WASHINGTON, D.C. — Trade ministers last week from 12 nations bordering the Pacific Ocean ended negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest multilateral trade agreement of its kind.

Most farm groups applaud TPP for its potential to increase U.S. farm exports, and TPP language on labor and environmental standards, which participating countries must uphold, is seen as giving the United States a potential strategic advantage over economies like China’s.

But TPP must travel a political road in the coming months before its tariff reductions and export increases for American agriculture can become reality.

The exact language of TPP will be released in about three weeks. President Barack Obama is expected to notify Congress he intends to sign the agreement, which sets the stage for a 60-day review period, followed by an "up or down vote" on the agreement in the House and Senate.

"It’s still up to the White House to present this to Congress and for Congress to make the determination whether the U.S. is going to sign this agreement," explained Kent Baucus, National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. associate director of Legislative Affairs.

Some in Congress are already lining up against TPP. North Carolina’s two senators voiced their opposition last week, saying it is unfair by treating tobacco exports differently from other farm products. The TPP purportedly will not force across-the-board tariff reductions for tobacco.

"By carving out tobacco from the TPP, the Obama administration is discriminating against an entire agricultural commodity, setting a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements," said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). "Trade agreements should not be laboratories for setting partisan policies and picking winners and losers. If any carve-out is ultimately included in the TPP, I will work hard to help defeat its ratification."

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the TPP is good for agriculture and that it reflects health priorities of nations across the world. He cited North Carolina’s pork industry as a potential winner: "We’re going to sell more American agricultural products across the board."

The meat industry is excited about TPP for U.S. exports – especially to Japan. "Australia and Japan already have an agreement in place that gives Australia a tariff advantage over U.S. beef in the Japanese market," said Baucus. "We currently have a 38.5 percent tariff on U.S. beef going into Japan. We want to see that gone."

Japanese tariffs on U.S. beef are anticipated to decline to 9 percent in 15 years, under the TPP.

The U.S. pork industry may be an even bigger winner in Japan, where tariffs under TPP will fall 65 percent in 11 years or less and almost 80 percent in 16 years or less, according to USDA. Combined with better access to other Pacific Rim countries, such as Malaysia and Vietnam, that could make the TPP "the most important commercial opportunity ever for U.S. pork producers," said Dermot Hayes, Iowa State University agricultural economist.

Grains, oilseeds and specialty crop exports will also increase. "A TPP agreement is expected to increase the output of all grain exports from the United States by 11 percent," said Tom Sleight, U.S. Grains Council president and CEO.

Exports of biofuel and co-products, including distillers dried grain with solubles to feed livestock in Asia, could also increase.

The National Farmers Union continued its opposition to the TPP based on the lack of language about currency manipulation. "Any deal that lacks tough language against currency manipulation is not worth the paper it’s written on," said President Roger Johnson.

Currency manipulation occurs when a country intentionally devalues its currency, in effect making it more expensive to import from countries with stronger currencies.

While the TPP does not contain language about currency manipulation, a "side agreement" to the trade deal is said to provide a process by which TPP member countries may call for investigations if currency manipulation is suspected. The side agreement will be released for review with the main TPP agreement.

A key component of the TPP, especially for food and farm groups, is language about biotechnology as well as sanitary and phytosanitary barriers (SPS). Farm groups anticipate guidelines that are more clearly science-based in TPP.

Some countries use SPS requirements as non-tariff barriers for imports from other countries. Examples of this include a ban on U.S. poultry meat by some after the recent avian influenza outbreak, as well as past restrictions on North American beef after documented cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

While ongoing SPS disputes are not expected to be directly addressed by the TPP, supporters said it will help in the future. "The TPP agreement will give us now an additional opportunity to raise questions about SPS rules that are not risk-based and are not science-based, and a process by which we can contest such barriers," said Vilsack.

The TPP is being negotiated by Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore and New Zealand. The agreement is widely seen as a way for the U.S. and other economies to "write the rules of the road" for trade in Asia, seeking a strategic advantage over nations not included in it, like China.