In today’s global economy, the United States has long stood as a key player in shaping international trade rules, particularly in the realm of food and agriculture. This has largely been a successful strategy for U.S. farmers and ranchers, with exports growing from just over $50 billion in 2001 to $178.7 billion in fiscal year 2023. Exports now account for around one-fifth of all U.S. agricultural production. However, the United States has retreated from negotiating new trade agreements in recent years, depriving the agriculture sector of much-needed foreign market access. Now, some of the U.S. agriculture sector’s biggest champions in Congress are threatening to exacerbate this problem by pushing legislation that would force the United States to backslide from its longstanding trade commitments and open it up to similar treatment abroad.
On March 21st, the Senate overwhelmingly passed S.J. Res. 62, which used the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's action in 2023, allowing imports of fresh beef from Paraguay into the United States. The Resolution passed the Senate by a staggering margin of 70-25. The House companion bill (H.J. Res. 115) has over twenty sponsors.
Proponents of the bill argue that the USDA did not follow adequate scientific rigor when evaluating the risks associated with importing beef from Paraguay, specifically due to threats of the transmission of Foot and Mouth disease in cattle. They argue the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is charged with protecting U.S. animal and plant health, did not physically travel to Paraguay since 2014, and therefore the assessment, as a whole, was inadequate.
USDA and the White House resoundingly reject this argument, noting the scientific review was rigorous despite the number of physical trips by APHIS to Paraguay. The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) also classifies Paraguay as free from Foot and Mouth Disease, with vaccination taking place.
APHIS’ evaluation of Paraguay’s animal health system does not have a beginning and an ending point. Rather, it is a continuous, ongoing process with multiple touchpoints from entities throughout the USDA. The process includes reviews of surveillance data, monitoring of reports and notifications to international animal health institutions, and import inspections of products arriving in the U.S.
Critically, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which is charged with protecting U.S. food safety and public health, also conducted onsite audits in Paraguay in 2021 and 2022. While the FSIS's core mission is food safety, their work is complementary to APHIS’ surveillance efforts as part of the agency’s “One Health” initiative, which promotes agency-wide efforts to ensure comprehensive food safety and public health. In fact, APHIS and FSIS have a Memorandum of Understanding that facilitates inter-agency coordination on animal health and food safety issues should they arise. Had FSIS personnel witnessed any issues with Paraguay’s animal health system during its onsite audits in 2021 and 2022, the agency would have reported those issues to APHIS.
Following many years of comprehensive review, APHIS concluded that the risk associated with importing fresh beef from Paraguay is low. APHIS’ decision aligns with longstanding principles of science-based regulation and upholds the credibility of the United States in international trade agreements. In this instance, the USDA followed international norms and standards, as they were originally written…by the United States.
Moreover, imported beef from Paraguay does not materially threaten domestic U.S. beef production. Paraguayan imports are primarily lean, grass-fed beef for further processing, which the U.S. does not produce at high volumes domestically. Paraguayan beef is further subject to a strict FSIS inspection process and a beef import quota that will restrict the volume of products that can enter the market in any given year.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
The precedent set by this legislation, however, is the real threat. By indefinitely banning all Paraguayan beef imports without scientific justification, this resolution would disrupt the delicate balance of international trade, harm bilateral relationships, and give other countries that are important importers of U.S. agricultural products the green light to behave in an equivalent manner. It would not only jeopardize the prosperity of American farmers and ranchers in key foreign markets but also endanger the stability of the global trading system for agricultural products. No doubt, many of the same proponents of this legislation would be livid if legislators in a major U.S. export market were to ban U.S. beef imports determined to be safe by that country’s scientists and regulators.
Hopefully, these Senators and sponsors of the companion bill in the House – most of whom hail from agricultural states and districts – will reconsider the boomerang effect this resolution could have on their constituents before forging ahead with it.
The consequences of U.S. backsliding on international food and agriculture trade commitments could be far-reaching. American farmers rely heavily on export markets for their livelihoods. Any disruptions to these markets can have devastating effects on rural communities and agricultural industries across the country. Indeed, we are already witnessing the economic impact of the lack of an offensive trade agenda, as the FY2024 agricultural trade balance is expected to have a deficit of up to $30.8 billion. This effect would be compounded by undermining the commitment to regulate based on scientific evidence that is integral to our current trade agreements.
As the global community grapples with trade challenges ranging from economic to geopolitical tensions, the United States must stand firm in its commitment to science-based decision-making and uphold its role as a dependable economic partner. Abandoning these principles in favor of isolationism and protectionism not only betrays our allies but also undermines the very foundation of the rules-based international order.
Stephen Sothmann is a Partner at DTB AgriTrade LLP, and Bill Westman is the Executive Director of the Meat Import Council of America (MICA).