U.S. Trade Concerns Regarding the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy

U.S. Trade Concerns Regarding the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy

link to page 1

December 15, 2020
U.S. Trade Concerns Regarding the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy
In May 2020, the European Union (EU) proposed its Farm
EU’s intention of “working with international partners to
to Fork (F2F) Strategy and its Biodiversity Strategy, which
improve global environmental standards.” Its goals include
would impose restrictions on EU agriculture through
promoting efficient resource use; restoring biodiversity; and
targeted reductions in the use of land, antimicrobials,
reducing environmental pollution through research,
fertilizers, and pesticides. These strategies are part of the
investment, data and technology, and advisory services.
European Green Deal, which if adopted by the EU, would
There are efforts in the EU to amend existing law to “turn
make the continent “climate-neutral” by 2050.
this political commitment into a legal obligation.”
U.S. officials contend that these proposed strategies could
Figure 1. U.S.-EU27 Agricultural Trade, 1991-2019
extend beyond the EU and result in additional restrictions
on U.S. food and agricultural exports to the EU. They
contend that the F2F’s focus on specific agricultural
practices and promotion of local production is protectionist
and could impact U.S.-EU trade relations. Strategies
underlying the European Green Deal come at a contentious
time in U.S.-EU agricultural trade relations. In November
2020, the EU imposed additional tariffs on approximately
$4.0 billion worth of EU imports annually from the United
States, covering a range of agricultural and industrial
products. Higher EU tariffs were in retaliation for higher
U.S. tariffs imposed on certain EU products in 2019. Both

the U.S. and EU tariff actions were in response to the
Source: CRS from U.S. Department of Agriculture data for “Total
Boeing-Airbus subsidy dispute at the World Trade
Agricultural and Related Products (BICO-HS6).” EU27 excludes UK.
Organization (WTO) and were approved by the WTO.
Central to the European Green Deal is the F2F Strategy.
U.S.-EU Agricultural Trade Overview
F2F is promoted as a “new comprehensive approach to how
Europeans value food sustainability” focused on
The United States and EU are the world’s largest trade and
“environmental, health and social benefits,” as well as
investment partners. However, while food and agricultural
“ensuring a sustainable livelihood for primary producers.”
trade between the United States and the EU27 (excluding
Its goals include ensuring sustainable food production
the United Kingdom) accounts for less than 1% of the value
across the supply chain; ensuring food security; “facilitating
of overall U.S.-EU27 trade in total goods and services, the
the shift to healthy, sustainable diets”; reducing food loss
EU27 remains a large market for U.S. agricultural exports.
and waste; and combating food fraud.
It accounted for about 8% of the value of all U.S.
agricultural and related product exports and ranked as the
A key F2F goal is to promote a “global transition to
fifth largest market for U.S. exports of these products in
sustainable agri-food systems” in line with the EU’s overall
2019, after Canada, Mexico, China, and Japan.
objectives. The EU seeks to “require increasingly
sustainable practices by our trading partners.” As stated in
Currently, a sizable imbalance exists in terms of the value
F2F, “EU trade policy should contribute to enhance
of agricultural trade between the United States and the
cooperation with and to obtain ambitious commitments
EU27. In 2019, U.S. agricultural and related product
from third countries in key areas such as animal welfare,
exports to the EU27 totaled $12.4 billion, and U.S.
the use of pesticides and the fight against antimicrobial
agricultural and related product imports from the EU27
resistance.” In addition, the EU will “strive to promote
totaled $29.7 billion, resulting in a U.S. trade deficit of
international standards in the relevant international bodies
approximately $17.3 billion. This is the reverse of U.S.
and encourage the production of agri-food products
agricultural trade surpluses with the EU27 during the 1990s
complying with high safety and sustainability standards,”
(Figure 1). Leading U.S. agricultural exports to the EU27
along with meeting other goals, including to “support
in 2019 were corn and soybeans, tree nuts, distilled spirits,
small-scale farmers” and reduce food waste. F2F further
wine and beer, and fish products. Leading U.S. agricultural
states that the EU will consider extending “mandatory
imports from the EU27 were distilled spirits, wine and beer,
origin or provenance indications to certain products.” U.S.
olive oil, and cheese.
officials are concerned that foods imported into the EU may
need to conform to these production and labeling standards.
Overview of EU’s Proposed Strategies
The European Green Deal, launched in December 2019,
The EU’s F2F and Biodiversity Strategies propose 2030
provides an action plan that states, among other goals, the
targeted reductions in the use of land and chemical input,
including those shown in the following shaded text box.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

U.S. Trade Concerns Regarding the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy
Selected Targets in the EU’s Proposed Plan
a meeting with EU lawmakers, Perdue indicated that the

proposed plan would jeopardize agricultural output and be
Reduce the use of chemical and hazardous pesticides by 50%,
including implementation of the EU Pol inators initiative;
trade prohibitive. The EU Agriculture Commissioner

contends that the F2F plan “does not imply any new trade
Provide space for wild animals, plants, pol inators, and natural
pest regulators by setting aside at least 10% of agricultural
barriers.” Perdue has further suggested that the United
area under high-diversity landscape features, such as buffer
States might pursue a WTO challenge if the EU moves
stripes, hedges, nonproductive trees, and ponds;
forward with its proposal. Several WTO member countries

also raised concerns about the EU’s plan at a recent WTO
Reduce nutrient losses through air, soil, and water pol ution
by at least 50%, and reduce fertilizer use by 20%;
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Committee meeting.
 Reduce the sale of antimicrobials in farm animals and
aquaculture by 50%;
There are also concerns in the United States about whether
 Grow organic farming sector to 25% of total farmland use;
targets proposed in the EU’s strategies might restrict the use
 Restore significant areas of degraded and carbon-rich
of certain types of production-related practices on products
ecosystems, with at least 30% to reach “favorable
imported into the EU. The possibility that the proposed
conservation status or at least show a positive trend.”
targets may result in additional restrictions on U.S. food

and agricultural exports to the EU could heighten already
The Biodiversity Strategy further highlights practices such
tense trade relations between the two trading blocs. Any
as precision agriculture, agroforestry, low-intensive
additional restrictions could add to long-standing trade
permanent grassland, stricter animal welfare standards, and
disputes involving EU SPS standards. These include EU
the “greening” of urban and peri-urban (outskirt) areas.
restrictions on the use of agricultural biotechnology and EU
Similarly to F2F, the Biodiversity Strategy aims to ensure
prohibitions on the use of hormones in meat production and
that the EU’s trade policies will “actively support and be
the use of pathogen reduction treatments for poultry. These
part of the ecological transition” and “ensure full
types of practices are commonly used in the United States.
implementation and enforcement of the biodiversity
The United States has also raised concerns about the EU’s
provisions in all trade agreements.” EU authorities would
review process for determining maximum residue levels, or
also assess the “impact of trade agreements on biodiversity,
the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that is allowed
with follow-up action to strengthen the biodiversity
to remain on or in food or feed. EU officials say they do not
provisions of existing and new agreements if relevant.”
expect to impose EU policies in other countries but instead
to “cooperate with like-minded countries.”
Reactions in the European Union
In October 2020, 27 EU Ministers of Agriculture adopted
Ongoing U.S.-EU trade talks could provide an opportunity
“Council Conclusions” related to F2F. The Ministers
to discuss various trade-related concerns between the two
endorsed the goal of developing an EU sustainable food
trading partners. However, the United States and EU have
system but requested that the legislative proposals be based
disagreed on whether to include agricultural issues in
on “scientifically-sound ex-ante impact assessments” and
efforts to negotiate a new U.S.-EU trade agreement. While
asked that their implementation be cost-effective and
U.S. negotiating objectives, released in January 2019,
compatible with WTO rules, among other considerations.
included agriculture, the EU’s negotiating mandate of April
2019 specifically excluded agricultural products. In part,
The EU farmers association, COPA-COGECA, expressed
the exclusion of agriculture is due to EU commercial and
concern that the proposed F2F targets could adversely
cultural practices, which are often enshrined in EU laws and
impact the EU’s farming sectors. COPA-COGECA also
regulations—and differ from those in the United States. In
asked why EU policymakers have not released an impact
2016, U.S.-EU negotiations to create a Transatlantic Trade
assessment of these proposed targets, highlighting that such
and Investment Partnership stalled. Among the areas of
a study was conducted by the U.S. Department of
contention were (and continue to be) regulatory and
Agriculture (USDA). USDA’s analysis, Economic and
administrative policy differences between the United States
Food Security Impacts of Agricultural Input Reduction
and EU. These issues often involve SPS standards and other
Under the European Union Green Deal’s Farm to Fork and
technical barriers to trade.
Biodiversity Strategies, released in November 2020,
concluded the EU’s proposal would result in reduced food
Considerations for Congress
production and higher food prices worldwide. EU officials
International standards and other related technical barriers
have rejected USDA’s analysis, claiming it underestimates
to trade are a concern for many in Congress, especially
the impact that new technologies can have over time. EU
those with agricultural constituencies. The United States
officials also asserted that the EU’s proposed strategies
continues to raise long-standing concerns involving EU
would strengthen the resilience of the EU food system,
SPS standards. Proposed targets in the EU’s F2F plan could
among other broader economic benefits.
further exacerbate this situation, given regulatory and
administrative differences between the United States and
Reactions in the United States
the EU nations. In the event that agriculture were excluded
The EU’s proposed F2F and Biodiversity Strategies were
from future U.S.-EU trade talks, the United States may seek
not well received by USDA officials. At an October 2020
to examine or address these types of barriers to U.S.-EU
press briefing, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue stated that
agricultural trade.
the EU’s proposal likely would be “extremely problematic”
for transatlantic trade and any future U.S.-EU trade talks,
Renée Johnson, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
particularly with regard to international trade standards. At
IF11704
https://crsreports.congress.gov

U.S. Trade Concerns Regarding the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permissio n of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11704 · VERSION 1 · NEW