An Urban's Rural View

Farm groups have been cautiously supportive of a possible U.S.-EU free-trade agreement or "transatlantic trade and investment partnership," as President Obama dubbed it in his State of the Union address.

Both the support and the caution are warranted.

Support, because the right kind of transatlantic trade deal would open new markets for U.S. agricultural exports.

Caution, because there are some troubling "IFs" to resolve before farmers can be sure the deal is good.

For starters, IF the deal eliminates all tariffs between the U.S. and EU countries, which would make it attractive to other U.S. exporters, but doesn't satisfactorily eliminate the EU's non-tariff barriers to agricultural imports, farmers would lose out big time.

Were such a deal to go into effect, the U.S. would have lost all leverage for future negotiations to end Europe's bans on genetically engineered crops, meat from animals raised using antibiotics and the like. Europe would have already gotten everything it wanted.

Farm-state Senators are indicating they wouldn't support a deal like that. But could agriculture muster the votes in the Senate to reject a treaty that benefited every other sector of the U.S. economy?

IF the deal did lower the EU's non-tariff barriers, would European markets actually embrace U.S. products?

The EU doesn't have the power over its member countries that our federal government has vis-à-vis American states. If the U.S. signs a trade deal, California can't opt out of it. If the EU signs a deal, can it force France to observe it?

Arguably, the EU is already obliged by World Trade Organization rules to accept genetically engineered crops, and it has indeed been trying to move in that direction for years. But member countries keep resisting.

The U.S. hasn't brought an international trade case for political and public-relations reasons, not because international trade law isn't on our side. Taking the issue to court could trigger a backlash among the very European voters you hope to count as future customers.

IF EU member states resist observing a free-trade deal with the U.S. even though the EU has signed it, mightn't the U.S. find itself in a similar position -- unable for political and PR reasons to fight the resistance legally?

IF a deal is agreed and EU member states do observe it, might Europe's private sector still refuse to buy in? Might grocers say their customers don't want products with GE ingredients or meat raised to American standards, so they're not going to stock them?

Are all or some of these IFs worst-case scenarios, so unlikely to occur they're not worth worrying about? Maybe. But U.S. agriculture should work hard to convince our negotiators and Senators to do whatever can be done to guard against them.

Here's one scenario that's not an IF. To win on Europe's non-tariff barriers to ag, the U.S. will have to give ground on Europe's big agricultural complaint: geographical naming rights to agricultural products.

Say goodbye to the last vestiges of American "champagne." Hello, sparklers, bubblies and "methode champenoise" wines.

Urban Lehner
urbanity@hotmail.com