You are here: / Trade Negotiations and Barriers
thumbnail
,

The Art of the (US-EU) Deal

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

 

On July 25, we received excellent news after a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker: the United States and European Union had agreed to work towards a trade deal and hold off on any additional tariffs.

 

Excellent news because the apparent direction prior to the meeting was toward opening another massive trade dispute across the Atlantic on a similar scale to the one happening across the Pacific with China. The ongoing Section 232 investigation on automobile imports threatened punitive tariffs on tens of billions in EU exports to the United States. Retaliation likely would have been similarly massive (putting aside for now the also massive amount of trade that may still be hit by the 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts from Mexico, Canada, Japan, Korea and others).

 

There have been conflicting reports from both sides about the scope of the deal with regard to agriculture. Some European officials claimed agriculture is not on the table, while American officials said the negotiations will cover agriculture. To the Europeans’ point, the text of the joint statement specifies that the work towards zero tariffs will cover “non-auto industrial goods,” and subsequent clarification mentions one agricultural product for increased trade: soybeans.

 

Before considering the U.S. perspective, it is worth noting that our soybean exports to the EU are already increasing due to substantial discounts on newly homeless U.S. soybeans that, like U.S. wheat, are missing the boats to China. Soybean tariffs are already zero and the EU has no power to compel companies to purchase U.S. origin, so if the agricultural negotiations are limited to soybeans, the additional gains for U.S. farmers will be extremely small.

 

From the U.S. perspective – the one we expect to prevail ultimately if this deal will have any chance of ratification in the U.S. Congress – of course agriculture will be covered, in spite of what the initial statement may have implied. How could they negotiate an agreement covering “substantially all trade” (the WTO requirement for such deals) if the negotiations left out one of the most competitive export sectors?

 

Moreover, U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which gives the President delegated authority to negotiate trade agreements, specifically includes “trade in agriculture” as a principle negotiating objective distinct from trade in other goods. If the U.S. Administration completely ignored that negotiating objective, it is highly unlikely that Congress would provide necessary procedural protections for the agreement under TPA.

 

These questions may complicate the discussions going forward. Agricultural negotiations are always difficult between the U.S. and the EU, as they were during the last attempt at a deal under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations. But for now, we can all be grateful that discussions are occurring and a deepening trade war with the EU seems to be on hold.

/by
thumbnail
, , , , ,

Montana Wheat Farmer Testifies on the Impact of Tariffs on Agriculture and Rural Communities

Overall, U.S. wheat farmers are certain they produce some of the highest quality milling wheat in the world and want to compete on that basis freely and fairly. That desire is being challenged in unique ways right now by trade policies and global reactions that have never been a part of the world wheat market. To express the challenges of these policies on farmers and the rural community, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) this week arranged for one of their members to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee’s Trade Subcommittee. We want to share that testimony here:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Erickson-Jones and I am the Co-Owner of Gooseneck Land and Cattle from Broadview, Montana. I also currently serve as the President of the Montana Grain Growers Association, am on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Wheat Growers and a member of Farmers for Free Trade. As a fourth generation farmer, it is my honor to testify today on the impacts of tariffs on my farm, my industry and most importantly my community that depends on trade for its livelihood.

American agriculture is a tremendous global marketing success story. We export 50 percent of our wheat and soybeans, 70 percent of fruit nuts, and more than 25 percent of our pork. We are also the top exporter of corn in the world. Exports account for 20 percent of all U.S. farm revenue and we rely on strong commercial relationships in key markets including Canada, Mexico, Japan, the European Union and, of course, China – the second largest market for U.S. agriculture, accounting for nearly $19 billion in exports in 2017. U.S. agriculture exports also support over 1,000,000 American jobs. As such, trade is critically important to the U.S. economy and our rural communities.

Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Michelle Erickson-Jones.

Farmers across the country depend heavily on the ability to sell our commodities to foreign consumers. We are painfully aware of the prevalence of unfair trading practices used by some countries and we support the Administration’s interest in finding solutions to tariff and non-tariff barriers that impede fair trade. But what I’d like to share with you today are some examples of the impact of tariffs imposed by our own Administration and by the retaliatory tariffs levied by our trading partners. These impacts are felt by farmers such as myself throughout our supply chain, from higher input costs to reduced exports and lower market prices.

In May, I testified at Section 301 hearing at the International Trade Commission. As I said then and believe more strongly than ever now, “while many rural American families are optimistic about economic growth under the current Administration, there is mounting concern among farmers about trade policies that would reduce access to the export markets they depend on.”

There have been very few issues in my career as a farmer that have caused me to lose sleep. But these tariffs are one of them. I’d like to share some of the effects that have directly impacted my farm and family.

The first wave started at the time the Administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum. For me and farmers across the country that translates into increased costs of capital investments. For example, earlier this year we priced a new 25,000-bushel grain bin to increase grain storage capacity on our farm. The price was 12 percent higher than an identical bin we had built in 2017.

As we weighed our options, the bid on bin #2 expired, so we sought a second bid. This bid was 8 percent higher than the one we received just a few weeks prior – a 20 percent increase total in the cost of the same steel product in just one year.

The bin company attributed the difference in the final bin cost to a significant increase in their cost of steel. I learned that their domestically sourced steel suppliers had increased their prices to match the price of imported steel which was subject to an additional 25 percent duty when imported. As a result of this dramatic cost increase and volatility in the market, we abandoned our grain storage expansion project. The implications of that decision not only harmed my operation, it also hurt my community: a small local construction company lost a project, a U.S. grain bin company missed a sale, and a domestic steel company had one less shipment to send out of their factory.

Another unexpected outcome is something we are living through right now. Back in January, we built cattle guards for several capital improvement projects we had planned for later in the fall. A neighbor saw the finished product and asked to buy several from us. We agreed because we thought we would be able to utilize the profits for other investments. Last week I priced the steel needed to replace the cattle guards I had sold. To my shock, the price of steel had increased 38 percent – evaporating our profits. To make matters worse, now we will no longer break even on the project.

These scenarios are playing out across the nation, particularly the states that depend on agriculture. These states depend on healthy agricultural commerce for a robust economy. As our profits evaporate and our ability to spend on rural main street businesses or take weekends away decreases, our other top economies, including tourism and manufacturing, are negatively impacted as well.

While one singular example is a small sum of money in the big picture, adding up those small singular examples shows the real and substantial increase to agriculture and rural main street.

There are countless examples in Montana, where last summer, large portions of my state were on fire. Just imagine the cost or replacing fencing or other equipment with prices increasing by double digits – at a time of record low prices for agriculture commodities. The impacts on our input costs coupled with increased market volatility and lower farmgate prices have further reduced our already slim margins. According to the USDA Economic Research Service net farm income is expected to drop to a 12-year low, down 6.7 percent from 2017.

Now allow me to further illustrate the impact of tariffs on our topline – sales – especially in an industry that exports $450 million in wheat to China annually, $65 million of which was from Montana. China is the world’s largest wheat consumer, with a significant trade opportunity in their market. In market year 2016/2017 China was our fourth largest customer, however when China placed a 25 percent retaliatory tariff against U.S. wheat not one new shipment has been purchased from the United States since March, and the last shipment arrived in June.

Wheat growers also understand that China hasn’t been keeping to their trade obligations they agreed to when they joined the WTO (World Trade Organization), and as such the United States has two cases against China for their domestic support programs and their TRQ (tariff rate quota) requirements for wheat, rice and corn. We applaud the Administration for moving forward with these cases and believe this is the proper course of action to hold our trading partners accountable to their trade commitments. We do not, however, support the tariffs which have already hurt many farmers across the United States through both the tariff retaliation and domestic decisions as I have outlined.

For Montana, other commodities are also being hurt. Our producers are already suffering from the 25 percent import tariff on American pork and are bracing for the impacts on beef. Mexico has also targeted these two sectors in response to the steel tariffs.

In addition, these markets that we’ve been growing for decades could be lost to our competitors who do not have tariffs against their products, a fate that could last for years or decades to come. The same can also be said by not seeking or joining new trade agreements, for example when CPTTP (Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership) is implemented our Canadian and Australian wheat competitors will gain a price advantage in Japan against U.S. wheat, potentially losing our largest wheat market.

Currently farmers like me are not only struggling to ensure this year’s crop is profitable, but we are also concerned about the long-term impacts to our valuable export markets. For young and beginning farmers like me the stakes are even higher. We are often highly leveraged, just establishing our operations, as well trying to ensure we have access to enough capital to successfully grow our operations. Increased trade tensions and market uncertainty makes our path forward and our hopes to pass the farm on to our sons less clear. I hope to pass my farm to my sons and as such urge you to consider the tolls these tariffs will have on my operation and how it impacts that possibility, and many other family farms, as outlined in my testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

/by
Image of wheat field to illustrate report on global wheat production
, , , ,

A Decade Lost: Give Farmers the Freedom to Compete

This week marks the 10-year anniversary of the signing of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement and the Korea-U.S. (KORUS) Free Trade Agreement. These were the last free trade agreements completed by the United States. In the decade since, there has been plenty of negotiating, but nothing to show for it.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is on its way to ratification without the United States. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is indefinitely on ice. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) modernization effort is now likely to slip into 2019. An update to KORUS made only cosmetic changes.

Meanwhile no other country has agreed to sit down at the negotiating table as the United States slaps unilateral tariffs on close allies and strategic competitors alike.

The familiar African proverb says that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. Unfortunately for farmers, that grass is the wheat growing in their fields as the big guys in the United States, China and other countries escalate this trade fight.

In a trade war, agriculture always gets hit first and the effects are likely to force overseas customers who want quality U.S. farm products to compromise or seek alternative supplies and to further erode the incomes of farm families who strongly support addressing the real concerns about trade barriers.

That is why in 2016, U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) and the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) called for World Trade Organization (WTO) cases intended to push China to meet its WTO commitments on domestic support and tariff rate quota management. We are glad the Trump Administration supports and is pursuing those cases. That is also why USW will continue to press for new trade agreements, including U.S. accession to TPP.

USW and NAWG know that farmers still want our organizations to keep fighting for fair trade opportunities because they know they can compete successfully in the world based on the quality and value of what they produce — given the freedom to do so.

We would prefer, however, to see our government do that first within the processes already in place.

/by
thumbnail
, ,

Wheat Exports on the Line in U.S.-China Tariff Dispute

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

Tomorrow, June 15, 2018, marks the next step in the accelerating U.S.-China trade dispute as the Trump Administration plans to reveal its final tariff list on up to $50 billion in Chinese exports. China is expected to retaliate immediately, an outcome that could further erode the incomes of farm families who strongly support addressing the real concerns about China’s trade policies.

In marketing year 2016/17, China was the fourth largest export destination for U.S. wheat. That dropped to eighth in 2017/18, in part because of uncertainty about whether the U.S. would implement tariffs on Chinese goods.

U.S. Wheat Associates is not in the business of ceding a market like China with so much potential for growth. That is why in 2016 we called for World Trade Organization (WTO) cases intended to push China to meet its WTO commitments on domestic support and tariff rate quota management. We are happy that the Trump Administration supports and is pursuing those cases.

USW and the National Association of Wheat Growers know that farmers still want our organizations to keep fighting for fair opportunities to compete in China and other countries. They would prefer, however, to see our government do that within the processes already in place.

On June 1, 2018, USW and 17 other agriculture groups sent a letter to President Trump asking the Administration to continue negotiations to address trade concerns with China, rather than imposing mutually destructive tariffs

At this point it remains unclear what will happen after U.S. tariffs are implemented; but there no doubt that it will be a bumpy ride.

/by
thumbnail
, ,

Delinquency, Obfuscation and Transparency at the World Trade Organization

In an ominous, smoke-filled room, the black wings of a hundred crows scatter to the rafters at the sound of a fist pounding at the head of an ancient table. A menacing voice demands to know how the poor soul cowering at the other end has failed to submit notifications on Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support for over a decade. Utter silence pervades the room except for the subdued voice of a distant translator speaking into a headset. The cowering soul, finally comprehending the question, hurriedly vows that notifications will cover the table before the rooster awakens the dawn.

If only.

Notifications play a vital role in the workings of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO is supposed to be much more than a court for litigation; it is also a forum for negotiation and monitoring how its members comply with the rules to which they agreed. Notifications feed information into the system on a variety of topics, from quota administration to trade-related phytosanitary measures to agricultural domestic support, among many others. Centralizing this information along with active discussions between officials helps facilitate negotiations and sheds light on problems in the marketplace.

In reality, many countries do not submit notifications or delay for so long that they are practically worthless by the time other countries can review them. Fully one-third of WTO members had outstanding notifications on agriculture that were at least two years overdue in 2017, and some much older than that. For example, Turkey – a major wheat producer – submitted domestic support (or subsidy) notifications in July 2017 covering the three years from 2002 to 2004.

The notification system works well enough when countries are abiding by their WTO commitments and are reasonably committed to the system, but it has become clear that many countries need some extra motivation, particularly those that are sources of major distortions in agricultural markets. That is why we are glad that the United States government has taken steps to highlight this issue through a transparency proposal it made in advance of the latest World Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires.

The U.S. proposal would provide for a proportionate response to failures by countries to fulfill basic WTO transparency and notification requirements. After a certain period when a country is delinquent in its notifications and uncooperative in providing information, it will lose basic privileges and access to WTO materials and activities. If it remains delinquent for no more than three years beyond a notification deadline, the WTO will designate the country as an “Inactive Member” of the WTO until its notifications are current.

This approach seems reasonable and logical – if a country is failing to meet basic obligations, it should lose benefits of membership. Today there are no consequences for noncompliance with transparency commitments except the consternation of frustrated colleagues.

Maybe it’s time to give that soul a reason to cower.

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

/by
thumbnail
, ,

Hoping for New Opportunities as Castro Steps Down in Cuba

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

Cuban President Raúl Castro stepped down this week, closing a six-decade chapter in Cuban history with a Castro leading the communist island nation. During Raúl Castro’s tenure, Cuba’s government has very slowly transitioned to authorize some private sector activity and taken modest steps towards improving relations with the United States.

Hopefully this transition of power will provide an opportunity for a new generation of Cuban leaders to accelerate reforms and further open their country to international trade and investment, while allowing a more free exchange of goods and services between themselves and with U.S. citizens and organizations.

Certainly, obstacles on the U.S. side remain, particularly the outdated trade embargo that prevents most U.S. exporters from assessing and taking their own risks in trade with Cuba. U.S. farmers stand to benefit if the U.S. Congress ends the embargo, which would open the door to the largest Caribbean island wheat market.

Since the most recent President Castro took over from his brother, Fidel, in April 2011, the Cuban government has not purchased any U.S. wheat. At its peak, Cuba was a 500,000 metric ton (MT) market for U.S. wheat, and today it regularly imports around 800,000 MT from other origins. While wheat trade is allowed with Cuba under current U.S. law, other U.S. restrictions make exports cost prohibitive, and the overall embargo poisons the well for any meaningful trade relationship.

This can and should change. U.S. wheat farmers need as many open markets as possible. A leadership transition in Cuba is not a frequent event; let us hope both sides make the most of it.

/by
thumbnail
, ,

How Trade Affects U.S. Farmers

Excerpts from “How Does Trade Affect Me?,” the March 13, 2018, blog entry in “Big Sky Farm Her. Navigating Life as a Montana Farmer” by Michelle Erickson-Jones.

Trade has become an area I am increasingly interested in studying as well as advocating for. In order to advocate for trade, a notoriously complex, slow moving, and polarizing policy issue, I needed to convey why trade is important to me. Why it is important to our farm, our state, and our national agriculture economy.

Why is trade important to our farm? 

We rely on export markets to provide us with consistent outlets for our grain. Unfortunately, there is not enough demand domestically for wheat. Also unfortunately, we do not necessarily have the ability to change the crops we raise for numerous reasons. We pride ourselves in our ability to produce high quality hard red winter and spring wheat that is in high demand in the Asian [and other] markets. They need/want our wheat to produce products that are popular in those markets. We want to maintain these markets as an outlet for our production.

My personal feelings on trade and its impact on our operation are that current trade policy and the shift towards protectionist policies keep me up at night. Never before have policies and government regulations caused me to lose sleep. I lose sleep [now] because I know agriculture trade is incredibly competitive, our ability to increase market share is limited, trade policy is incredibly slow to develop (and requires at least two willing partners), and because I know every day that goes by under our current policies risks our market share. It risks decades worth of work done by individual farmers through our commodity commissions, trade negotiators, other government officials and others.

Like most farmers I dream of the day my children take over the farm, I dream of giving them a better agricultural economy and a better operation than I started with (not that there was anything wrong with our operation but there is always room for improvement). Our current trade policy puts that dream at risk.

Why is trade important to our state? In 2016 Montana exported $1.6 billion in agricultural products. Agriculture is also the number on economic driver in Montana. We depend on our export markets to maintain that economy for the state.

Montana has a proud history of producing high quality wheat, barley, and beef among many other products. These products are in high demand across the globe, largely because of the high quality. We produce some of the highest quality hard red wheat (both winter and spring) as well as durum in the world. Many of the most competitive markets for these products demand Montana raised products. The Montana Wheat and Barley Commission (MWBC), in conjunction with [U.S. Wheat Associates] has spent decades developing relationships with Japanese buyers to ensure we can supply them with the quality they demand. The Montana Wheat and Barley Commission has traveled to Japan countless times as well as welcoming their trade teams to our farms. Despite their hard work, their ability to attract and maintain those relationships hinges on our free trade agreements. The TPP 11 agreement without the United States gives Canada and Australia a $65 per metric ton discount compared to U.S. sourced wheat; this is a tariff reduction that we will not be able to overcome, despite years of market building.

Why is trade important to our country? Agriculture trade has been growing exponentially over the past 50 years. So much so in fact that we have had a trade surplus in agricultural goods for the past 50 years. Across the nation agriculture maintains our rural economies and creates vital jobs throughout our communities. Trade policy throughout the past several decades has opened up new markets for agricultural exports, increased access in existing markets, and lowered or eliminated various tariffs and technical barriers to trade. Opportunities for improvement still abound; however, the benefits far outweigh the drawback for the agricultural community.

The increase in market access and increase in economic activity has been a significant driver in the improvement of our rural economy. Unfortunately, that rural economy continues to be under threat, a threat that risks significant economic impacts, as well as a domino effect that impacts every facet of our economy.

In conclusion, I have become passionate about international trade, I am passionate about the agricultural industry and our export partners, and I am passionate about the future of our industry. We depend on trade to maintain our export markets, ensure we have the ability to pass on our farmers to a future generation, and to ensure the rural economies stay strong for decades to come. I also understand trade is not perfect. International trade, bilateral agreements, and multi-nation free trade agreements will always have winners and losers. It is a difficult situation to deal with, it is delicate to advocate for, and it is a fact that does cause me great concern. It is also increasingly difficult to stand by and watch protectionist trade policies risk the future of agriculture and more importantly risk the future of my own farm.

Agriculture, particularly the wheat and barley industry, depend on maintaining our current market access, increasing access to new markets through free trade agreements, and improving our current agreements. Trade does not thrive on protectionism and uncertainty.

Michelle Erickson-Jones is a 4th generation farmer in South Central Montana, married to a 4th generation Montana rancher. They are raising two little boys who hopefully will be the 5th generation on their farm. The family raises wheat, malt barley, safflower, sunflowers, corn, alfalfa, forage grains, and maintains a small cow/calf operation. Michelle is the current president of the Montana Grain Growers Association but notes that all views expressed in her blog are her own. She recently worked with Farmers for Free Trade to record a national television ad focused on the importance of trade. 

/by
thumbnail
, , , ,

U.S. Wheat Trade: A Farmer’s Perspective

By Gary Baily, Washington Grain Commission Chairman, USW Director and a wheat farmer from St. John, Wash.

As Washington Grain Commissioners, trade has consumed a great deal of our time this past year. Relationships with our international partners are critical to the survival of our trade with countries such as Japan. Most of us have seen the proposed effects on our trade with Japan if the United States stays outside of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): a phased in $65/MT tariff reduction for TPP countries, U.S. market share for wheat falling from 50 percent to about 23 percent, and a reduction of baseline futures prices of $0.50 at a time when prices are already depressed.

I have been raising wheat in Eastern Washington for almost 30 years and have seen wheat fall victim to political whims several times. Looking back, however, I have not been as anxious about the future of our industry since the financial crisis of the 1980s. The divisive nature of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations and the conclusion of the above mentioned TPP trade treaty without the United States cause concern about the long-term heath of our profession. This is especially true for young farmers who may not have the equity or financial backing to weather these storms.

Adding to the current trade environment is President Trump’s announcement that tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are being considered. The effects of those tariffs have yet to be quantified. If enacted, agriculture exports will likely be targeted for retaliation.

It is time for the President to consider the ramifications of his proposed tariffs, and acknowledge the positive contributions that our industry has for trade, and re-engage in TPP.

/by
thumbnail
, , , ,

Let’s Level the Playing Field for Wheat

By Gordon Stoner, President of the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) and a wheat farmer from Outlook, Mont. This op-ed first appeared in “The Hill.”

The United States is known for producing the highest quality wheat in the world, yet when U.S. farmers market their wheat at a Canadian elevator, it is automatically labeled as “foreign wheat” and given the lowest possible grade (a way to measure grain quality). Cross-border wheat faces major hurdles in Canadian marketing channels, primarily due to the country’s grain grading system. Conversely, Canadian wheat has full access to the U.S. bulk grain handling system. U.S. wheat farmers should be treated the same when delivering to Canadian grain elevators as their neighbors to the north are when delivering to U.S. elevators. The modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a ripe opportunity to level the playing field.

I grow hard amber durum wheat primarily used in pasta production. This high-quality wheat class is valued for its premium protein and gluten strength, within 10 miles of the Canadian border. When prices are higher in Canada, it would not be difficult for me to take advantage of those price premiums and drive across the border to deliver my wheat. But until this grading issue is resolved, that is not an option. My neighbors just on the other side of the border do not have this problem; if prices are higher at a U.S. elevator, they can easily drive south to deliver their wheat. This kind of disparity is frustrating for farmers in Northern Tier states, especially given declining wheat prices and thin profit margins in recent years.

Canada’s grain policies require all wheat not grown domestically to be segregated and classified as “foreign grain” and therefore automatically demoted to “general purpose” or feed wheat. Canada’s grading system even discriminates against wheat grown in the United States that is identical to varieties of wheat approved for planting in Canada (Canada regulates the varieties of wheat plants that can be graded, unlike the United States, where we only grade based on the intrinsic properties of the grain). Such classification results in a substantial price discount regardless of the quality of the wheat, and segregation costs provide little incentive for elevators to handle U.S. wheat of equal or better quality.

An updated NAFTA should remove Canada’s discriminatory grading treatment. All U.S. wheat moving into Canada should be evaluated on quality parameters without regard to country of origin. Canada’s policies are clearly national treatment issues, which Canada has a current obligation to resolve under its World Trade Organization commitments. However, NAFTA can also be the vehicle to fix the grading issue. Canada’s grain policies deprive U.S. wheat farmers near the border of significant marketing opportunities, while millions of bushels of Canadian wheat stream uninterrupted across the border.

Trade agreements have the potential to create a level playing field where individuals, families and companies can make their own decisions about what to buy and sell. The role of trade agreements is to provide that opportunity, and that benefits both U.S. wheat buyers and wheat producers. Industry groups on both side of the border agree that this is an issue that needs to be resolved.

/by
thumbnail
, ,

Hoping the Good News on EU Re-registration of Glyphosate is Not Meaningless

By Ben Conner, USW Director of Policy

Many European farmers breathed a sigh of relief this week as the European Commission chose to extend registration of the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate for five years. But farmers in Europe and elsewhere around the world are justifiably worried about the challenges represented by the European Union’s pesticide policy.

The extension of glyphosate approval is good news — even a bit surprising. The European Food Safety Authority has been emphatic in its position that glyphosate presents no human safety hazard when used in compliance with regulations. Yet the Commission only extended the registration for five years based only on a political compromise rather than sound scientific evidence or and accepted risk assessment standards. The activists trying to derail the glyphosate approval process are ignoring the integrity of that agency’s risk assessment process, which undermine the principles of scientific approaches to regulation.

The fight over glyphosate re-registration is symptomatic of broader concerns about pesticide policies in the European Union. Its so-called “hazard-based” approach to registration of certain pesticides and innovative plant breeding ignores scientific risk assessments that lead to standards for proper use of pesticides. This creates a greater risk of major trade disruptions, potentially including wheat and certainly including other food ingredients.

It should be noted that there are many well-meaning individuals who are sincerely concerned about the safety of their food supply and environment. As the father of two small children, I can certainly understand that. But to my mind, being able to put food on the table and ensure our planet can support future generations clearly outweighs immeasurably small odds of harm. My children deserve to live in a world that is willing to thoughtfully evaluate the risks and rewards of progress, based not on fear, but rather on accepted scientific evidence and standards.

/by

Think Farm Export Programs Don’t Matter? Think Again.

GET THE REST OF THE STORY

DTN Wheat Detail
DTN Corn Detail

2008-2013 U.S. Wheat Associates. All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement