Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Diverse Corn Belt Project looks at agricultural diversification
Deere settles right-to-repair lawsuit for $99 million; judge still has to approve the deal
YEDA: From a kitchen table to a national movement
Insurer: Illinois farm collision claims reached 180 last year
Indiana to invest $1 billion to add jobs in ag, life sciences
Illinois farmer turned flood prone fields to his advantage with rice
1,702 students participate in Wilmington College judging contest
Despite heavy rain and snow in April drought conditions expanding
Indiana company uses AI to supply farmers with their own corn genetics
Crash Course Village, Montgomery County FB offer ag rescue training
Panel examines effects of Iran war at the farm gate
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
FFT: How disputes have impacted ag


WASHINGTON, D.C. — Farmers for Free Trade (FFT) has released a report about how retaliatory tariffs historically impact U.S. ag production. The instances highlighted include the Mexican trust dispute from 1995-2001, when the U.S. barred Mexican trucks from transporting goods across the United States.

Mexico added a 20 percent tariff on apples, cheese, wine, oranges, nuts, pork, pears, strawberries, grapes, ketchup, cherries and beer from the U.S.. Tariffs were also placed on onions, oats, lettuce and corn.

And in 2009, when former President Obama approved an increase in the tariff on Chinese tires from 4 to 34 percent, China increased the tariff on chicken parts to 64.5 percent.

Country of origin labeling (COOL) has been a dispute with Canada since 2002 when the U.S. farm bill required large retailers to label meat based on where the animal was born and raised. Canada appealed this requirement to the World Trade Organization and won the right to impose more than $1 billion in retaliatory duties.

In 2015, Congress repealed the COOL law before the duties went into effect, which would have been imposed on bovine and bovine products, pork and pork products, baked goods and cheese.

In 2000, the United States passed a law that allowed companies that petitioned for retaliatory duties to receive the funds themselves if the U.S. won the dispute. Mexico retaliated by increasing the tariff on dairy blends to 110 percent.

“While everyone agrees we need to hold our trading partners accountable, taking unilateral action to raise tariffs often comes with harmful unintended consequences here at home,” said Brian Kuehl, executive director of FFT. “History shows those consequences are most often paid by American farmers in the form of retaliatory tariffs on the ag exports farmers rely on to make ends meet.

“At a time when farm incomes have decreased and global supply has increased, it’s vital that we not take any action that would result in reducing American agricultural exports. It’s more important than ever that U.S. leaders take a thoughtful approach to raising trade barriers that weighs the impact of retaliation on American agricultural exports.”

The complete report can be found on the FFT website under “Report Highlighting How Agriculture is Targeted for Retaliation in Trade Disputes,” at www.farmersforfreetrade.com/news

3/14/2018