Ag Insight

BY JIM ERICKSON

U.S. trade policies implemented five years ago continue today and their cost in the form of retaliatory tariffs that have sharply reduced this nation’s agricultural exports also continues to mount.

A review of the recent trade war history includes these key developments:

• Beginning in 2017, the United States initiated two trade actions. In April 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated an investigation under

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to determine whether aluminum and steel were being imported in such quantities or under such circumstances to affect U.S. national security. In August 2017, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated a

Section 301 investigation to determine whether

China’s policies related to intellectual property and technology transfer were actionable under U.S. trade law. As a result of the Section 232 investigation, the United States applied tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports from all suppliers, although exceptions were made for certain countries. Additionally, the Section 301 investigation found China’s policies were actionable, and the United States imposed a 25% tariff on a broad range of goods from China.

• In 2018, the United States imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from major trading partners and separate tariffs on imports from China.

• Six trading partners then imposed retaliatory tariffs: Canada, China, the European Union (EU, including the United Kingdom), India, Mexico, and Turkey imposed the levies on many U.S. exports, including a wide range of agricultural and food products.

• Losses from retaliatory tariffs were concentrated among Midwestern States, with the largest losses among producers of soybeans, sorghum and pork.

Among the states Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas have incurred the most lost revenues.

• Retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports have been costly for many states and ultimately affect the revenue that U.S. farmers receive. ERS

researchers estimated $13.2 billion in revenues lost annually from 2018–19, with most losses felt by producers in the Midwest and by soybean producers. However, many retaliatory tariffs are still in place and continue to affect U.S. producers. Continued analysis is needed to assess the total costs of retaliatory tariffs to U.S. producers over time.

If you need the most current information on food safety, the National Agricultural Library’s Food Safety Research Information Office (FSRIO) is a resource with the latest food safety research.

To view additional information on what’s available, visit the website at https://www.nal.usda.gov/ fsrio. The FSRIO team can be contacted at fsrio@ usda.gov.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced supplemental American Rescue Plan Act funding for the Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP). The program will receive a total of $130 million in supplemental American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act funding to promote competition and create more and better markets for local and regional food producers by expanding and strengthening opportunities to sell to institutions, such as universities, hospitals and settings operated by local, tribal and state governments.

The supplemental ARP funding is divided into $65 million for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 each.

In fiscal year 2022, LAMP will receive a total of $97 million in competitive grant funding to help local and regional food entities develop, coordinate and expand producer-to-consumer marketing, local and regional food markets and local food enterprises. The total includes the first $65 million of supplemental ARP funding and $32 million in funds provided through the 2018 Farm Bill.

Of the $97 million, LAMP’s Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP) will receive $57 million and the Regional Food System Partnerships (RFSP) will receive $40 million.

Food labels – such as labels that describe chicken as raised without antibiotics or using organic farming methods, canned tuna as sustainable, and beef as grass-fed – can inform consumers about animal-raising claims or other attributes that are difficult for most consumers to verify independently.

Research shows that consumers use label information to distinguish product characteristics and may be willing to pay a premium for certain product features.

But experimental evidence also finds that the willingness to pay for the label “grass-fed” on beef products is more pronounced for consumers who believe that the label signals food safety, suggesting consumers may not fully understand the meaning of the label.

To make informed product choices, consumers must be able to properly interpret food labels. In some cases, consumers may not fully understand a label’s meaning or a food label may conjure perceptions that lack scientific backing or are against scientific consensus. For example, consumers may assume a label about sustainable farming practices means the food is safer to eat, which may not be true. USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) researchers recently carried out studies on food labels to better understand how different labels affect buying behavior.

In the United States, antibiotics are used to treat, control and prevent animal disease. However, the use of any antibiotics may lead to antibiotic resistance, which can in turn make both human and animal diseases difficult and costly to treat. In recent years, consumers have become increasingly concerned about antibiotic resistance and the use of antibiotics in the meat and poultry industry. These concerns have given rise to a market for meat and poultry that are “raised without antibiotics (RWA).” Consumer spending on RWA chicken grew considerably from 2012 to 2017, ERS study results concluded.

Another type of label that has emerged to communicate product characteristics are eco-labels, or environmental labels. These labels typically signal environmental stewardship practices in raising animals or sustainable harvesting practices. An increasing number of eco-labels are being used to market foods, such as USDA Organic, Rainforest Alliance and Marine Stewardship Council labels. While the growth in the number of eco-labels suggests they are in demand, it is not well understood how eco-labels may interact with other food labels to affect consumer behavior.

Grass-fed is another production claim that is sometimes labeled on beef products. Another study examined the impact of this information on consumer’s perception of the product’s safety.

Overall, most respondents perceived low food safety risk from eating beef, as only about one-third reported “a moderate amount” to “a great deal” of risk. Nearly 40% believed grass-fed is safer, compared to conventional beef; in contrast, nearly 50% believed organic beef is safer. On average, consumers were willing to pay around $1 per pound more for grass-fed and organic beef compared to conventional grain-fed beef.

The use of food labels such as RWA and eco-labels to signal production practices has become common. These labels signal how foods are produced and can impact what consumers buy and how businesses and retailers market products. While food labels serve a role in informing consumers about features of the products, the manner in which labels are interpreted and used remains an open topic for additional research.

Another type of label that has emerged to communicate product characteristics are eco-labels, or environmental labels. These labels typically signal environmental stewardship practices in raising animals or sustainable harvesting practices. An increasing number of eco-labels are being used to market foods, such as USDA Organic, Rainforest Alliance and Marine Stewardship Council labels.

This booklet will have cattle sales right at your fingertips!

334-652-9080 mcfarlandadvantage@gmail.com

(Saddle color pictured) — J. Fitzgerald, VA

and dozens of other ailments and worries. Those are the nights you’d give anything for a comfortable chair to sleep in: one that reclines to exactly the right degree, raises your feet and legs just where you want them, supports your head and shoulders properly, and operates at the touch of a button. Our Perfect Sleep Chair® does all that and more. More than a chair or recliner, it’s designed to provide total comfort. Choose your preferred heat and massage settings, for hours of soothing relaxation. Reading or watching TV? Our chair’s recline technology allows you to pause the chair in an infinite number of settings. And best of all, it features a powerful lift mechanism that tilts the entire chair forward, making it easy to stand. You’ll love the other benefits, too. It helps with correct spinal alignment and promotes back pressure relief, to prevent back and muscle pain. The overstuffed, oversized

EASILY SHIFTS FROM FLAT TO EASILY SHIFTS FROM FLAT A STAND-ASSIST POSITION A STAND-ASSIST POSITION biscuit style back and unique seat design will cradle you in comfort. Generously filled, wide armrests provide enhanced arm support when sitting or reclining. It even

White glove delivery included in shipping charge. Professionals will deliver the chair to the exact spot in your home where you want it, unpack it, inspect it, test it, position it, and even carry the packaging away! You get your choice of Genuine Italian Leather, plush and durable Brisa™, stain and liquid repellent DuraLux™ with the classic leather look or plush MicroLux™ microfiber, all handcrafted in a variety of colors to fit any decor. Call now!

Please mention code 116902 when ordering.

Genuine Italian Leather

classic beauty & style

Chestnut Brisa™

plush & durable

Saddle Coffee Bean

Long Lasting DuraLux™

Burgundy Tan Chocolate Blue

stain & liquid repellent

Now available in a variety of colors, fabrics and sizes. Footrests vary by model Footrests vary by model MicroLux™ Microfi ber

Burgundy Cashmere Chocolate Indigo