Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Garver Farm Market wins zoning appeal to keep ag designation
House Ag’s Brown calls on Trump to intercede to assist farmers
Next Gen Conferences help FFA members define goals 
KDA’s All in for Ag Education Week features student-created book
School zone pesticide bill being fine-tuned in Illinois
Kentucky Hay Testing Lab helps farmers verify forage quality
Kentucky farmer turns one-time tobacco plot into gourd patch
Look at field residue as treasure rather than as trash to get rid of
Kentucky farm wins prestigious environmental stewardship award
Beekeeping Boot Camp offers hands-on learning
Kentucky debuts ‘Friends of Agriculture’ license plate
   
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In 2015, Congress repealed the COOL law before the duties went into effect, which would have been imposed on bovine and bovine products, pork and pork products, baked goods and cheese.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