnology and quick review so farmers can have faster access to innovation

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement allowed farmers and ranchers expanded access to biotechnology and eliminated non-scientific barriers.

Harris: Has fought to expand biotech education and job training programs

Their administration will reinvest in agriculture research at land-grant universities for innovation and progress to farmers.

But no matter your political views…

Please get to the polls and be part of a nation-wide effort to bring some clarity and direction to the national and local policies that shape our daily lives – and sustain the most productive, responsive and efficient food system in human history.