This week, IATP testified in hearings convened by the office of the U.S. Trade Representative on what should be addressed in the formal review of the U.S.-Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). The hearing followed written submissions from thousands of people. Those comments ranged from a few sentences to lengthy technical recommendations. IATP’s submission, which we wrote with the National Family Farm Coalition and the Western Organization of Resource Councils, was somewhere in between, focusing on several concrete changes that need to be made in the agreement to improve food, farming and rural economies in all three countries. It’s hard to know what’s possible for now, but the process of articulating those proposals builds towards a future in which we hope a more progressive trade policy is truly possible.
More than 100 people are testifying over three days. Condensing our proposals into a mere five minutes of testimony was hard — but also useful. In my testimony to representatives from USTR, State Department, Commerce, Treasury, and USDA, I focused on three sets of changes:
1. Improve transparency in food labels to enable informed choices and enhance competition in agriculture.
Agricultural production has become extremely concentrated in North America. Just four firms control 85% of beef packing in the U.S. U.S. farm groups have been pushing for mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat. Consumers also want to know where and how their food is produced. A 2017 survey conducted by the Consumer Federation of America found that 89% of U.S. consumers want to know where their meat comes from, a figure that has likely increased given the growing public interest in local foods.
Canada brought a trade dispute over COOL for meat to the WTO in 2009, arguing that the rules discriminated against imports. After a series of decisions and appeals, a WTO dispute settlement panel ruled that some aspects of the program treated imported meat and cattle less favorably than U.S. production and that the rule’s record-keeping and verification requirements were overly burdensome. In 2015, the dispute panel authorized Canada and Mexico to impose retaliatory tariffs. The U.S. Congress repealed the COOL rules a few months later.
Given the vast expansion of data about all aspects of our economy in recent years, the argument that record-keeping is too costly now seems disingenuous. The problem is not so much the cost of compliance as the trade rules that provide excuses not to comply.
In addition, as scientific knowledge emerges about the health impacts of chemical additives and ultra-processed foods, there is increasing demand for nutrition labels on food that are both more comprehensive and more accessible. Many countries, including Mexico, have moved to front-of-package nutrition labels that allow consumers to see information on calories, sodium, and fats at a glance, with more detailed information on the back. Those initiatives, too, could be subject to trade disputes.
The trade negotiators should amend Chapter 11 on Technical Barriers to Trade to add a “Peace Clause” Annex on Transparency in Food Labeling in which Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. agree not to challenge each other’s labeling policies under trade rules in USMCA and the WTO. This would include measures important to all three countries, including mandatory COOL for meat, nutrition, and GMO labeling. Parties to the USMCA should also commit to negotiations to permanently carve out measures related to transparency in food labeling from trade disputes.
2. Encourage innovative seed systems.
Now more than ever, public policies are needed to support new solutions to agriculture and food systems. Current trade policies, including those contained in USMCA, create a barrier to those innovations. The three countries should agree to remove the requirement in Chapter 20 on Intellectual Property Rights that each Party ratify UPOV 91, a restrictive treaty that prohibits farmers from saving and sharing protected seeds. This provision greatly restricts farmers’ ability to develop new varieties that meet their specific needs and respond to changing climate conditions.
3. Develop new solutions to overproduction and low prices of dairy and other agricultural commodities.
This is a complex problem that will require changes to U.S. farm programs, but changes in trade policy are also relevant. As a starting point, the U.S. should abandon its trade challenges to Canada’s dairy supply management program and instead convene a participatory trinational commission to learn from that and other public programs designed to stabilize prices and supplies and enhance resilient food systems.
I was questioned on that last point, on why the U.S. should abandon its pressure on Canada’s dairy supply management program. As I’ve written before, there is a lot to learn from that program, which balances supply and demand of dairy products at prices that are fair to farmers and consumers. It helps to keep farmers on the land, with smaller average herd sizes and lower emissions than the large-scale production that is common in the U.S. And it depends on trade restrictions to prevent a flood of cheap imports from the U.S. U.S. groups representing family farmers and food workers unions have spoken out to defend the program.
We need trade policies that find common ground among farmers, workers and consumers in all three countries. The USMCA review process is one concrete place to focus on new proposals that just might make a difference. Someday.
