NAFTA https://www.iatp.org/ en In advance of Thursday vote, leading farm, food and public health groups call on Congress to reject USMCA https://www.iatp.org/documents/advance-thursday-vote-leading-farm-food-and-public-health-groups-call-congress-reject <div data-history-node-id="44120" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-trade has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <h3 > 33 Groups Urge Congress to Vote Down Deal that Would Lock in Harmful Trade Practices </h3> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/iatp" hreflang="en">IATP</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>WASHINGTON</span></span></span></strong><span><span><span>—Congress is expected to vote Thursday on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) or New NAFTA. Rather than rectify the fundamental shortcomings of its predecessor – the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – New NAFTA will maintain the rules that have crippled family farms and strengthened corporate control over food and agriculture systems in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>On Tuesday, 33 groups delivered a letter to Congress calling for the rejection of New NAFTA and asking for a new trade agreement to better serve farmers, consumers and the environment. These groups represent family farm, ranching, farmworker, local foods, public health and sustainable agriculture interests in the U.S. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>Since NAFTA's implementation in 1994, nearly 250,000 small- to medium-scale farmers have been driven out of agriculture, according to the 2017 U.S. Census of Agriculture. The benefits of increased farm exports and profits promised under NAFTA never trickled down to farmers, farmworkers or rural communities. While family farmers suffer, global agribusiness is thriving. Multinational firms now control greater shares of agricultural inputs, seeds and equipment; without effective federal anti-trust enforcement in the agriculture sector and enough competition, farmers must accept whatever prices agribusinesses dictate.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>The 33 signatory groups insist that Congress reject New NAFTA and establish alternative trade rules that respond to the needs of family farmers, ranchers, indigenous communities, farm and food chain workers, consumers and the environment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>COMMENTS FROM SIGNATORIES:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><a><strong><span><span><span>Jim Goodman</span></span></span></strong></a><strong><span><span><span>, President, </span></span></span></strong><a href="https://nffc.net/"><strong><span><span><span>National Family Farm Coalition</span></span></span></strong></a><span><span><span>: “The benefits of USMCA have been greatly oversold to the US farm sector. Climate change is not mentioned, and the new treaty does nothing to curb the environmental damage that was part of the original NAFTA. NFFC dairy producers do not support dumping excess US milk on the Canadian or Mexican markets, as that will force family dairy farmers out of business in those countries. We instead call on Congress to support dairy supply management to deliver fair prices to farmers in all three countries.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Program Director, </span></span></span></strong><a href="https://www.iatp.org/"><strong><span><span><span>Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</span></span></span></strong></a><span><span><span>: “New NAFTA does not fix the problems created by decades of unfair trade and increasing corporate concentration in our food system under its predecessor. Rather, it will increase agribusiness exports in a race to the bottom, further limit regulation of food safety and intensify environmental impacts of industrial agriculture – policies that will worsen both farmers’ economic straits and the safety of our food.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><em>Based in Minneapolis with offices in Washington, D.C., and Berlin, Germany, the </em><a href="https://www.iatp.org/"><em>Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</em></a><em> works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.</em></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Read the letter to members of Congress <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/letter-members-congress-us-mexico-canada-agreement">here</a>. </strong></p></div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/PRESS%20RELEASE_New%20NAFTA%20Group%20Sign%20On_FINAL.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=160063" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">PRESS RELEASE_New NAFTA Group Sign On_FINAL.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">156.31 KB</span></span></div> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/New%20NAFTA%20Letter%20to%20Congress%20Dec%2017.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=109217" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">New NAFTA Letter to Congress Dec 17.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">106.66 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/trade2" hreflang="en">Trade</a></div> </div> </div> Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:40:49 +0000 Cecelia Heffron 44120 at https://www.iatp.org New NAFTA is Lost Opportunity to Reform Corporate Trade Deals https://www.iatp.org/documents/new-nafta-lost-opportunity-reform-corporate-trade-deals <div data-history-node-id="44107" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-trade has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/iatp" hreflang="en">IATP</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span><span><span><em><span><span><span>Deal Does Not Address the Farm Crisis, But Will Exacerbate Climate Crisis</span></span></span></em> <em><span><span><span>and Jeopardize Health and Public Safety</span></span></span></em></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>Minneapolis</span></span></span></strong><span><span><span>—The finalized U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (or New NAFTA) announced today after an agreement between House Democrats and the White House retains many of the faults of the original NAFTA, which locks in a system of agribusiness exploitation of farmers and workers in the three participating nations, while worsening the climate crisis. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>The original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) promised an economic windfall, but in reality, resulted in devastating losses for farmers and the consolidation of agribusiness and farmland ownership in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. With nearly all agriculture tariffs eliminated under the original NAFTA, New NAFTA will have little impact on agricultural trade. Nothing in the New NAFTA addresses urgent issues plaguing our farm economy: low prices, rising debt and increased bankruptcy. The new deal ignores the requests of farm groups to include mandatory Country of Origin Labeling, which would benefit farmers and consumers.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>“New NAFTA does not fix the problems created by decades of unfair trade and increasing corporate concentration in our food system under its predecessor,” said Karen Hansen-Kuhn, program director at the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Rather, it will increase agribusiness exports in a race to the bottom, further limit regulation of food safety and intensify environmental impacts of industrial agriculture – policies that will worsen both farmers’ economic straits and the safety of our food.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>Measures in New NAFTA that open Canada’s dairy market to increased exports from the U.S. will not significantly reduce the vast oversupply of U.S. milk or raise prices paid to U.S. dairy farmers. Instead, the opening will weaken Canada’s successful supply management program, which has achieved market-based prosperity for its farmers. Added regulatory-focused sections will delay and impede the development, enactment and enforcement of protections for consumers, workers and the environment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>This New NAFTA reflects the Trump administration’s denial of the climate crisis, and in fact, creates incentives for the fossil fuel industry to off-shore pollution into Mexico. New NAFTA repeats past mistakes by granting special legal rights to high emitting sectors like the oil and gas industry to challenge future Mexican laws and regulations protecting the environment. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>Family farm, healthy foods and fair-trade organizations demanded a replacement for NAFTA that fixes the problems created under the existing trade deal. The new agreement does not respond to these demands, instead perpetuating trade rules that have devastated family farms and expanded corporate control over agriculture and food systems in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Congress should reject this agreement.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>##################</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><em><span><span><span>Based in Minneapolis with offices in Washington, D.C., and Berlin, Germany, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. More information on New NAFTA and IATP’s research and analysis of the trade deal can be found at our </span></span></span></em><a href="https://www.iatp.org/nafta-portal"><em><span><span><span>NAFTA portal</span></span></span></em></a><em><span><span><span>. </span></span></span></em></span></span></span></p></div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/PRESS%20RELEASE_IATP_New%20NAFTA%20Agreement_Final_0.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=103678" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">PRESS RELEASE_IATP_New NAFTA Agreement_Final_0.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">101.25 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/trade2" hreflang="en">Trade</a></div> </div> </div> Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:23:38 +0000 Cecelia Heffron 44107 at https://www.iatp.org NAFTA's empty promises https://www.iatp.org/blog/201912/naftas-empty-promises <span>NAFTA&#039;s empty promises </span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/34897" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Cecelia Heffron</span></span> <span>Tue, 12/03/2019 - 11:05</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><em>Originally published in <a href="https://www.stormlake.com/articles/2019/11/06/nafta%E2%80%99s-empty-promises">The Storm Lake Times</a> and <a href="http://www.populist.com/25.21.lilliston.html">The Progressive Populist</a>. </em></p></div> Tue, 03 Dec 2019 17:05:25 +0000 Cecelia Heffron 44102 at https://www.iatp.org Midwest Family Farm Groups Travel to Washington to Talk NAFTA, Farm Crisis https://www.iatp.org/documents/midwest-family-farm-groups-travel-washington-talk-nafta-farm-crisis <div data-history-node-id="44081" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-agriculture has-field-primary-category no-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <h3 > Disparaging comments by Ag Secretary Perdue about the future of independent family farms should spur congressional action</h3> <div class="field field--name-field-author-text field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author (free form)</div> <div class="field--item"><p><span><span><span><span>The Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment</span></span></span></span></p></div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong><span>Press Release</span></strong></p> <p><span>October 23, 2019</span></p> <p><span>Contact: Ben Lilliston, 6128703416, </span><a href="mailto:ben@iatp.org"><span>ben@iatp.org</span></a></p> <p><strong>Midwest Family Farm Groups Travel to Washington to talk NAFTA, Farm Crisis</strong></p> <p><em>Disparaging comments by Ag Secretary Perdue about the future of independent family farms should spur Congressional action</em></p> <p><span>Family farm groups from Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and South Dakota traveled to Washington, D.C. last week to meet with members of Congress on the causes of the current Farm Crisis, and the failure of the proposed new North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to address those challenges. </span></p> <p><span>The meetings came two weeks after Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue's controversial comments about the viability of small family farms and the need for farm operations to get big in order to survive. </span></p> <p><span>At the World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin, Perdue told a group of small and mid-sized, mostly dairy farmers: “In America, the big get bigger and the small go out. I don’t think in America we, for any small business, have a guaranteed income or guaranteed profitability.” This, while the Trump Administration is subsidizing the largest meatpacker in the world, Brazilian owned JBS, with millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers.</span></p> <p><span>The big getting bigger and pushing out the small has been strategically sold by corporate agriculture interests to farmers and the general public as the inevitable destiny of U.S. agriculture since the Nixon era. The groups questioned whether Perdue can effectively serve all farmers, including small and mid-sized farmers and ranchers, as Agriculture Secretary.</span></p> <p><span>The groups make up the <em>Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment</em>, which called on Congress to reject the Trump Administration's proposed U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA, or NAFTA 2.0). For agriculture, the USMCA is a status quo deal that does nothing to address excess corporate control of the agriculture economy where most farmers are losing money and have to rely on off-farm jobs to survive. Instead, the USMCA locks in a system that has greatly benefited multinational agribusiness firms. The Trump Administration chose to ignore a major ask from farm groups – the inclusion of mandatory <em>Country of Origin Labeling</em> (COOL) for meat products that would benefit both U.S. ranchers and consumers.</span></p> <p><span>“NAFTA has allowed large corporations like JBS and Smithfield to pad their bottom line at the expense and loss of hundreds of thousands of family farmers,” said Frank Jones, a farmer from SE Iowa and member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, “Elected officials need to create fair trade policies if they want to help farmers in Iowa and across the Midwest. Not pass another `free trade’ scheme like USMCA.”</span></p> <p><span>“I urge our elected representatives to pass policies that restore and protect an independent family farm system of agriculture, including policies that address corporate control, overproduction and low prices,” said Darvin Bentlage, 4th generation cattle and grain producer from Barton County, MO. “Concentration and corporate ‘free trade’ have allowed multinational corporations in the meatpacking industry to extract wealth from our rural communities and put independent family farmers out of business. Our elected reps need to do better and address what is going on out here and not follow lock-step the policies written by corporations and lobbyists at the expense of our farms, families and communities.”</span></p> <p><span>Kathy Tyler, a Dakota Rural Action member affected by factory farm expansion said, “Somewhere, sometime, somehow, Congress and our local legislators and officials need to start caring about and doing something about the exodus of farm families. They are the backbone of our state and are what keep our small communities alive. If we don’t support them, we will all vanish.” </span></p> <p><span>Independent family farmer leaders from the four Midwestern states outlined their concerns with the new NAFTA in an<span> </span></span><a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2019/08/30/nafta-putting-family-farmers-out-business-since-1994/2129764001/"><span>oped that ran in the Des Moines Register</span></a><span> i</span><span>n August. </span></p> <p><em><span>The Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment <span>is composed of the </span></span></em><a href="https://morural.org/"><em><span>Missouri Rural Crisis Center</span></em></a><em><span>, </span></em><a href="http://iowacci.org/"><em><span>Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement</span></em></a><em><span>, </span></em><a href="https://www.dakotarural.org/"><em><span>Dakota Rural Action</span></em></a><em><span>, </span></em><a href="https://landstewardshipproject.org/"><em><span>Land Stewardship Project</span></em></a><em><span> (MN), </span></em><a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/"><em><span>Food &amp; Water Watch</span></em></a><em><span> and the </span></em><a href="https://www.iatp.org/"><em><span>Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</span></em></a><span>.</span></p> <p><span>##</span></p> <p><span> </span></p></div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/agriculture2" hreflang="en">Agriculture</a></div> </div> </div> Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:30:25 +0000 Cecelia Heffron 44081 at https://www.iatp.org Getting smarter, not ‘tougher,’ about trade policy https://www.iatp.org/blog/201908/getting-smarter-not-tougher-about-trade-policy <span>Getting smarter, not ‘tougher,’ about trade policy</span> <span><span lang="" about="/about/staff/account/colleen-borgendale" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Colleen Borgendale</span></span> <span>Wed, 08/28/2019 - 10:08</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>A mid-August <em>New York Times</em> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/politics/democrats-trade-trump.html?action=click&amp;module=Top%20Stories&amp;pgtype=Homepage" target="_blank">article</a> framed the debate about trade policy in the Democratic Party’s presidential primary race as one of being ‘tougher than Trump.’ To develop trade policy that chases that meme will play into the hands of the corporate lobbyists for non-tariff measures who are happy if we remain distracted by what IATP has called <a href="https://www.iatp.org/blog/201906/trumps-tariff-tantrum" target="_blank&lt;/body&gt;&lt;/html&gt;"></a></p></div> Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:08:39 +0000 Colleen Borgendale 44051 at https://www.iatp.org The New NAFTA: Agricultural export impacts https://www.iatp.org/documents/new-nafta-agricultural-export-impacts <div data-history-node-id="44005" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-trade has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/dr-steve-suppan" hreflang="en">Dr. Steve Suppan</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/The%20New%20NAFTA%20Agricultural%20Export%20Impacts.pdf"><strong><em>Download the PDF here</em></strong></a></p> <p><span><span>A June 11 <span><span><a href="https://www.nmpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/A-Letter-from-U.S.-Food-and-Agriculture-Associations-and-Companies.pdf">letter</a></span></span> to the leadership of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives from U.S. food and agriculture organizations urged “swift ratification” of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). However, given the miniscule increase in agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada forecast by the <span><span><a href="https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4889.pdf">U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) report</a></span></span> released on April 18, and the lack of cost of production estimates for producing those exports, the report provides no agricultural economic basis for Congress to approve the USMCA. </span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong>Key messages:</strong></span></span></p> <ul> <li><span><span><span><span>The USITC-estimated agricultural exports increase for the USMCA is insignificant, relative to the 2015-2017 average annual value of U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico.</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span>The USMCA’s promotion of agricultural biotechnology exports will further increase U.S. farmer costs of production, keeping prices paid to farmers below the cost of production, and making farmers dependent on U.S. taxpayer compensation for U.S. market and policy failure. </span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><span>The USITC report fails to estimate the likely impacts of climate change on USMCA agricultural trade. The USMCA is not a “modernized” NAFTA but a 20th century agreement that ignores climate change as a systemic risk to trade.</span></span></span></span></li> </ul> <p><span><span>The USITC forecasts a mere 1.1 percent increase ($2.2 billion) in U.S. agricultural exports and 1.8 percent ($3.1 billion) increase in imports, relative to the 2017 baseline (<span>Table E.S. 3, p.17)</span>, when other USMCA chapters are “fully implemented.” Full implementation means completion of transitions “including all other provisions in chapter 2 of this report,” (p. 117), i.e. quantified economy-wide estimates of agricultural trade value of USMCA provisions on intellectual property, technical barriers to trade (labeling, quality grading), agricultural chemicals, industrial goods (e.g. farm machinery) reduction of uncertainty for investors, etc. However, no period is specified for full implementation. </span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><a href="http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/trade-games-are-back-the-usitc-report-on-the-new-nafta">According to economist Dean Baker</a></span></span>, USITC’s econometric forecasting model, the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), assumes a 16-year period for full implementation. If the GTAP phase-in period is applied to the USITC’s agricultural export projection of $2.2 billion, U.S. agribusiness can look forward to an average additional $137 million in exports over the 2017 baseline. What is the historical baseline for the $2.2 billion increase touted in the June 11 agribusiness letter? Here’s an estimate.</span></span></p> <p><span><span>An August 29, 2018, <span><span><a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IN10962.html">Congressional Research Service brief</a></span></span> stated that between 2015 and 2017, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico averaged $18.6 billion annually. The USDA’s <span><span><a href="https://www.fca.gov/template-fca/download/MajorUSAgriculturalExportMarkets.pdf">Farm Credit Administration reported</a></span></span> that in 2017, U.S. food and agriculture exports to Canada were valued at a bit more than $20 billion. Once all the transition periods of the non-agricultural chapters related to the agricultural chapter are phased in, the USMCA is forecast to add an annual $137 million to the $38.6 billion in agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico facilitated under the current terms of NAFTA. In sum, the USMCA will increase agricultural exports annually by all of 0.4 percent above the current level.  </span></span></p> <p><span><span>Even this minute addition to current NAFTA-mediated agricultural trade with Mexico and Canada obscures real questions about the winners and losers of this deal. A <span><span><a href="http://www.bu.edu/gdp/files/2019/06/PolicyBrief7NAFTAPolaskiCalpadoGallagher2019.pdf">Global Development Policy Center comment</a></span></span> on the entire USITC report asks, “If there was so little [Gross Domestic Product from NAFTA] effect overall, why is the agreement still so controversial? It is precisely because trade creates winners and losers—something long recognized by trade economists—as economies adjust to different costs of production in trading partner countries,” (p. 2). In agriculture, the NAFTA winners have been agribusiness commodity groups, traders, processors and input producers. <span><span><a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/08/07/541671747/nafta-s-broken-promises-these-farmers-say-they-got-the-raw-end-of-trade-deal">The losers are most farmers and the rural communities</a></span></span> in which dwindling farm income circulates. <span><span><a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/new-nafta-puts-brakes-farm-policy-reforms">As IATP has written</a></span></span>, the New NAFTA puts the brakes on future U.S. agricultural policy reform.</span></span></p> <p><span><span>The USMCA doesn’t change this grim situation. Indeed, by enabling trade of agricultural goods from expensive genome and gene edited seeds—whose traits could include resistance to proprietary pesticides—USMCA will help increase the costs of agricultural production while doing nothing to increase prices paid by agribusiness to farmers and ranchers. A <span><span><a href="https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/farmers-heading-to-fields-hoping-for-better-days">Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis article</a></span></span> in March 2019 notes, “<span>total costs for inputs like seed, fertilizer, pesticide, fuel, and electricity have risen by 50 percent (inflation-adjusted) since 2006 for Minnesota farmers.” These costs will rise further under the USMCA’s promotion of “trade in products of modern biotechnology.” USMCA’s article on genome “edited” food and agriculture enables their trade in thousands of products (Article 3.1) “without authorization” (Chapter 3, Section A), i.e. without risk assessment.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Given the widely reported collapse in U.S. net farm income (cash receipts plus government payments) since 2013, it’s clear that prices paid by agribusiness to farmers have not increased by an inflation-adjusted 50 percent. The Minneapolis Fed charts how prices paid to farmers have been at or below the cost of production since 2010. Despite U.S. taxpayer compensation for trade policy and market failures, and despite the non-farm jobs that contribute the largest share of income to most U.S. farm households, Chapter 12 farm bankruptcies have spiked in the Fed’s Ninth District. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span>It is difficult to isolate the effects of any trade agreement from the effects of the domestic policy with which trade policy is coordinated, in this case the <span><span><a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajae/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ajae/aay112/5425529?redirectedFrom=fulltext">Farm Bill</a></span></span>. However, the 1996 so-called “Freedom to Farm” Bill and subsequent versions have been designed to comply with U.S. trade agreements and maximize production for export. USMCA is part of a U.S. agricultural export policy that <span><span><a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40152.pdf">requires farmers to rely on taxpayer subsidies and off-farm income</a></span></span>—a little more than 80 percent of U.S. farm household income in 2017—to compensate partially for trade related agricultural market failure.</span></span></p> <p><span><span>According to the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC) (<span><span><a href="https://www.agpolicy.org/weekcol/2019/976.html">“Surviving Trade Wars,”</a></span></span> May 17, 2019), despite the increase in the value of agricultural exports (and imports), “<span><span>over the last 150 years, there have been only three times, totaling maybe 15 or so years, that exports have resulted in profitable prices for major crops in general: WWI, WWII, and the mid-1970s.” Betting the farm on exports is usually profitable for agribusiness and food processors, but seldom for farmers. “What we need,” writes APAC, “is a policy mechanism that delivers a fair price for farmers.” That policy mechanism begins in the Farm Bill and the prevention of anti-competitive agribusiness practices, such as the currently reported price fixing in the chicken industry—not in trade at any cost policy.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span>The puny-USITC projected increase in agricultural exports will not reverse the falling income from U.S. farm operations, considering (as the USITC does not) the “likely impacts” of the costs of producing those exports. Climate change-related costs affecting agricultural production, processing and transportation are among the most important and likely. As IATP wrote to the USITC, the USMCA fails to estimate the trade related costs of climate change. A key message of the second volume of the Trump administration’s <span><span><em><a href="https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf">Fourth National Climate Assessment</a></em></span></span><em> </em>is,<em> </em>“The impacts of climate change variability, and extreme events outside the United States are affecting and are virtually certain to increasingly affect U.S. trade and economy, including import and export prices and businesses with overseas operations and supply chains,” (pp. 25-26).</span></span></p> <p><span><span>Nevertheless, the USMCA, like U.S. trade policy in general, contains no provisions to adapt to climate change nor to reduce greenhouse gases emissions in traded products and services, including those of the digital economy. In late June, <em>Politico </em>reported that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been <span><span><a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/23/agriculture-department-climate-change-1376413">suppressing staff studies on climate change impacts</a></span></span>.</span></span></p> <p><span><span>What most clearly makes the USMCA a 20th century agreement, rather than a “modernized” NAFTA, is its failure to include measures to require that traded products and services adapt to climate </span></span><span><span>change and reduce greenhouse gases. <span><span><a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/comments-no-tpa-105-003-united-states-mexico-canada-agreement-likely-impact-us-economy">IATP wrote to the ITC</a></span></span> that in addition to increasing trade in fossil fuels, “the USMCA further entrenches trinational Confined Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs) whose feed grain fertilizer and animal agriculture manure management practices are a major source of nitrous oxide and methane, respectively,” (p. 4). At a time when large investor groups are threatening to disinvest from corporations that <span><span><a href="https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/group-of-88-investors-target-over-700-companies-for-not-reporting-environmental-information">fail to disclose their Climate Value at Risk</a></span></span> and their investments to become climate resilient and when banks are advised to perform <span><span><a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/news/why-banks-should-stress-test-for-climate-change">stress tests to predict climate change losses</a></span></span> to their investment and loan portfolios, USMCA makes the United States more vulnerable to climate change impacts. Notwithstanding academic studies on the impact of trade on climate change, <span><span><a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/01/30/wto-chief-denial-climate-impact-trade/">trade policy remains in denial about climate change</a></span></span>.</span></span></p> <p><span><span>The Trump administration, by ignoring climate change and suppressing studies about it, ensures that the USMCA does not modernize NAFTA, but instead exacerbates its environmental and economic failures. The tiny USITC-projected agricultural export increase, the failure to estimate the costs of production for that increase, and the USDA's suppression of the likely impacts of climate change on agriculture combine to make the USMCA a trade agreement that Congress must reject. Congressional rejection of the New NAFTA would be the policy shock to spur Congress to modify the <span><span><a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf">Trade Promotional Authority Act of 2015</a></span></span> and restore its Constitutional obligations under Article 1, Section 8 “to regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations.” That rejection would be the first step towards crafting a sustainable trade policy.</span></span></p></div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/The%20New%20NAFTA%20Agricultural%20Export%20Impacts.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=205436" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">The New NAFTA Agricultural Export Impacts.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">200.62 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/trade2" hreflang="en">Trade</a></div> </div> </div> Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:28:00 +0000 Chris Palmquist 44005 at https://www.iatp.org New NAFTA: Locking in U.S. food safety management fragmentation and failings https://www.iatp.org/documents/new-nafta-locking-us-food-safety-management-fragmentation-and-failings <div data-history-node-id="43995" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-trade has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/dr-steve-suppan" hreflang="en">Dr. Steve Suppan</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/Locking%20in%20U.S.%20food%20safety%20management%20fragmentation%20and%20failings.pdf"><em><strong>Download the PDF here</strong></em></a></p> <p><span><span>Trade policy’s impact on food safety is not only the result of the language of the policy, but of the governments’ implementation and enforcement capacity. As the Trump administration attacks the personnel, budgets and infrastructure of the agencies tasked with providing that capacity, the promise of the New NAFTA (also known as the U.S.-Mexico Canada Agreement, USMCA) to provide an “appropriate level of protection” to consumers and the natural resource base of agriculture is unlikely to be achieved. For example, the proposed Fiscal Year 2020 U.S. Department of Agriculture budget <span><span><a href="https://www.obpa.usda.gov/16ers2020notes.pdf">would eliminate food safety work</a></span></span> at the Economic Research Service (ERS), which provides <span><span><a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-safety/">“the costs of illness for selected foodborne pathogens.”</a></span></span> Understanding the costs of foodborne illness from consumption of imported foods is critical to determining whether an “appropriate level of protection” has been provided. Furthermore, the New NAFTA does not require that governments report on the foodborne illness and environmental impacts of agricultural production for trade.</span></span></p> <p><span><span>The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) report asserts “Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) provisions of USMCA will likely lead to increased trade between North American countries,” (p. 132) albeit a miniscule USITC forecast increase <span>relative to NAFTA’s current export value</span>. As Congress evaluates the USMCA, it should focus on impacts of SPS standards to public health and the environment based on “scientific principles,” but implemented by agencies whose independent scientific capacity has been undermined by the Trump administration.  </span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Although the USITC does not assess the trade related costs for public health</span>, these costs could be considerable. <span>For example, in 2015, </span><span><span><span><a href="https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/agsuersib/205081.htm">ERS conservatively estimated</a></span></span></span> <span>the cost of the 9.4 million U.S. foodborne illness cases (of a total 48 million reported cases) for which a causative pathogen could be identified at $15.5 billion annually. The ERS study analyzed voluntarily reported data from local and state public health departments to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A </span><span><span><span><a href="https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/23/3/16-1462_article">2017 CDC study</a></span></span></span> <span>analyzed data on foodborne illness originating from imported foods from 1996 to 2014, the latest year for which data were available. The CDC reported 42 foodborne illness outbreaks from consuming food imported from Mexico and 11 from consuming food imported from Canada. Seafood and horticulture products were the foods most implicated in the outbreaks. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Both classes of food are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, which announced a </span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/02/fda-unveils-new-strategy-to-improve-detection-of-unsafe-imported-foods/">new program in February 2019</a></span></span></span> <span>to sample, test and, if necessary, reject the 32 percent of vegetables, 55 percent of fresh fruit and 94 percent of seafood products consumed in the U.S. that are imported. However, the USMCA text states that “the importing party may use import checks to assess compliance” with its SPS measures (Article 9.11.1)—not “shall” but “may,” an option but not a requirement. (The World Trade Organization SPS agreement uses “shall” to describe government import control obligations (Article 8 and Annex C)). The USMCA provides for no increase in inspection and testing intensity for high risk foods to prevent foodborne illness. The FDA cannot inspect high risk foods at the ports of entry, since it has yet to issue a rule identifying “high risk” foods required by the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Governments are required to be transparent about their SPS measures, (Article 9.13), however audits of export facilities and communications between industry and governments are shielded from public review, (Article 9.10). USMCA relies on SPS systems equivalence agreements with foreign regulators, (Article 9.9), to reduce port of entry sampling and testing of food products. FDA relies on industry to voluntarily correct domestic food inspection violations, according to a September 2017 </span><span><span><span><a href="https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-14-00420.pdf">Office of the Inspector General report</a></span></span></span><span><span>. </span></span><span>Given the light staffing and many non-food duties of FDA inspectors at ports of entry, FDA will likewise be reliant on industry to correct violations. But the USMCA SPS pressure is always to import, even if information required by importing authorities is lacking, </span>(Footnote 1 to Article 9.5.15)<span>.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span>The language of the SPS chapter places the burden on governments to show that any measure to protect human, animal or plant health related to trade in food and agriculture products is “not more trade restrictive than required” to achieve an unspecified level of protection. The report further points to language on greater SPS “regulatory coherence” to expedite import and export flows. What is made “coherent”? </span></span></p> <p><span><span>The General Accountability Office has long identified U.S. federal food safety management as a fragmented and “high risk” system and identified increasing food <span><span><a href="https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/food_safety/issue_summary">imports as one of three factors straining that system</a></span></span>. Inserting the new USMCA obstacles into this “high risk” system exacerbates the difficulties of providing the “appropriate level of protection” regarding imported foods and food ingredients. U.S. procedures to authorize new food and agriculture products for commercialization largely rely on voluntary consultations with industry applicants, usually concluding with letters authorizing sales without requiring a pre-market safety assessment. </span></span></p> <p><span><span>For example, the formulation of this March 11, 2016, letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to Monsanto concerns a variety of corn engineered to resist the highly volatile herbicide Dicamba™. <span>Here is a </span><span><span><span><a href="https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20190213225626/https:/www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/Submissions/ucm493311.htm">sample of the industry self-determination of safety</a></span></span></span> <span>that would be advanced under the new USMCA regulatory coherence procedure: </span></span></span></p> <blockquote> <p><span><span><span>Based on the safety and nutritional assessment Monsanto has conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that food and feed from MON 87419 corn are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn-derived food and feed currently on the market, and that genetically engineered MON 87419 corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA.</span> <span>It is Monsanto’s responsibility to obtain all appropriate clearances, including those from the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture, before marketing food or feed derived from MON 87419 corn.</span></span></span></p> </blockquote> <p><span><span><span>FDA formally accepted Monsanto’s assessment without raising any additional questions. Monsanto then applied to EPA to receive another “no questions” letter to sell Dicamba™. Despite </span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/scientists-warned-this-weed-killer-would-destroy-crops-epa-approved-it-anyway/">criticism by academic weed scientists</a></span></span></span> <span>that evidence of Dicamba™ safety was “shockingly insufficient” and that the herbicide would drift and kill plants not engineered to resist it, the EPA “approved” the product in 2018. Dicamba™ has killed more than one million acres of U.S. crops not engineered to resist it. What will the cost of Dicamba™ grown exports, including the collateral damage to non-resistant crops, be once herbicide resistance traits are added to the more consumer or processor attractive traits of genome edited crops? </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The </span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/brs-news-and-information/2019_brs_news/340_secure_proposed_rule_pr">USDA proposal</a></span></span></span> <span>to not regulate gene and genome editing technologies from which agriculture products are derived would be locked in by the new USMCA agricultural biotechnology rules, which require import of quantitatively unspecified amounts of products unapproved in the importing country, (Article 3A.3.3c).</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span>Roger Johnson, National Farmers Union President, <span><span><a href="https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/blogs/ag-policy-blog/blog-post/2019/06/26/ers-move-goal-cut-agencys-budget?referrer=twitter#.XRPtsPFAuvQ.twitter">remarked of the Trump administration proposal</a></span></span> to reduce the ERS staff by 50 percent and eliminate research programs, “<span>This is an administration that doesn't like science that doesn’t agree with their viewpoint. What we're setting up for is an era where you aren't going to get the quality of research or the volume of research that we had before.” The science the Trump administration agrees with is corporate science presented to weaken or eliminate environmental rules and allow industry to self-determine what is Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) in food and food inputs, including in traded products. The Union of Concerned Scientists report “The State of Science in the Trump Era (2019)” summarizes the suppression of scientific evidence, the dismissal of academic scientists from advisory boards and their replacement with industry scientists, and the budgetary and staff cuts to science-based agencies to conclude, “The Trump administration’s undermining of science is damaging our health and safety.” Congress must not fortify this assault on science by entrenching it via USMCA’s SPS and agricultural chapters. </span></span></span></p></div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/Locking%20in%20U.S.%20food%20safety%20management%20fragmentation%20and%20failings.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=158373" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">Locking in U.S. food safety management fragmentation and failings.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">154.66 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/trade2" hreflang="en">Trade</a></div> </div> </div> Fri, 12 Jul 2019 16:34:21 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43995 at https://www.iatp.org Nearly 60 farm and food groups urge Congress to reject new USMCA https://www.iatp.org/documents/nearly-60-farm-and-food-groups-urge-congress-reject-new-usmca <div data-history-node-id="44025" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-trade has-field-primary-category no-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <h3 > The updated trade deal will lock in rules that have devastated family farms and expanded corporate control over agriculture and food in the United States, Canada and Mexico.</h3> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/iatp" hreflang="en">IATP</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>WASHINGTON—The current version of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) must be rejected, as it ignores the fundamental shortcomings of its predecessor—the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—and will lock in trade rules that have devastated family farms and expanded corporate control in agriculture and food, according to 59 organizations. These groups, including family farm, ranching, local food, public health and sustainable agriculture organizations, <a href="http://icm-tracking.meltwater.com/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiBSbAOt4z7abTozzQ3vI2U2Yn6Ka1ejhzz9GVer8VRyYRQUrM5qe0HETm58Yp7Mwf&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iatp.org%2Fdocuments%2Ffarm-and-food-groups-congress-reject-usmca&amp;I=20190711175847.000001a0d5a4%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVkMjYyMDYwYjA1ZjM5NTQ1MjYyM2Q5ZTs%3D&amp;S=aUf7zCVZH7yU9h32DPEhOTc6adFP9EJAiIgj6meIDyU" target="_blank">delivered a letter to Congress</a> on Wednesday urging a reworked trade agreement to serve the interests of farmers, consumers and the environment in all three nations.</p> <p>Since NAFTA's implementation, nearly 250,000 small to medium scale farmers have been driven out of agriculture. According to the <a href="http://icm-tracking.meltwater.com/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiBSbAOt4z7abTozzQ3vI2U2Yn6Ka1ejhzz9GVer8VRyYRQUrM5qe0HETm58Yp7Mwf&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usitc.gov%2Fpublications%2F332%2Fpub4889.pdf&amp;I=20190711175847.000001a0d5a4%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVkMjYyMDYwYjA1ZjM5NTQ1MjYyM2Q5ZTs%3D&amp;S=AaaMylmZhYQn0owE4HcENtqizH5q_7M2E6moXd2D_Ow" target="_blank">United States International Trade Commission's report</a> on the economic benefits of USMCA, agriculture will grow by just 1,700 jobs over the full period of its implementation.</p> <p>While family farmers are and will be crushed, global agribusiness is thriving. The USMCA serves as a deregulatory wishlist for business, enacting new obstacles toward the enacting of sensible rules on food safety, agricultural biotechnology, food labeling and pesticide usage. Within USMCA's framework, regulators must choose the option that least disrupts trade, rather than what protects farmers and workers, our water or our health.</p> <p>Like its predecessor, the New NAFTA largely benefits agribusiness companies that operate in the United States, Canada and Mexico at the expense of family farms, consumers and the environment. USMCA must be rejected and reworked to serve the interests of the people of all three nations.</p> <h2>COMMENTS FROM SIGNATORIES:</h2> <p><strong>Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, <a href="http://icm-tracking.meltwater.com/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiBSbAOt4z7abTozzQ3vI2U2Yn6Ka1ejhzz9GVer8VRyYRQUrM5qe0HETm58Yp7Mwf&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodandwaterwatch.org%2F&amp;I=20190711175847.000001a0d5a4%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVkMjYyMDYwYjA1ZjM5NTQ1MjYyM2Q5ZTs%3D&amp;S=WVwE00VN70ki_3wOlYudMB1li5pYElCTkO9j8ML-0sM" target="_blank">Food and Water Watch</a>:</strong> "Congress must not approve NAFTA 2.0. This new version of a damaging trade deal would weaken our food safety standards, undermine many U.S. farmers raising crops like tomatoes and strawberries and promote unsustainable GMO crops."</p> <p><strong>Jim Goodman, President, <a href="http://icm-tracking.meltwater.com/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiBSbAOt4z7abTozzQ3vI2U2Yn6Ka1ejhzz9GVer8VRyYRQUrM5qe0HETm58Yp7Mwf&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fnffc.net%2F&amp;I=20190711175847.000001a0d5a4%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVkMjYyMDYwYjA1ZjM5NTQ1MjYyM2Q5ZTs%3D&amp;S=c03OaPYXX7kJ06IjcDa4s1RgOeNqw8DC113VtRQJvP8" target="_blank">National Family Farm Coalition</a>:</strong> "Nearly a quarter of a million family farmers have gone out of business since the original NAFTA was signed in 1994. As agribusiness has consolidated, multinational corporations have increased their profit margins while farmers sink deeper into debt and rural communities have withered. The new USMCA promises to accelerate these trends. Congress should reject this proposal and instead insist on trade rules that will be fair to family farmers, workers, and consumers."</p> <p><strong>Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Director of Trade and Global Governance, <a href="http://icm-tracking.meltwater.com/link.php?DynEngagement=true&amp;H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiBSbAOt4z7abTozzQ3vI2U2Yn6Ka1ejhzz9GVer8VRyYRQUrM5qe0HETm58Yp7Mwf&amp;G=0&amp;R=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iatp.org%2F&amp;I=20190711175847.000001a0d5a4%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVkMjYyMDYwYjA1ZjM5NTQ1MjYyM2Q5ZTs%3D&amp;S=3LGY5h3DH5gu_TDFo9yOP2XHXkWgy_bDG4pwTrQH6fQ" target="_blank">Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</a>:</strong> "Many of our organizations pushed for changes in USMCA, beginning with restoring Country of Origin Labeling for meat. But those proposals were ignored. The New NAFTA does nothing to address the changes family farmers have been demanding for decades, nothing to improve farm incomes, and nothing to lift prices. Instead, it locks in a corporate-friendly status quo that will only lead to more crises in the future."</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/2019_07_11_GroupsRejectNewUSMCA.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=133968" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">2019_07_11_GroupsRejectNewUSMCA.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">130.83 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/trade2" hreflang="en">Trade</a></div> </div> </div> Thu, 11 Jul 2019 19:26:13 +0000 Colleen Borgendale 44025 at https://www.iatp.org Farm and food groups to Congress: Reject the USMCA https://www.iatp.org/documents/farm-and-food-groups-congress-reject-usmca <div data-history-node-id="43993" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-trade has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span><span><span>We write to you as representatives of US family farm, ranching, farmworker, local foods, public health, and sustainable agriculture organizations to urge you to reject the current version of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA). The new agreement does nothing to fix the fundamental shortcomings of the previous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), while further locking in trade rules that have devastated family farms and expanded corporate control over agriculture and our food system in all three countries. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The situation confronting family farmers is dire. According to data from the 2017 U.S. Census of Agriculture, nearly 250,000 small to medium scale farmers have been driven out of agriculture since the original NAFTA began. The promised benefits of increased farm exports and profits under NAFTA have not trickled down to farmers, farmworkers or rural communities. Instead, a handful of well-financed multinational firms have captured these export markets through vertical integration and now control greater shares of agricultural inputs, seeds, and equipment, while there are fewer buyers of crops, meat and poultry. In the absence of effective federal anti-trust enforcement in the agriculture sector, the diminished competition forces farmers to accept whatever prices -- and conditions -- are dictated by agribusinesses. U.S. agribusiness exports have, in turn, economically undercut family farmers abroad and, coupled with this removal of land tenure rights compelled in the first NAFTA negotiations, driven millions of Mexican farmers from their lands, forcing many of them to become farmworkers in Mexico or the US under precarious and unfair conditions. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Even the administration’s own report on USMCA projects vanishingly small economic benefits. The International Trade Commission (ITC) forecasts that USMCA will generate just <em>1,700</em> new jobs in agriculture over the full period of its implementation. The ITC’s economic simulations of the impacts of agricultural market access changes in USMCA project an increase in US agriculture and food exports of $435 million and increases in imports of $80 million. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>When it comes to agriculture trade, however, farmers and rural communities can’t simply accept the conditions that this deal reinforces. In contrast to the mildly optimistic ITC projections, a new study by the University of Florida estimates that the failure to resolve problems confronting U.S. seasonal fruit and vegetable producers and the workers they depend upon could result in upwards of 8,000 jobs lost and a loss of $471.4 million in annual revenue to Florida’s overall economy if USMCA is ratified without changes.<a href="#_ftn1"><span><span><span><span><span>[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>The new USMCA takes a step back in other areas, reading like a deregulatory wish list for global agribusiness firms who operate in all three countries. It would create new obstacles to enact sensible rules on food safety, agricultural biotechnology, food labeling and pesticides. Rules on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards, Technical Barriers to Trade and Agriculture would direct regulators to choose the option that least distorts trade, rather than what best protects public health or the environment. A new chapter on Good Regulatory Practices would require regulators to submit new and existing rules to review by stakeholders from all countries. If approved, these new provisions would undoubtedly be extended to future negotiations with the EU, Japan and the UK. Taken together, these new rules create barriers to basic protections for farmers and workers, the land, our water and our health. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Many of our organizations made proposals to replace NAFTA with a better set of trade rules that would advance fair, healthy and sustainable food and farming systems. We called on the US government to press Canada and Mexico to withdraw their World Trade Organization complaints to Country of Origin Labeling for meat so that Congress could restore this popular program advancing market transparency and local food systems. Even this modest proposal was rejected.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>We urge you to reject the USMCA and instead insist on new trade rules that would serve the interests of family farmers, ranchers, indigenous communities, farm and food chain workers, consumers and our environment in all three nations.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Sincerely,</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>ActionAid USA</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Agroecology Research-Action Collaborative</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Alabama State Association of Cooperatives - Forkland, Alabama </span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc.</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>American Indian Mothers, North Carolina</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake Counties Farmers Union, Ohio </span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Atrisco Land Grant, Atrisco, New Mexico</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Tillery, North Carolina</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Black Farmers and Ranchers of New Mexico</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>California Institute for Rural Studies, Davis, California</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Community Alliance for Global Justice</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Community Farm Alliance</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Concerned Citizens of Tillery, North Carolina</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Cottage House, Inc. Ariton, Alabama</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Dakota Resource Council, North Dakota</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Dakota Rural Action, South Dakota</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Family Farm Defenders</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Farm Women United</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Food for Maine's Future</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Food &amp; Water Watch</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Greene County Democrat, weekly newspaper - Eutaw, Alabama</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>GROW North Texas</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>iEat Green, New York</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Idaho Organization of Resource Councils</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Kansas Black Farmers Association, Nicodemus, Kansas</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>La Mujer Obrera, El Paso, Texas</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Land Stewardship Project, Minnesota</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Local Environmental Agriculture Project, Inc., Virginia</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Main Street Cheese, LLC, New Hampshire</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Mississippi Association of Cooperatives, Jackson, Mississippi</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Missouri Rural Crisis Center</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>National Family Farm Coalition</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>National Latino Farmers &amp; Ranchers Trade Association</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Northern Plains Resource Council, Montana </span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Northeast Organic Farming Association - Interstate Council</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Northeast Organic Farming Association, New Hampshire</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Northeast Organic Farming Association, New York</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Northwest Forest Worker Center, Albany, California</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, Inc.</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>PLANT (Partners for the Land &amp; Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples)</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>PLBA Housing Development Corporation - Gainesville, Alabama</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Progressive Agriculture Organization</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Real Food Challenge</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Rural Advancement Fund of the National Sharecroppers Fund, Orangeburg, South Carolina</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Rural Coalition/Coalición Rural</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Rural Vermont</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Savage Acres LLC, Virginia</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Slow Food North Shore, New York</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Slow Food USA</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Union of Concerned Scientists </span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Western Colorado Alliance</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>World Farmers, Lancaster, Massachusetts</span></span></span><br /> <span><span><span>Western Organization of Resource Councils</span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span><span><a href="#_ftnref1"><span><span><span><span><span>[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Available at <span><span><a href="https://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/economic-impact-analysis/MexicoFruit&amp;Vegetable.pdf">https://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/economic-impact-analysis/MexicoFruit&amp;Vegetable.pdf</a></span></span></span></span></p></div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/trade2" hreflang="en">Trade</a></div> </div> </div> Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:47:29 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43993 at https://www.iatp.org Alternative agricultural systems https://www.iatp.org/blog/201907/alternative-agricultural-systems <span>Alternative agricultural systems</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/2863" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chris Palmquist</span></span> <span>Tue, 07/09/2019 - 10:46</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><em>The following is an excerpt from </em><a href="https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2019/07/Beyond%20NAFTA.pdf">Beyond NAFTA 2.0: A Trade Agenda for People and the Planet</a><em> jointly published by the <a href="https://www.policyalternatives.ca/">Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives</a>, the <a href="https://ips-dc.org/">Institute for Policy Studies</a> and the <a href="http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/">Rosa Luxemburg Foundation</a>.</em></p></div> Tue, 09 Jul 2019 15:46:46 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43991 at https://www.iatp.org