U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

April 14, 2021 R46760

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs:
April 14, 2021
Background and Issues
Anita Regmi
Sales of U.S. agricultural products to foreign markets absorb about one-fifth of U.S. agricultural
Specialist in Agricultural
production, contributing notably to the health of the farm economy. Over the years, additional
Policy
countries have become significant importers of U.S. farm products, and high-value products have

come to account for a larger share of U.S. export value. The total value of U.S. agricultural
exports has declined since 2014, largely due to lower prices of bulk agricultural commodities,

even as export volumes have continued to grow. The growth in the value of U.S. agricultural
imports has outpaced the growth in U.S. agricultural exports, contributing to a decline in the U.S. agricultural trade surplus
from $16 billion in 2016 to $4 billion in 2020.
Developing countries, with relatively young populations, high income growth, and rapid urbanization, have contributed to
notable increases in U.S. agricultural exports. Meanwhile, demand from wealthier countries that are experiencing slower
economic and population growth, such as Canada, the European Union (EU), and Japan, is barely growing. At the same time,
consumers in many countries are demanding more diverse types of food beyond staples that meet only their basic caloric
needs. This is consistent with a shift in U.S. exports away from bulk commodities and toward consumer-oriented food
products, which comprised 11% of U.S. agricultural export tonnage but almost half of total value in 2020.
In specific countries, consumers are demanding foods that reflect their values, such as organic products, food produced using
sustainable practices, and foods grown and manufactured without the use of forced labor or illegally deforested land. These
changing consumer demands are creating market opportunities for certified organic, sustainable, or equitably produced
products.
Some experts assert that the United States’ core advantage in agricultural exports may lie in quality, safety, and other
nonprice factors. In that case, communication of these differences to potential foreign buyers via certification schemes may
benefit U.S. exports. Also, some Members of Congress have expressed an interest in seeking increased participation in
exports by small- and medium-sized enterprises, and producers and processors of specialty crops from across the country.
The Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers five market development
programs that aim to assist U.S. industry efforts to build, maintain, and expand overseas markets for U.S. agricultural
products. Separately, USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation guarantees loans so that private U.S. financial institutions will
extend financing to buyers in emerging markets that want to purchase U.S. agricultural products.
Important issues for the 117th Congress include exploring options to expand U.S. agricultural markets while ensuring that the
economic benefits of USDA export development programs are distributed widely across the United States. Members of the
World Trade Organization (WTO), including the United States, have stated that the WTO should consider provisions to
impose additional tariffs on imports of any goods (including agricultural products) produced without internalizing the costs
imposed on the environment, and Congress may wish to explore how such an approach would affect the U.S. aricultural
sector. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised awareness that agricultural exports are vulnerable to
supply chain disruptions in individual markets; Congress may wish to assess whether USDA export promotion programs
adequately encourage diversity of export products and of export markets to minimize risks from supply chain disruptions in a
specific market.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 28 U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 24

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Introduction
Sales of U.S. agricultural products abroad absorb about one-fifth of total farm production by
value1 and are a major outlet for many farm commodities, including over three-fourths of U.S.
output of cotton and about half of total U.S. production of wheat and soybeans.2 Shifts in global
food consumption patterns have led to increased U.S. agricultural exports and changes in their
composition (Figure 1). As global consumers have become wealthier and increasingly urban,
they demand a greater diversity of food and labor-saving foods, increasing trade in these
products.3 As a result, consumer-oriented food products, such as meats, dairy products, fruits,
vegetables, and packaged foods, have accounted for an increasing share of the value of U.S.
agricultural exports in recent years.
Figure 1. U.S. Agricultural Exports in Value and Volume, 1980-2020
In Billions of Constant 2019 Dollars and Million Metric Tons

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, via U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS), accessed March 2021, at https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/ExpressQuery1.aspx.
Notes: Nominal values are converted to constant 2019 dol ars using Gross Domestic Product deflators from
the Congressional Budget Office. USDA, FAS’s bulk, intermediate, consumer-oriented (BICO) classification,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 10-digit codes are used for product categories. Based on USDA’s definition,
consumer-oriented products includes meats, fruits, vegetables, processed food products, beverages, and pet food;
bulk products include grains, oilseeds, pulses, cotton, and other raw agricultural products; intermediate products
include oils, butter, and other semi-processed products used for manufacturing consumer-ready products. This
figure uses the World Trade Organization (WTO) definition of agriculture, adopted by USDA in March 2021.
U.S. exports of bulk agricultural products such as grains, oilseeds, and cotton have continued to
grow in tonnage while their values (in constant 2019 dollars) have declined due to lower prices.

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS), “Agricultural Trade: Exports Expand
the Market for U.S. Agricultural Products,” accessed March 2021, at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-
food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/agricultural-trade/.
2 CRS calculation based on USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Production Supply and Demand Online,
accessed November 2020, at https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/home.
3 For more on this topic, see Anita Regmi and Birgit Meade, “Demand Side Drivers of Global Food Security,” Global
Food Security, vol. 2, issue 3, August 2013, pp. 166-171.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 5

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

In contrast, exports of consumer-oriented food products have grown, comprising 11% in tonnage
but almost half of the total value of agricultural exports in 2020.
Overview of U.S. Agricultural Trade
U.S. agricultural exports exceeded imports in every year since 1967, the point from which
consistent data are available, until 2019, when imports were higher than exports for the first time
(Figure 2).4 The faster-paced growth in the value of U.S. agricultural imports has contributed to a
decline in the U.S. agricultural trade surplus from $16 billion in 2016 to $4 billion in 2020.
Figure 2. Value of U.S. Agricultural Trade, 2016-2020
In Billions of Dollars

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, via USDA, FAS, accessed March 2021, at https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/
default.aspx.
Notes: Data are for calendar years, not adjusted for inflation. For definitions, see notes to Figure 1.
Bulk agricultural commodities like grains and oilseeds continue to account for about a third of the
total value of U.S. agricultural exports but about 70% of the total volume.5 In recent years,
consumer-oriented products have made up about 50% of the value of U.S. agricultural exports,
with the remainder accounted for by intermediate goods such as livestock feed and cooking oils.6
On the import side, high-value goods’ share of the total value of U.S. agricultural imports
increased from 91% ($112 billion) in 2016 to 93% ($136 billion) in 2020. This includes relatively
high-priced processed products such as alcoholic drinks, specialty cheeses, and meat products, as
well as seasonal fruits and vegetables, unroasted coffee, spices, cut flowers, and other tropical
products. As U.S. consumer demand for organic food is growing at double-digit rates,7 U.S.
imports of organic products increased 44%, from $1.7 billion in 2016 to $2.4 billion in 2020.

4 U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, via USDA, FAS, accessed March 2021, at https://www.fas.usda.gov/databases/
global-agricultural-trade-system-gats.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid. CRS calculation of export shares.
7 USDA, ERS, “Organic Market Summary and Trends,” accessed March 2021, at https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/
natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 8 U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Major U.S. Agricultural Exports and Markets
Almost 70% of the value of U.S. agricultural exports is accounted for by the top 15 categories of
products, with soybeans making up over 14% of the total (Table 1).
Table 1. Top U.S. Agricultural Export Products by Value
Annual Average Exports of $145.3 billion from 2018 to 2020
Rank
Product
$ Billions
Share of Total
1
Soybeans
20.5
14.1%
2
Corn
9.9
6.8%
3
Tree nuts
8.7
6.0%
4
Beef products
7.9
5.4%
5
Pork products
6.7
4.6%
6
Dairy products
5.9
4.1%
7
Wheat
6.0
4.1%
8
Cotton
6.2
4.3%
9
Soup & other preparations
5.7
3.9%
10
Soybean meal
4.7
3.3%
11
Fresh fruit
4.5
3.1%
12
Poultry (excluding eggs)
4.1
2.8%
13
Bakery & cereal products
3.5
2.4%
14
Feeds & fodders
3.0
2.1%
15
Processed vegetables
3.0
2.1%

Other products
45.1
31.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, via USDA, FAS, accessed March 2021, at
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx.
Notes: USDA adopted WTO’s definition of agriculture in March 2021. The three-
year average values are used to smooth out trade fluctuations during 2018-2020
resulting from trade disputes and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic.
Likewise, the top 15 export markets account for almost 80% of the total value of U.S. agricultural
exports, with three importing countries—Canada, Mexico, and China—accounting for about 40%
of the value (Table 2).
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Table 2. Top U.S. Agricultural Destinations by Value
Annual Average Exports of $145.3 Billion from 2018 to 2020
Rank
Country
$ Billions
Share of Total
1
Canada
22.0
15.2%
2
Mexico
19.0
13.1%
3
China
16.5
11.4%
4
Japan
12.3
8.5%
5
EU-27
11.2
7.7%
6
South Korea
8.0
5.5%
7
Vietnam
3.7
2.5%
8
Taiwan
3.6
2.5%
9
Philippines
3.1
2.1%
10
Hong Kong
3.0
2.1%
11
Indonesia
2.9
2.0%
12
Colombia
2.9
2.0%
13
Thailand
1.9
1.3%
14
India
1.9
1.3%
15
Egypt
1.8
1.2%

Other Countries
31.5
21.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, via USDA, FAS, accessed March 2021, at
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx.
Notes: USDA adopted WTO’s definition of agriculture in March 2021. The three-
year average values are used to smooth out annual fluctuations. EU = European
Union, excluding the United Kingdom.
Developing countries, with relatively young populations, high income growth, and rapid
urbanization, have contributed to notable increases in U.S. agricultural exports even as demand
from wealthier countries that are experiencing slower economic and population growth, such as
Canada, the European Union (EU), and Japan, is barely growing (Figure 3). U.S. agricultural
exports to Southeast Asia, the largest U.S. export market among the developing group of
countries, grew 19%, from $11.4 billion in 2016 to $13.6 billion in 2020.8 During the same
period, U.S. agricultural exports to South Asia grew 62% (from $2.7 billion to $4.4 billion), to
North Africa 66% (from $1.7 billion to $2.9 billion), and to Central America 12% (from $3.9
billion to $4.4 billion).
The composition of U.S. agricultural exports varies across U.S. trading partners. For example,
over 80% of U.S. agricultural exports to developed-country markets are consumer-oriented food
products, while three-fourths of U.S. exports to China are bulk agricultural commodities. Export
opportunities in developing countries vary, with consumer-oriented products making up over half
of the total value of U.S. agricultural exports in countries catering to the tourist industry in the
Caribbean, and bulk agricultural products making up about three-fourths of the total value of U.S.
agricultural exports to North Africa.9

8 U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, accessed February 2021, at https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/ExpressQuery1.aspx.
9 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 6 link to page 9

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Figure 3. U.S. Agricultural Exports By Country Grouping
In Billions (b) of Dollars, 2016 and 2020

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, accessed March 2021, at https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx.
Notes: USDA adopted WTO’s definition of agriculture in March 2021. Data are not adjusted for inflation and
are in calendar years. For definitions, see notes to Figure 2. China is not included in either the developed or
developing country group.
Economic Factors Affecting Agricultural Trade
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), changes in
global food consumption patterns over the last decade were largely driven by shifts in individual
consumer preferences (per capita demand) rather than population growth (Figure 4). The OECD
projects that population increase will matter even less over the next decade, while shifts in
consumer preferences accelerate demand growth for dairy products and sugar.
Figure 4. Annual Growth in Demand For Selected Food Categories
Percentage Growth, 2010-2019 Versus 2020-2029

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), “OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook,” OECD Agriculture Statistics, 2020,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr-outl-data-en. Figures for 2020-2029 are OECD projections.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Table 3 presents some key macroeconomic variables for selected U.S. markets that influence
consumer food demand patterns. In general, faster growth in gross domestic product (GDP) and a
weaker dollar are associated with more rapid growth of demand for U.S. agricultural exports,
with the exception of China. U.S. agricultural exports to China face strong competion from other
exporters such as Brazil and the EU, leading to a decline in the U.S. share of China’s agricultural
imports, by value, from 25.2% in 2010 to 14.5% in 2020.10
Table 3. Macroeconomic Variables Affecting U.S. Agricultural Exports
Annual
Annual Real
10-Year
Annual Real
Population
Exchange
Real Export
GDP Per
GDP Growth,
Growth,
Rate Change,
Value
Country, Region
Capita 2019
2010-19
2010-19
2010-19
Growth
World
$11,198
1.8%
1.1%
1.3%
2%
Growing Markets
Bangladesh
$1,288
5.6%
1.1%
-2.8%
189%
Vietnam
$2,042
5.2%
1.0%
-1.1%
129%
India
$2,305
5.7%
1.3%
-1.1%
124%
Philippines
$3,176
4.6%
1.6%
-0.3%
55%
Thailand
$6,625
3.3%
0.4%
-0.6%
36%
South Korea
$27,293
2.7%
0.5%
-0.9%
25%
Mexico
$10,344
1.5%
1.3%
1.7%
13%
European Union
$37,598
1.4%
0.2%
2.5%
13%
Indonesia
$4,547
4.4%
1.0%
0.5%
9%
Canada
$53,826
1.4%
0.8%
1.8%
6%
Stable or Declining Markets
South Africa
$7,723
0.7%
1.0%
2.3%
-1%
Taiwan
$23,532
3.0%
0.2%
0.2%
-5%
Japan
$49,623
1.5%
-0.1%
3.3%
-16%
China
$8,283
7.2%
0.4%
-0.5%
-32%
Egypt
$2,908
1.2%
2.5%
2.3%
-36%
Cuba
$6,955
2.2%
-0.2%
0.0%
-39%
Nigeria
$2,294
0.7%
2.9%
-1.7%
-44%
Morocco
$3,650
2.4%
1.0%
2.4%
-67%
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), “Macroeconomic Assumptions for the 2020 Baseline,”
September 2019; and U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, accessed via USDA, FAS, accessed March 2021, at
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx.
Notes: GDP = Gross Domestic Product, in real 2010 dol ars. Exchange rate is local currency per U.S. dol ar,
and a negative rate indicates depreciation of the dol ar. Exchange rates have a 2010 base year. The EU trade data
exclude the United Kingdom.

10 Jason Hafemeister, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, “Trade and U.S.
Agriculture Market Access, Institutions, and Competition Policy,” USDA Outlook Forum, February 18, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 10 U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

The following sections discuss the variables presented in Table 3 and other factors that affect the
demand for and supply of agricultural products.
Income Growth
Global economic growth, measured by real GDP, proceeded at an annual average rate of 4.2%
over the past decade. Economic growth was slower (less than 2% per year) in developed
countries, but over 5% in South Asia and over 4% in some Southeast Asian countries. High rates
of GDP growth are associated with rising incomes, which support greater spending on food and
consumption of a greater diversity of food products.11
Most high-income countries are approaching a food consumption level (in terms of calories
ingested) that is close to saturation. In these countries, additional income does not result in
notable increases in calories consumed, but rather in more diverse diets and increased spending
on convenience foods, such as packaged food products. In developing countries, in contrast,
rising incomes lead to additional spending on all foods, with larger increases in spending on
meats, dairy, processed food, and other specialty food products. For example, a study based on
2005 data found that a 10% increase in average household income led to food spending increases
of approximately 8% in countries that were relatively poor, such as Ethiopia, Kenya, and India,
but raised food spending by only 3% in the United States.12
Population Growth
Although growth has slowed globally, many developing countries are registering relatively faster
rates of population growth compared to developed countries. Over 40% of the population in Sub-
Saharan Africa and almost 30% of the population in South Asia is under the age of 15, compared
to 15% in Europe and 18% in North America.13 A country’s age distribution can affect its food
consumption behaviors: older consumers tend to eat less food and may be less inclined to change
their consumption patterns, whereas a more youthful population may aspire to shift away from
traditional staples to add diversity and value-added products to their meals.14
Exchange Rate
A strong dollar may make some U.S. products more expensive compared to competitor products,
while a weak dollar improves the competitiveness of most U.S. products. For example, when the
U.S. dollar appreciates against the Japanese yen, importing $1 of U.S. exports will cost more yen
than before. This could prompt a Japanese importer to shift away from U.S. exports to products
from countries whose exchange rates have not appreciated against the yen. During the past
decade, the U.S. dollar appreciated against the currencies of some countries to which U.S. exports

11 Anita Regmi ed., Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade, International Agriculture and Trade
Report WRS-01-1, USDA, ERS, May 2001; also see Anita Regmi and Birgit Meade, “Demand Side Drivers of Global
Food Security,” Global Food Security, vol. 2, issue 3, 2013, pp. 166-171.
12 Andrew Muhammad et al., International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns: An Update Using 2005
International Comparison Program Data, Technical Bulletin, no. 1929, Appendix Table 1, ERS, USDA, March 2011.
13 The World Bank, World Development Indicators, accessed October 2020, at https://databank.worldbank.org/source/
world-development-indicators.
14 Anita Regmi and John Dyck, “Effects of Urbanization on Global Food Demand,” in Anita Regmi ed., Changing
Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade, WRS-01-1, USDA, ERS, May 2001, pp. 23-30.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

declined, such as Japan, Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa, but a weaker dollar contributed to
significant growth in U.S. agricultural exports to Bangladesh, Vietnam, and India.
Although the U.S. dollar also appreciated against other currencies in North America and Europe,
U.S. agricultural exports to these regions did not suffer. Geographic proximity and preferential
trading arrangements likely supported U.S. export growth to Canada and Mexico.
Food Prices
Households in poorer countries tend to make larger cuts to their food budgets when food prices
increase than households in wealthier countries.15 They typically accomplish this by maintaining
spending on staple foods, such as cereals and breads, that meet caloric needs, while curbing
outlays on more expensive foods.
A 2011 USDA study reported that a 10% increase in cereal prices led households in a country
such as Ethiopa, which then had a per capita income of $1,361, to reduce spending on staple
cereals by 4%, while in Indonesia, with a per capital income of $8,680, a similar price change led
to only a 3% drop in spending. In Mexico, with per capita income of $18,246, a 10% cereal price
increase was associated with a 1% drop in puchases, and in Japan, with a per capita income of
nearly $38,000, the price increase affected spending on cereals hardly at all.16 A similar pattern is
evident for meats, dairy products, and fruits and vegetables (Figure 5).17
Figure 5. Food Expenditure Reductions With a 10% Increase in Price of a Product
Selected U.S. Export Markets

Source: Andrew Muhammad et al., International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns: An Update Using 2005
International Comparison Program Data, Technical Bul etin, no. 1929, Appendix Table 6, ERS, USDA, March 2011.
Note: Countries selected to il ustrate price responsiveness across different income levels, out of 144 countries
included in the report.

15 For example, Daniel J. Gustafson, “Rising Food Costs & Global Food Security: Key Issues & Relevance For India,”
Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 138, no. 3, September 2013, pp. 398-410.
16 Per capita GDP data from World Bank are expressed on a purchasing power parity basis in 2017 dollars. See
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD.
17 Andrew Muhammad et al., International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns: An Update Using 2005
International Comparison Program Data, Technical Bulletin, no. 1929, ERS, USDA, March 2011.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 14 link to page 14 U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Global economic recovery from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may affect
food availability as well as food prices. FAO lowered its global cereal supply forecasts in
December 2020. FAO’s food price index, a measure of the monthly change in international prices
of a basket of food commodities, registered the highest monthly average since July 2014 in March
2021, led by strong gains in vegetable oils, meat, and dairy prices, stoking fears of growing food
insecurity.18 Rising food prices could slow down the pace of U.S. agricultural export growth in
some developing countries, and in some cases may even lead to a decline in the level of exports.
Sources of Agricultural Exports
The top 10 states account for almost 60% of the total value of U.S. agricultural exports, with
California alone accounting for over 17% of agricultural exports in 2019 (Table 4). One reason
for this is that California is home to three major ports that handle waterborne containerized
shipments (Figure 6).
Table 4. Top Exporting States of Agricultural Products, 2019
In Billions of Dollars
Rank
State
Export Value Share of Total Exports
1
California
$23.5
17.3%
2
Iowa
$10.0
7.4%
3
Il inois
$7.8
5.8%
4
Texas
$6.4
4.7%
5
Nebraska
$6.3
4.6%
6
Minnesota
$6.3
4.6%
7
Kansas
$4.9
3.6%
8
Indiana
$4.5
3.3%
9
North Dakota
$4.1
3.0%
10
Missouri
$3.8
2.8%
Source: USDA, ERS, “State Export Data,” accessed March 2021, at
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-export-data/.
Note: Total agricultural exports in calendar year was $136 bil ion, and uses the
2019 USDA definition of agriculture.
Almost 20% of U.S. food-manufacturing plants are located in California (Table 5), also the
leading state in agricultural production.19 This state is the top destination for domestic shipments
of temperature-controlled freight, much of which moves from production sites (such as dairy
farms or animal slaughterhouses) to processing plants.
The top 15 states together account for three-fourths of all food-manufacturing plants in the
country (Table 5). Among these, California, Texas, and Illinois are among the top 10 states in
exports of agricultural products.

18 FAO, “FAO Food Price Index Rising For Tenth Straight Month,” April 8, 2021, at http://www.fao.org/
worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/.
19 USDA, ERS, “FAQs,” accessed March 2021, at https://www.ers.usda.gov/faqs/#:~:text=
In%202019%2C%20the%20top%2010,Farm%20Income%20and%20Wealth%20Statistics.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 15 U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

West Coast ports handle 66% of all U.S. waterborne containerized agricultural exports, with
California ports accounting for almost 50% of total U.S. shipments of such products (Figure 6).
In contrast, bulk products, such as grains, flow mainly through ports on the Gulf of Mexico—with
over 60% of agricultural exports by volume moving through ports in the New Orleans region,
which handle only a small share of containerized agricultural exports.
Table 5. U.S. Food Manufacturing and Temperature-Controlled Shipment
Destinations
For Top 15 States
U.S. Food
Temperature Controlled
Manufacturing
Shipment Destinations
Number of Plants, 2018
Value of Shipment, 2017
State
Number
% of U.S.
State
$ Billion
% of U.S.
California
5,770
19.5%
California
192
9.9%
New York
2,327
7.9%
New York
175
9.0%
Texas
1,845
6.2%
Texas
167
8.6%
Pennsylvania
1,431
4.8%
Il inois
102
5.3%
Washington
1,265
4.3%
Pennsylvania
98
5.1%
Florida
1,203
4.1%
Florida
93
4.8%
Il inois
1,194
4.0%
Ohio
80
4.1%
New Jersey
1,079
3.6%
Georgia
68
3.5%
Oregon
1,017
3.4%
North Carolina
58
3.0%
Wisconsin
870
2.9%
Colorado
54
2.8%
Ohio
838
2.8%
Wisconsin
52
2.7%
Michigan
834
2.8%
Michigan
52
2.7%
Colorado
817
2.8%
Massachusetts
50
2.6%
Massachusetts
692
2.3%
Washington
49
2.6%
North Carolina
659
2.2%
Indiana
45
2.3%
Others
7,753
26.2%
Others
599
31.0%
Source: CRS, using data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2018 County Business Patterns; data as of October
2020, at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html, and U.S. Bureau of Census, 2017 Commodity Flow
Survey Temperature Data, as of October 2020.
Note: Temperature-control ed shipments include food and pharmaceuticals.
Global demand for high-value foods shipped internationally in containers, such as meats, dairy
products, fruits, vegetables, and various packaged foods, is increasing, particularly in Asia. From
2016 to 2020, the nominal value of U.S. consumer-oriented food exports to East and Southeast
Asia grew by 18%, from $20.5 billion to $24.1 billion, and to South Asia by 33%, from $888
Congressional Research Service

10

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

million to $1.18 billion.20 Additionally, containers are useful for exporting higher-value
commodities, such as identity-preserved grain, food-grade soybeans, peas, and lentils.21
Due to the large U.S. trade imbalance with Asia in containerized goods, westbound rates across
the Pacific have historically been much lower than eastbound rates, allowing U.S. producers to
export agricultural products that might not be competitive if transportation costs were higher.
However, this rate disparity means that container carriers primarily cater their services to U.S.
imports. During periods of tight container supply, waterborne carriers in West Coast ports may
prefer to send empty containers back to Asia rather than delay turnaround by loading with U.S.
agricultural commodities from the interior.22 A surge in exports from China in the second half of
2020 compounded this problem, as ocean carriers hurried to return empty containers to China
rather than waiting for them to be loaded with U.S. agricultural exports.23
Figure 6. Top 20 U.S. Ports Moving Waterborne Agricultural Trade
Exports in 1,000 Metric Tons, 2017

Source: USDA, AMS, Profiles of Top U.S. Agricultural Ports, June 2019.
Note: New Orleans Port Region includes South Louisiana, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Avondale, St Rose,
Gramercy, and Destrehan, LA.

20 U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data, via USDA, FAS, accessed March 2021, at https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/
default.aspx.
21 Kimberly Vachal, Marketing U.S. Grain and Oilseed by Container, DP-272. North Dakota State University, 2014;
see summary at https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/02-
2015%20Marketing%20U.S.%20Grain%20and%20Oilseeds%20by%20Container%20%28Summary%29.pdf.
22 Lori Ann LaRocco, “Carriers Rejected at Least $1.3 Billion in Potential U.S. Agricultural Exports From July to
December,” CNBC, March 17, 2021, at https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/15/carriers-rejected-at-least-1point3-billion-in-
potential-us-agricultural-exports.html.
23 Bipartisan Members of Congress letter to Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), March 9, 2021, at
https://adriansmith.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/over-100-members-house-send-letter-address-carriers-
declining-ship-us; Bipartisan Senators letter to FMC, March 2, 2021, at https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/_cache/
files/e6457a3b-880d-4d7c-8631-dd6c389918c4/07E2CD6F355CF7B7F10C77EE20D2D3BB.03.02.21-thune-
klobuchar-final.pdf; and California State officials letter to FMC, January 28, 2021, at https://www.scribd.com/
document/493103397/Go-Biz-CDFA-letter.
Congressional Research Service

11

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

USDA Agricultural Export Programs
The USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), initially focused on improving the competitive
position of U.S. agriculture, currently has a broader mandate to enhance export opportunities as
well as help ensure global food security.24 To that end, FAS engages with foreign governments
and international organizations to remove trade barriers and enforce U.S. rights under existing
trade agreements; partners with industry groups to help U.S. exporters develop and maintain
markets for agricultural products; provides objective market intelligence; and leads USDA’s
efforts to help developing countries improve their agricultural systems and build their trade
capacity.
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) called for a reorganization of trade functions of USDA to
separate domestic farm programs from export-oriented programs. This law directed the Secretary
of Agriculture to establish the position of under secretary of agriculture for trade and foreign
agricultural affairs. In May 2017, USDA moved FAS operations under the new under secretary,
separating them from the crop insurance programs to which they were previously joined under
USDA’s under secretary for farm and foreign agricultural affairs.25
The reorganization also created the U.S. Codex office, which manages the planning, policy
development, support, and coordination for U.S. involvement in the Codex Alimentarius,26 the
international food standards-setting body. Officials from USDA, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Office of U.S. Trade Representative form a steering committee for
U.S. Codex program.
Agricultural Trade Promotion and Facilitation Program
The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334) brought a variety of existing USDA export promotion
programs together under a single Agricultural Trade Promotion and Facilitation Program and
created a new Priority Trade Fund. The program has a mandatory budget authorization of $255
million annually through FY2023, including $200 million for the Market Access Program (MAP),
$34.5 million for the Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP), $10 million for the
Emerging Markets Program, and $9 million for Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops. The
Quality Samples Program is authorized under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter
Act, not the farm bill, and is funded through the CCC’s borrowing authority.27
The CCC Charter Act grants the Secretary of Agriculture broad powers and discretion to use the
CCC.28 The CCC has served as a mandatory funding mechanism since 1933 for programs
including commodity and income support, natural resources conservation, export promotion,
international food aid, disaster assistance, agricultural research, and bioenergy development.
USDA employees and facilities carry out all CCC activities, overseen by a board of directors who

24 USDA, “About FAS,” accessed March 2021, at https://www.fas.usda.gov/about-fas.
25 USDA, “Secretary Perdue Announces Creation of Undersecretary for Trade,” Press Release, no. 0038.17, May 11,
2017.
26 Codex Alimentarious, “About Codex Alimentarious,” accessed March 2021, at http://www.fao.org/fao-who-
codexalimentarius/about-codex/en/.
27 15 U.S.C. §714c(f) states that the CCC is authorized to use its general powers to “Export or cause to be exported, or
aid in the development of foreign markets for, agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) (including fish and fish
products, without regard to whether such fish are harvested in aquacultural operations).”
28 CRS Report R44606, The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), by Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service

12

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

are also USDA officials. The CCC has $100 million in capital stock; buys, owns, sells, and
donates agricultural commodities; and provides loans to farmers and ranchers. It has permanent
indefinite borrowing authority of $30 billion from the U.S. Treasury.
Congress has established eligibility criteria for U.S. industry entities and agricultural
commodities and products to participate in export promotion programs (7 U.S.C. §5623). All
commodities and their products of U.S. origin, including food, feed, fiber, forestry products,
livestock, insects, and fish harvested from a U.S. aquaculture farm or harvested in U.S. marine
waters are eligible for these programs.29 When considering nonprofit U.S. trade organizations for
funding, the CCC may favor those organizations that have the broadest producer representation
and affiliated industry participation of the commodity being promoted.
The list of countries eligible to participate in export promotion programs under the “emerging
market” designation has not changed since 1995.30 The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority
to designate any country, foreign territory, customs union, or other economic market as an
emerging market provided that (1) it is taking steps toward a market-oriented economy; and (2) it
has the potential to provide a viable and significant market for U.S. agricultural commodities and
products (7 U.S.C. §5622).
The 2018 farm bill allows MAP and FMDP funding for certain activities in Cuba so long as funds
are not used in contravention of policy outlined in National Security Presidential Memorandum 5
of June 16, 2017, which requires that funds be “channeled to benefit Cuban people” and not “the
Cuban government or its military, intelligence, or security agencies or personnel.”31 The Senate
Appropriations Committee has directed USDA to publish an annual report describing the details
of MAP and FMDP grants to Cuba.32 Several farm-related groups33 and some Members of
Congress are seeking to remove the existing trade embargo on Cuba (S. 249), which would make
it easier to use U.S. public or private financing for agricultural exports.34
Market Access Program (MAP)
MAP—which aids in the creation, expansion, and maintenance of foreign markets for U.S.
agricultural products—was originally authorized by the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-
501, as amended), and is administered by FAS.35 MAP provides funding to nonprofit U.S.
agricultural trade associations, nonprofit U.S. agricultural cooperatives, nonprofit state and
regional trade groups, and small U.S. businesses for overseas marketing and promotional
activities, such as trade shows, market research, consumer promotions for retail products,

29 For example, see 85 Federal Register 8, January 13, 2020.
30 60 Federal Register 44723, August 28, 1995.
31 For more on U.S. policy on Cuba, see CRS Report R45657, Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 116th Congress and Through
the Trump Administration, by Mark P. Sullivan.
32 Senate Appropriations Committee, Explanatory Statement on agriculture, November 10, 2020, at
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-
bipartisan-results. In 2020, Potatoes USA used Market Access Program (MAP) funding to ship U.S. seed potatoes to
Cuba for varietal field trial, per the protocol signed by USDA and Cuba for U.S. seed potato exports to the country.
33 U.S. farm-related group letter to President Biden, February 10, 2020, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
5e3d7cf054f8264efecdf2ef/t/602404112553a66c75b26c29/1612973074145/
Cuba+letter+to+President+Biden+February+2021.pdf.
34 Group of 75 Members of Congress letter to President Biden, March 2, 2021, at https://rush.house.gov/media-center/
press-releases/rush-cohen-lee-moore-75-democratic-colleagues-urge-president-biden-to.
35 MAP had two predecessor programs. In 1996, MAP replaced the Market Promotion Program, which was established
in 1990 to replace the Targeted Export Assistance Program authorized in 1985.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 24 link to page 27 U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

technical capacity building, and seminars to educate overseas customers. MAP funds assist
primarily in marketing value-added products, such as fruits, dairy products, meat, nuts, wood
products, wine, and seafood. MAP funds can be used to support both generic promotions and
brand-name promotions. Generic promotions are undertaken by nonprofit trade associations, state
regional groups, and state agencies to increase demand for a specific commodity (e.g., peas,
lentils, cotton), with no emphasis on a particular brand. The number of associations engaged in
MAP increased from 62 in 2014 to 67 in 2020 (Table A-1).
MAP funds may be spent by the participating organizations themselves (direct funding) or
redistributed to entities that have applied to participating organizations for MAP assistance
(indirect funding). Since FY1998, USDA policy has prohibited the allocation of MAP funds to
large U.S. companies. Agricultural cooperatives and small U.S. companies36 can receive
assistance under the brand program, which seeks to establish consumer loyalty to brand-name
products.37 To conduct branded product promotion activities, individual companies must provide
a funding match of at least 50% of the total marketing cost. For generic promotion activities,
trade associations and others must meet a minimum 10% match requirement.
Although MAP is a mandatory program and hence does not require an annual appropriation,
agriculture appropriations acts have on occasion capped the amounts that could be spent on the
program or imposed other restraints on programming. For example, the FY1996 Agriculture
Appropriations Act prohibited the use of MAP funds to promote exports of mink pelts or
garments. Since 1993, no MAP funds may be used to promote tobacco exports.
MAP has been targeted for cuts by some Members of Congress who maintain that it is a form of
corporate welfare, or who want to eliminate it to help offset increased expenditures on other
programs, but such efforts have been unsuccessful.38 Moreover, a 2016 study reports that USDA
export promotion programs are effective in increasing demand for U.S. agricultural products,
even though other factors such as prices and exchange rates may have a greater impact.39 MAP
funding has remained at $200 million annually since FY2006, and was reauthorized at that level
through FY2023 in the 2018 farm bill (§3201b).
Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP)
FMDP, also known as the Cooperator Program, was established in 1955 and, like MAP, has the
primary objective of assisting industry organizations in the expansion of export opportunities. The
2018 farm bill (§3201c) reauthorized CCC funding for FMDP for FY2019-FY2023 at an annual
level of $34.5 million. The program has been funded at this level since FY1997.
FMDP funds industry groups, with a match requirement, to undertake activities such as consumer
promotions, technical assistance, trade servicing, and market research. Unlike MAP, which
mainly promotes consumer goods and brand-name products, FMDP mainly promotes generic or
bulk commodities. Grains, oilseeds, and cotton received 72% of the $27 million FMDP allocation
in 2020 (Table A-2).

36 As defined by the Small Business Administration.
37 A listing of MAP funding allocations by participating organization for FY2013 and FY2014 is available at
http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/market-access-program-map/map-funding-allocations-fy-2013.
38 A coalition of food and agricultural industry group wrote a letter to the House Subcommittee on Agriculture and
Rural Development to fully fund MAP and the Foreign Market Development Program, March 11, 2021, at
https://www.nasda.org/letters-comments-testimony/coalition-letter-to-promote-u-s-agricultural-exports.
39 Informa Economics, Economic Impact of USDA Export Market Development Programs, July 2016.
Congressional Research Service

14

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC)
TASC funds projects that address sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical barriers that prohibit or
limit U.S. specialty crop exports. The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) defined specialty crops as all
cultivated plants, and the products thereof, produced in the United States except wheat, feed
grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, sugar, and tobacco. The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79)
broadened TASC’s scope, replacing “related barriers” with “technical barriers.” This change
allowed TASC to fund projects that address technical barriers to trade that are not related to
sanitary or phytosanitary barriers.
The types of activities covered include seminars and workshops, study tours, field surveys, pest
and disease research, and preclearance programs. The 2018 farm bill (§3201e) authorizes TASC
funding of $9 million annually through FY2023, but USDA allocated only $4.2 million to the
program in 2019.40
The E. (Kika) de la Garza Emerging Markets Program (EMP)
EMP provides partial funding for technical assistance activities that promote U.S. agricultural
exports to emerging markets.41 Guidance on qualified countries is provided each year in the
program application announcement.
EMP is intended to develop, maintain, or expand markets for U.S. agricultural products by
making available to emerging markets U.S. expertise to make assessments of food and rural
business systems needs; recommend measures necessary to enhance the effectiveness of these
systems, including potential reductions in trade barriers; and to identify and carry out specific
opportunities and projects to enhance their effectiveness. Technical assistance may include
feasibility studies, market research, sector assessments, orientation visits, specialized training,
business workshops, and similar activities. Under the 2018 farm bill (§3201d), EMP annual
mandatory allocations for FY2019-FY2023 cannot exceed $8 million annually and must cover at
least three emerging markets each year.
Quality Samples Program (QSP)
QSP assists U.S. agricultural trade organizations in providing small samples of their products to
potential importers in emerging markets overseas. QSP focuses on industrial and manufacturing
users of products, not end-use consumers, and allows manufacturers overseas to conduct test runs
to assess how U.S. food and fiber products can best meet their production needs. Projects are
required to focus on developing a new market or promoting a new use for the U.S. product.
Priority is given to importers who have not previously purchased the product that will be
supplied; are unfamiliar with the variety, quality attributes, or end-use characteristics of the U.S.
product; have been unsuccessful in previous attempts to import, process, or market the U.S.
commodity (e.g., because of improper specification, blending, formulation, sanitary or
phytosanitary issues); are interested in testing or demonstrating the benefits of the U.S.
commodity; or need technical assistance in processing or using the U.S. commodity. FAS used
$2.3 million of CCC funds for QSP in FY2018, $2.2 million in FY2019, and $1.1 million in
FY2020.42 In FY2020, measures undertaken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 hampered

40 USDA, 2019 U.S. Specialty Crops: Trade Issues Report, Annual Report to Congress, October 2020.
41 Program regulations appear at 7 C.F.R. §1486.
42 CRS communication with USDA, FAS, March 2021.
Congressional Research Service

15

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

implementation of plans that required traveling to foreign markets, leading to lower levels of
program use.
Priority Trade Fund
The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334, §3201) also authorizes funding for one or more new programs
to access, develop, maintain, and expand markets for U.S. agricultural products, with mandatory
funding of $3.5 million annually through FY2023. Such programs may be funded at the discretion
of the Secretary of Agriculture. Any funds allocated under other export programs that remain
unobligated after the end of the first fiscal year in which they are made available will be
reallocated to the priority trade fund.
Export Credit Guarantee Programs
Under the export credit guarantee programs, private U.S. financial institutions extend financing at
prevailing market interest rates to countries that want to purchase U.S. agricultural exports with a
CCC loan guarantee. The CCC assumes the risk of default on payments by the foreign purchasers
on loans for U.S. farm exports. Two export credit guarantee programs were reauthorized: the
short-term credit guarantee program GSM-10243 and the Facility Guarantee Program (FGP).
GSM-102 Program
The GSM-102 program guarantees repayment of short-term financing extended by approved
foreign banks, mainly in developing countries, for purchases of U.S. food and agricultural
products by foreign buyers. The GSM-102 program aims to encourage commercial exports of
U.S. agricultural products on competitive credit terms to buyers in countries where credit to
maintain or increase U.S. sales may not be available without CCC guarantees. Eligible countries
are those that USDA determines can service the debt backed by the guarantees. The use of CCC
guarantees for foreign aid, foreign policy, or debt rescheduling purposes is prohibited. The CCC
selects agricultural commodities and products according to market potential and eligibility based
on applicable legislative and regulatory requirements. All products must be entirely produced in
the United States. Eligible products include a broad range of agricultural commodities and high-
value products.44
The 2018 farm bill (§3201) extends provisions for GSM-102 credit to approved foreign financial
institutions of up to $5.5 billion annually for up to 18 months for the purchase of U.S. farm and
food products. Net federal outlays under the GSM-102 program have been negative in most years
going back to the mid-1990s (i.e., generating revenue for the government), as program fees and
interest from rescheduled debts have generally exceeded the cost of defaults. The total guarantees
for FY2020 were $2.2 billion—over 86% of which went to Latin America.45 Over 99% of the
guarantees in FY2020 supported export sales of grains, soybeans, and flour, soybean meal, or
soybean oil.

43 The acronym GSM refers to the General Sales Manager, an official of FAS who administers the credit, and other,
export programs. For more, see https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export-credit-guarantee-program-gsm-102.
44 A list of eligible commodities and products under the GSM-102 program can be found at https://www.fas.usda.gov/
programs/export-credit-guarantee-program-gsm-102.
45 CRS communication with USDA, FAS, January 2021.
Congressional Research Service

16

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Facility Guarantee Program (FGP)
The FGP guarantees financing of goods and services exported from the United States to improve
or establish facilities in emerging markets to handle, market, store, or distribute imported U.S.
agricultural products. The farm bill extends authorization of at least $1 billion per year through
FY2023 in direct credits or credit guarantees; this funding is available for both GSM-102 and
FGP. The Secretary of Agriculture may provide an FGP guarantee for the term of the depreciation
schedule of the facility, not to exceed 20 years. The Secretary of Agriculture may waive
requirements that U.S. goods be used in the construction of a facility if such goods are not
available or their use is not feasible. The CCC is required to prioritize projects that encourage the
privatization of the agricultural sector or that benefit private farms or cooperatives in emerging
markets, and projects for which nongovernmental entities agree to assume a relatively larger
share of the costs.
As of October 5, 2020, USDA had allocated $497 million in FGP to cover 70 countries.46
Regulatory constraints limiting the use of established facilities to U.S. imports, eligibility criteria
for foreign banks, and other constraints have limited FGP use, with the program inactive in some
years.47
Agricultural Export Programs: Emerging Issues
Over the years, Congress has altered export promotion programs to focus on facilitating exports
of value-added agricultural products rather than raw commodities and to conform with U.S.
obligations under international trade agreements, such as under the World Trade Organization
(WTO). Government spending to strengthen general marketing and promotion services covered
by export programs, unlike direct payments to farmers, is not limited by WTO rules.48
Members of the WTO, including the United States, have stated that the WTO’s 12th Ministerial
Conference, scheduled to convene in late 2021,49 should approve goals that align with the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals.50 One such goal could be to encourage countries to
impose additional tariffs on imports of any goods (including agricultural products) produced
without internalizing the costs imposed on the environment. Canada, the EU, and Norway have
initiated certification schemes for products that internalize the costs of environmental
externalities through taxes or greenhouse gas offsets, among other policies.51 Producers could
conceivably seek to use such certification to avoid tariffs of this type.

46 USDA, FAS, “FY 2021 FGP Allocations,” accessed January 2021, at https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/facility-
guarantee-program/fy-2016-fgp-allocations.
47 For more information, see CRS Report R43696, Agricultural Exports and 2014 Farm Bill Programs: Background
and Current Issues, by Mark A. McMinimy.
48 CRS Report R46456, Reforming the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, by Anita Regmi, Nina M. Hart, and Randy
Schnepf.
49 World Trade Organization (WTO), “Twelfth Ministerial Conference to Take Place in Geneva in Late 2021,” March
1, 2021, at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/minis_01mar21_e.htm.
50 Global Forum for Food and Agriculture, “Global Forum for Food and Agriculture Communiqué 2020: Food for All!
Trade for Secure, Diverse and Sustainable Nutrition,” 12th Berlin Agriculture Ministers’ Conference, January 18, 2020;
and WTO, “Advancing Sustainability Goals Through Trade Rules to Level the Playing Field: Draft Ministerial
Decision,” WT/GC/W/814, December 17, 2020.
51 USDA, FAS, GAIN Report Numbers: CA2021-0014, March 12, 2021; E42021-0029, March 9, 2021; and NO2021-
0003, March 17, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

17

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

The 2018 farm bill (§3308) established a new priority for U.S. agricultural policy: promoting
global food security, defined as “access by any person at any time to food and nutrition that is
sufficient for a healthy and productive life.” Meanwhile, consumers increasingly demand
products that reflect their values. In specific countries, this translates to increased demand for
organic food and a growing interest in products certified as having been produced without the use
of forced labor52 or illegally deforested land53 or produced using sustainable practices.54 These
changing consumer demands are creating market opportunities for certified organic, sustainable,
or equitably produced products.
Some experts assert that the United States’ core advantage in agricultural exports may lie in
quality, safety, and other nonprice factors.55 Communication of these differences to potential
foreign buyers via certification schemes may benefit U.S. exports. A bill introduced in the 116th
Congress, the Growing Climate Solutions Act (H.R. 7393), would have created a certification
program at USDA to promote farmer and forest landowner participation in carbon credit markets;
such certification might eventually be useful in promoting export sales.
In the interim, the broad authorities provided by the CCC to the Secretary of Agriculture under 15
U.S.C. §714c(f) may allow USDA to pilot certification schemes for exports of food and
agricultural products that are sustainably produced or produced without the use of forced labor.
Congress may wish to use its oversight authority to explore issues related to this possibility.
Some Members of Congress have contended that USDA’s various export promotion programs do
not benefit producers in all parts of the country equally. A private study released in 2016 on
behalf of three agricultural associations asserts that USDA export market development programs
disproportionately benefit growers in the Midwest, while delivering relatively small benefits to
the food processing and services sectors in the Northeast.56 One possible response to concerns
about equity considertations would be to expand export promotion programs that target growers
and processors of specialty crops, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises that have not
historically engaged in trade.57
The COVID-19 pandemic and recent trade disputes58 have raised awareness regarding the
importance of maintaining diverse U.S. import sources and export markets to minimize risks from
supply chain disruptions in a specific market. China, which accounted for 17% of the total value
of U.S. exports in 2020, is making large investments in agricultural research, focusing on the
development and use of high-quality seeds and livestock genetics, with the goal of reducing its

52 J. Scott Maberry and Mario Andres Torrico, “Forced Labor and Supply Chains: A Complete Ban on Goods from
Xinjiang or Additional WROs on the Horizon?,” National Law Review, vol. XI, no. 83, March 24, 2021.
53 Some Members of Congress seek to prohibit imports of products from illegally deforested lands (H.R. 4263 116th
Congress); see Cara Korte, “Illegal Deforestation Is Ravaging the Planet and Driving Emissions Up. A New Bill in
Congress Seeks to Change That,” CBS News, March 3, 2021.
54 For example, see “Chairman Blumenauer Files Legislation to Update Key Trade Program,” December 8, 2020, at
https://blumenauer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/chairman-blumenauer-files-legislation-update-key-trade-
program. Also see H.R. 219, introduced in the 117th Congress to modify the Generalized System of Preferences.
55 Jeffrey J. Reimer et al., “Agricultural Export Promotion Programs Create Positive Economic Impacts,” Choices, vol.
32, no. 3, 3rd Quarter 2017.
56 Informa Economics, Economic Impact of USDA Export Market Development Programs, Prepared for U.S. Wheat
Associates, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, and Pear Bureau Northwest, July 2016.
57 Agricultural Industry Coalition letter to House Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations Chairman Sanford
Bishop Jr. and Ranking Member Jeff Fortenberry, March 9, 2021, at https://www.uswheat.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/03/Coalition-to-Promote-US-Agricultural-Exports-FY-22_House-Letter.pdf.
58 CRS Report R45903, Retaliatory Tariffs and U.S. Agriculture, by Anita Regmi.
Congressional Research Service

18

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

future imports of food and agricultural products.59 Congress may therefore wish to assess how the
existing USDA export programs could be used to expand U.S. export growth opportunituies for a
diversity of U.S. products.60 For example, Congress could explore options to improve access for
U.S. agricultural products to the fast-growing markets in Southeast Asia and South Asia.
Congress could also consider options for using USDA export promotion programs together with
other U.S. government programs that are designed to help developing countries engage in
agricultural trade. Strengthening storage capacity, cold chains, and port facilities could improve
longer-term opportunities for U.S. high-value food exports to many developing countries,
particularly those where population and income levels are likely to continue to grow in the
coming years. Programs that support these activities, such as EMP and FGP, are intended for
developing countries and do not compete with market promotion programs, such as MAP and
FMDP, that may continue to promote exports of U.S. agricultural products to existing markets.61
Additionally, the United States could seek to leverage the WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement,
under which developing countries may receive assistance to build up capacity related to supply
chains and border and customs clearance.62

59 USDA, FAS, “China 2021 No 1 Document Underscores Seed Genetics Stable Grain and Pork Supplies for Food
Security,” GAIN Report Number: CH2021-0041, April 2, 2021; and Wendong Zhang, presentation to Farm Foundation
Trade and Climate Change Conference, April 7, 2021.
60 Senator Debbie Stabenow has indicated an interest in long-term investments to rebuild markets. See Morning Ag
Clips, “Stabenow Urges Improvements to Trade Payments,” November 17, 2019, at https://www.morningagclips.com/
stabenow-urges-improvements-to-trade-payments/.
61 FAS allocates MAP and FMDP funding to industry groups, which may reallocate portions of the total funding across
countries and products covered by each group, based on its analysis and prioritization.
62 WTO, Trade Facilitation Agreement, accessed January 2021, at https://www.tfafacility.org/.
Congressional Research Service

19

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Appendix. Export Promotion Program Allocations
Table A-1. Market Access Program (MAP) Allocations
FY2014-FY2021, In Thousands of U.S. Dollars
Partner
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
3,561
4,161
3,961
4,216
4,112
4,382
4,226
4,255

American Feed Industry Association
200
American Hardwood Export
8,996
8,737
7,459
8,661
8,288
6,727
8,413
8,208
Council, APA—The Engineered
Wood Association, Softwood Export
Council, Southern Forest Products
Association
American Peanut Council
2,236
1,382
1,906
2,335
2,476
2,498
2,439
2,449

American Pecan Council
597
604
American Pistachio Growers/Cal-
1,380
1,571
1,779
1,734
1,727
1,767
1,718
1,742
Pure Pistachios Inc.
American Seed Trade Association
229
286
332
427
439
287
332
358
American Sheep Industry Association
421
483
438
343
466
449
441
378
American Soybean Association
4,523
4,403
4,623
5,345
5,393
3,905
4,403
4,884
American Sweet Potato Marketing
200
200
106
199
195
203
213
261
Institute
Blue Diamond Growers/Almond
4,729
5,001
5,240
4,951
5,007
5,103
4,959
4,986
Board of California
Brewers Association, Inc.
601
601
701
471
706
709
651
665
California Agricultural Export
1,229
861
748
81
1,012
896
981
733
Council
California Cherry Marketing and
519
444
598
587
566
567
490
414
Research Board

California Dried Plum Board
2,837

California Cling Peach Board
445
500
511
496
470
California Fresh Fruit Association
421
413
417
331
405
404
394
394
(formerly Grape and Tree Fruit
League)

California Olive Committee
100
100
110
132
122
California Pear Advisory Board
442
469
492
477
319
419
364
373
California Prune Board
2,668
3,023
2,993
3,003
2,910
2,938
2,796
0

California Strawberry Commission
335
319
148
312
290
306
California Table Grape Commission
3,093
3,425
3,354
3,124
3,285
3,284
3,247
3,128
California Walnut Commission
3,903
4,146
4,112
4,177
3,911
4,101
3,928
3,928
Cherry Marketing Institute
204
290
341
307
235
244
290
289
Congressional Research Service

20

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Partner
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Cotton Council International
15,424 16,668 13,324 14,919 14,590 13,706 14,454 12,562
Cranberry Marketing Committee
1,561
1,792
1,912
1,904
1,798
1,698
1,603
1,317
Distil ed Spirits Council
402
384
359
153
409
432
489
537
Florida Department of Citrus
3,885
4,384
4,289
3,880
3,462
3,558
3,369
3,353

Florida Tomato Committee
4
284
253
258
246
221
Food Export Association of the
9,638 10,272 10,622
8,516
8,872
9,961
9,843 10,708
Midwest USA
Food Export USA Northeast
8,139
8,896
8,610
9,154
9,022
9,115
8,602
8,901
Ginseng Board of Wisconsin
168
438
428
452
438
438
416
348
Hop Growers of America
310
310
226
208
370
361
378
351
Intertribal Agriculture Council
643
728
737
750
734
730
717
678
Mohair Council of America
46
118
145
144
140
134
78
27
National Association of State
3,533
2,330
899
1,606
1,029
1,211
2,744
1,277
Departments of Agriculture
National Confectioners Association
966
669
579
750
1,333
1,366
1,168
1,368

National Pecan Growers Council
487
224
700
621
National Potato Promotion Board
3,647
4,999
4,720
4,826
3,922
4,825
4,610
4,697
National Renderers Association
872
940
423
748
1,020
907
972
1,029
National Sunflower Association
1,119
1,119
1,138
1,133
949
1,035
949
1,007

National Watermelon Promotion
290
165
175
193
190
Board
New York Wine and Grape
485
423
349
462
407
459
411
459
Foundation

North American Export Grain
350
Association
Northwest Wine Promotion
988
1,157
1,181
1,114
1,085
937
1,030
1,140
Coalition
Organic Trade Association
747
785
889
846
754
827
813
817
Pear Bureau Northwest
2,927
3,070
3,057
2,895
2,828
2,346
2,694
2,805
Pet Food Institute
1,361
1,323
1,337
1,070
1,290
1,470
1,402
1,410
Raisin Administrative Committee
828
3,018
2,634
2,887
2,814
2,826
2,681
2,652
Southern United States Trade
5,874
7,152
6,025
6,549
6,215
6,518
6,762
6,262
Association
Sunkist Growers, Inc.
2,373
2,660
2,431
1,143
1,721
2,112
1,653
2,005
Synergistic Hawaii Agriculture
388
379
367
30
295
309
306
308
Council
The Popcorn Board
370
386
346
332
346
363
318
307
U.S. Apple Export Council
713
999
819
944
442
552
473
682
U.S. Dairy Export Council
4,085
3,203
4,334
4,870
4,626
4,713
4,641
4,719
Congressional Research Service

21

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Partner
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
U.S. Dry Bean Council
1,148
871
888
1,009
823
763
968
978
U.S. Grains Council
6,732
5,074
7,483
6,671
8,580
8,882
8,887
8,634
U.S. Hide, Skin and Leather
50
67
159
302
314
255
317
367
Association

U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council
200
197
205
197
288
U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc.
1,538
1,431
1,231
742
1,201
1,362
1,480
1,545
U.S. Meat Export Federation
14,074 10,724 12,515 13,316 13,184 13,080 12,954 13,071

U.S. Pecan Growers Council
680
673
U.S. Wheat Associates
5,973
4,508
5,709
6,082
5,510
5,692
5,869
6,086
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council
850
983
1,159
999
845
1,070
1,023
1,128
USA Poultry and Egg Export Council
4,952
4,925
4,944
5,263
4,041
5,224
5,400
5,387
USA Rice Federation/U.S. Rice
2,735
2,793
2,750
2,913
2,488
2,473
2,734
2,764
Producers Association
Washington Apple Commission
4,931
5,179
5,145
4,863
4,856
4,943
4,735
4,804
Washington State Fruit Commission
1,362
1,686
1,856
1,759
1,722
1,737
1,666
1,709
Welch Foods, Inc.
834
933
983
929
706
907
865
807
Western U.S. Agricultural Trade
8,098
7,705
7,703
6,881
9,688
8,203
8,137
7,713
Association
Wine Institute
6,322
7,105
6,997
6,639
5,526
6,483
6,299
6,317
TOTAL
171,875 173,208 172,847 173,506 173,802 174,600 176,850 175,600
Source: USDA, FAS, “Market Access Program (MAP),” accessed December 2020, at https://www.fas.usda.gov/
programs/market-access-program-map.
Congressional Research Service

22

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

Table A-2. Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP) Allocations
FY2014-FY2021
CY 2021
Partner
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021 Extension
Almond Board of
125.0
275.0
275.0
194.1
207.3
251.1
192.8
169.7
55.7
California
American Hardwood
2,655.4 3,447.5 3,262.3 2,703.1 2,608.8 2,768.0 2,578.9 2,306.4
751.2
Export Council, APA—
The Engineered Wood
Association, Softwood
Export Council,
Southern Forest
Products Association
American Peanut
533.7
158.3
347.1
495.3
510.5
496.1
461.6
418.7
136.6
Council
American Seed Trade
185.7
246.3
251.8
231.7
284.0
296.9
187.2
249.6
88.8
Association
American Sheep
123.8
148.2
137.9
98.4
122.3
150.0
119.8
112.9
36.4
Industry Association
American Soybean
5,198.5 7,251.7 6,230.8 6,566.3 6,037.9 6,725.4 6,994.0 6,378.7
2,056.8
Association
Cotton Council
3,199.7 3,505.1 3,858.7 3,976.7 3,736.6 4,703.9 4,084.7 3,771.1
1,225.1
International
Cranberry Marketing
153.8
182.7
115.1
85.5
136.5
207.3
162.4
138.6
45.5
Committee
Leather Industries of
210.7
228.9
271.3
331.8
349.1
280.4
0.0
563.7
182.7
America

Mohair Council of
18.0
29.8
19.5
4.6
4.1
29.1
America
National Renderers
682.5
285.0
781.5
578.2
603.8
535.2
591.3
518.5
170.0
Association
National Sunflower
212.5
244.5
236.5
223.0
195.1
133.0
162.4
150.4
48.5
Association
North American Mil ers
54.6
24.5
36.7
56.4
63.0
65.0
50.7
63.5
19.3
Association

U.S. Dairy Export
442.2
256.1
535.6
578.8
659.5
523.3
485.7
157.8
Council
U.S. Dry Bean Council
100.3
118.8
108.2
85.0
90.4
125.8
99.4
88.6
28.8
U.S. Grains Council
2,439.5 2,238.8 2,825.2 2,890.3 3,055.1 2,457.9 2,754.4 2,563.5
837.7

U.S. Hide, Skin and
92.0
132.1
134.5
144.9
135.9
217.5
700.7
Leather Association
U.S. Livestock Genetics
535.5
555.3
624.3
466.4
390.3
448.3
373.0
249.8
89.1
Export, Inc.
U.S. Meat Export
1,081.8 1,370.1 1,288.2 1,168.0 1,077.1
864.2 1,154.3 1,032.3
336.4
Federation
U.S. Wheat Associates
4,176.7 3,576.2 3,976.6 3,332.8 3,649.1 3,363.0 3,472.3 3,316.3
1,004.3
Congressional Research Service

23

U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues

USA Dry Pea and Lentil
157.7
162.5
165.6
151.5
142.4
0.0
31.8
138.6
45.3
Council
USA Poultry and Egg
1,014.9 1,299.3 1,230.2 1,090.7
999.0
709.8
890.5
825.5
275.0
Export Council
USA Rice Federation
1,267.2 1,266.3 1,018.4 1,144.4 1,507.5 1,634.7 1,347.4 1,241.5
403.8
TOTAL
24,643.8 26,735.2 27,461.7 26,569.5 26,484.9 27,097.2 26,961.9 24,783.6
7,994.5
Source: USDA, FAS, “Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP),” accessed December 2020, at
https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/foreign-market-development-program-FMDP/FMDP-funding-allocations-fy-
2020.
Note: In 2021, FAS is transitioning FMDP funding from a fiscal year basis to a calendar year basis.

Author Information

Anita Regmi

Specialist in Agricultural Policy

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 permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46760 · VERSION 1 · NEW
24

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Apr. 14, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Agricultural Policy

Economic Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON