
A Sticking Point in the Drive for Agricultural Exports
Commentary
The Trump administration is pushing for more U.S. exports to the world, something beyond oil, debt, and financial services. That means real things like grain and processed livestock of which the United States has in abundance. Every trade negotiation will come down to the push for foreign nations to buy more. That is true for China but also for the whole of Europe.
This is part of the path toward reducing the U.S. trade deficit, which is a major priority of this administration, all in an effort to improve the fortunes of U.S. producers. It's not just about breaking down barriers to exports. It's about getting pledges from governments to prioritize the United States as a supplier through various policies.
The major sticking point is one that concerns domestic distribution too. It is about the quality of the agricultural products themselves. For decades, the United States has prioritized maximum production and industrial methods over quality, health, and small farms.
This is not exactly a secret in world markets. It's been the U.S. policy for half a century. As a result, the goods we have for export face a limited demand abroad where there is greater consciousness toward chemical-free food and more natural methods. Not only that: U.S. agricultural products stand in violation of many food regulations abroad.
Put plainly, Europe likes its beef hormone free and grass fed, raised naturally in pastures. In the United States, some two-thirds or more of beef is given growth hormones to make them bigger and fed grains because it is cheaper and fattier. The result is a product that Europeans, who take great pride in their agricultural traditions, simply do not want at any price, even if their food regulations would allow it.
Related Stories
5/12/2025
5/5/2025
It's the same with grain. For example, five years ago, the United States tried to push Mexico into buying more corn but it did not work except for livestock. In terms of human consumption, Mexico worries about its native varieties being infected by genetically modified (GM) strains in the U.S. As a result, Mexico walked away from the deal.
This is true for U.S. grains in most states. Genetic modification in addition to chemical fertilizers and pesticides are the major concern for governments internationally, and a source of resistance.
This is an uncomfortable topic for many Americans, who have taken great pride in the sheer volume of agricultural production that technology has managed to create over half a century. But today these very techniques now impose mostly limitations in U.S. exports. It's not just about government policy. It's simply that many people in the world don't trust U.S. food.
I only first became aware of this in recent years when I encountered immigrant communities in the United States. These are Pakistanis, Iranians, Bengalis, Brazilians, Vietnamese, and many people from European countries who made great efforts not to eat American produce, meat, and breads made from GM flour. I was truly stunned. It is a very common belief among these communities that U.S. food is best avoided. This is a top reason why their niche stores selling imported products thrive.
Americans are generally unaware that U.S. food has a poor reputation abroad due to its chemical washes, feed quality, hormones and antibiotics, vaccines, and many other factors.
It's not only that. The synthetic dyes, the absurd levels of sweetness mostly extending from the ubiquity of high-fructose corn syrup, and the deployment of so many chemical preservatives make U.S. products uninviting for export and foreign consumption. Indeed, U.S. companies that do have exports of common products change their recipes to make them much better than consumers can obtain domestically.
That is why there is a growing political movement in the United States that is questioning the policies that have made American food exports anathema. In fact, here we see a powerful overlap between the MAHA agenda to improve the quality of food domestically and the MAGA agenda to find new international markets for U.S. grains, beef, chickens, and other products.
The United States is second to none in volume of production. The problem from the point of view of international trade is finding markets to buy the surplus. Here is where U.S. policy can surely find synergy. Health and Human Services under Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the Department of Agriculture under Brooke Rollins are putting new emphasis on non-GM food, small farms, and chemical-free methods, even as Trump is pushing for more exports.
The obvious answer is to speed the MAHA agenda in order to fast-track the trade agenda. Here we find the potential for a beautiful coming together of two policy priorities in health and trade. The answer comes down to reducing barriers, regulations, and taxes on smaller farms—some still remain with us—that push quality over quantity.
The story of the U.S. policy to promote huge industrial farming, now tied closely with chemical companies, extends back three-quarters of a century. It begins with the New Deal that restricted supply in order to raise prices, under the theory that low output was due to falling prices. The theory was wrong, and the policy only ended up curbing production on all farms.
Imagine being a small farmer in 1936 and being told by the government to plough up your crops in the national interest. That's what's happened. It was utterly crazy but the policy lasted decades, under the conviction that the only way to support agriculture profits was to stop production. It also prepared the way for a blowback.
The priorities changed in 1971 when Earl Butz became Richard Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture. The Cold War was on along with the competition over which system could produce the most. The Soviets had some terrible years of production which, of course, they blamed on the weather, but this also provided an opening for the United States.
Butz drove forward a policy that reversed New Deal schemes in favor of the opposite error of making as much stuff as possible completely with extreme subsidies and loan guarantees by the federal government. His slogan was: Go big or get out. And big did all farms become. Most small farms in this country were bought up and consolidated, and all food production became heavily industrialized and infused with technological innovation, including chemical compounds and patented seeds, together with hormones and other drugs.
The result was spectacular, to be sure, but also it created a new form of dependence on federal welfare alongside a near extinction event for smaller farmers and high-quality healthy food. It also led to enormous surpluses in grain such that U.S. producers have tried to stick it in everything from candy bars to soda to gasoline.
This is a major factor contributing to obesity and ill-health in the United States, which today causes an incredible problem with chronic disease and now a turn to new prescription meds to force weight loss. It's error upon error for three-quarters of a century, in the land of free enterprise no less.
Europeans and Latin Americans have watched all this chaos unfold for decades, and decided that they want nothing to do with this. They prefer their local food, small farmers and groceries, and healthier lifestyles in general.
The United States would have much greater success at selling its products abroad if Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and other Trump appointees, would have complete success in dismantling the captured agencies and restoring good, healthy, whole food to the American diet. In that case, U.S. cows, chickens, and grains could comply with international regulations and preferences, and thereby find a lucrative foreign market.
This is the long-term idea but, short term, there is a serious logjam over these issues. Making America healthier again requires a genuine free market in food at home, which will also feed a rising market for U.S. exports to other nations.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
7 minutes ago
- CBS News
Watch Live: Blue state governors testify on "sanctuary" policies amid L.A. protests over immigration raids
Washington — Three Democratic governors are defending their states' policies toward migrants and dispute claims of failing to cooperate with federal authorities, according to prepared remarks that will be delivered Thursday before a House oversight panel. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are among the witnesses testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on so-called "sanctuary policies." "Let me be clear: Sanctuary policies don't protect Americans. They protect criminal illegal aliens," Oversight Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican will say in his opening statement. The governors' appearances come as President Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom remain embroiled in a legal and political standoff over the deployment of the National Guard troops and Marines to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. Demonstrations have spread to other U.S. cities, including New York and Chicago, following a series of deportation raids. The hearing "Minnesota is not a sanctuary state," Walz will tell lawmakers. "It is ridiculous to suggest that Minnesota — a state that is over 1,500 miles away from the Southern border and a thousand miles from lawmakers in Washington, D.C., who decide and implement border policy — is somehow responsible for a failure of immigration enforcement." The former vice presidential candidate has drawn intense scrutiny not only over immigration policy but also for his handling of social justice protests that broke out in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd in 2020. Trump administration officials have cited Walz' actions to justify the president's decision to federalize troops in California. While Walz does not appear to directly address the controversy in his testimony, he says he is "disappointed" in the federal government's overall approach. "As governor of Minnesota, it is incumbent on me to use the state's resources to help Minnesota families—not turn those resources over to the administration so they can stage another photo-op in tactical gear or accidentally deport more children without observing due process," Walz is set to say. Ahead of the hearing, the GOP-led panel released a video compilation of various news clips accusing the governors of "shielding" undocumented immigrants and "causing chaos" in their states. A memo from Hochul's office suggested the hearing could be "derailed by wild accusations" and "twisted characterizations" but noted the governor's position is "clear" when it comes to supporting strong borders and comprehensive immigration reform. "New York state cooperates with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in criminal cases," Hochul says in her prepared testimony. "And our values as New Yorkers demand that we treat those who arrive here in search of a better life with dignity and reject policies that tear law-abiding families apart." Hochul also addresses the influx of more than 220,000 migrants to New York City since early 2022, many of whom were bussed from border states, calling it "an unprecedented humanitarian crisis." "We have responded to this crisis with both compassion and pragmatism," Hochul states."And as a result, we largely prevented what could have become an additional crisis — one of street homelessness and tent cities." Pritzker says Illinois also stepped up to the challenge, and blamed the lack of federal intervention and cooperation from border states for exacerbating the problem. "As governor, my responsibility is to ensure that all Illinoisans feel safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities," Pritzker is prepared to say. "That is why my administration continued to make significant investments in public safety, even as our resources were strained because of the lack of federal support during the crisis — expanding our state police force and investing in efforts to reduce gun violence." Congressional focus on "sanctuary" polices Thursday's session follows a March hearing on sanctuary cities with four Democratic mayors: Eric Adams, of New York, Mike Johnston of Denver, Brandon Johnson of Chicago and Michelle Wu of Boston. Comer launched an investigation in January into "sanctuary jurisdictions," including states, counties or cities, to examine their impact on public safety and federal immigration enforcement. President Trump has vowed to crack down on localities that don't back his immigration agenda. Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security removed its list of sanctuary jurisdictions after several cities challenged the findings.

Miami Herald
8 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Issues Next Trade Deal Update After China
President Trump told a reporter on Wednesday the United States is currently in trade negotiations with "around 15 countries" including Japan and South Korea just days after he said he had reached a new trade agreement with China. Asked on Wednesday evening "who are you expecting to get a deal with next?" Trump replied: "So we're dealing with Japan, we're dealing with South Korea, we're dealing with a lot of them. We're dealing with around 15 countries but as you know we have about 150 plus and you can't do that so we're going to be sending letters out in about a week and a half, two weeks, to countries telling them what the deal is." The president was speaking at the Kennedy Center ahead of a performance of Les Miserables. Trump also shared a 1 minute, 11 second clip of his comments, broadcast by Fox News, via his Truth Social website. Related Articles How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles ResponseDonald Trump Gold Card Visa Launches: How to ApplyEntire Board Overseeing State Department Program Resigns in Trump ProtestTrump Tariffs Face Delay as White House Struggles To Meet 90 Deals Deadline 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Miami Herald
8 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Full List of Lawmakers Who Traded Stocks After Trump's Tariffs Announcement
In the days that followed President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements, the climax of his second-term trade policy, lawmakers reported hundreds of stock trades. Newsweek has compiled a ranking of trades made by members of Congress between April 3, the day after President Trump unveiled reciprocal tariffs on dozens of trading partners, and when these were paused on April 9. The imposition and subsequent reversal of the president's sweeping tariff policies resulted in significant stock market volatility, with indexes crashing following the announcement and those who purchased in the interim benefitting from a boost when these were placed on hold. The high number of trades made by lawmakers during this period has again raised questions about the ethics of congressional stock trading. Members of Congress are permitted to buy and sell stocks, provided they disclose these within 30 days of the transaction, per the 2012 Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act. However, many lawmakers, including some of those in the list below, have advocated that lawmakers be banned from stock trading altogether, given the insider knowledge they may have of market-moving events, as well as the concerns this could raise among citizens' regarding possible conflicts of interest. Surveys have also shown that overwhelming bipartisan majorities are in favor of banning stock trading by members of Congress. Below is a list of trades made by U.S. lawmakers between April 3 and April 9, based on publicly available disclosures tracked by The list includes both sales and purchases during this time and is ranked according to the total number. Representative Rob Bresnahan, Republican, Pennsylvania Total trades: 182 Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat, New Jersey Total trades: 87 Representative Jefferson Shreve, Republican, Indiana Total trades: 57 Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican, Georgia Total trades: 42 Representative Julie Johnson, Democrat, Texas Total trades: 31 Representative Jared Moskowitz, Democrat, Florida Total trades: 25 Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican, Oklahoma Total trades: 20 Representative Michael McCaul, Republican, Texas Total trades: 18 Senator John Boozman, Republican, Arkansas Total trades: 14 Representative Dwight Evans, Democrat, Pennsylvania Total trades: 13 Representative April Delaney, Democrat, Maryland Total trades: 10 Representative Bruce Westerman, Republican, Arkansas Total trades: 7 Senator Dave McCormick, Republican, Pennsylvania Total trades: 6 Representative Tony Wied, Republican, Wisconsin Total trades: 5 Senator Ashley Moody, Republican, Florida Total trades: 4 Representative Gilbert Cisneros, Democrat, California Total trades: 3 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat, Rhode Island Total trades: 2 Representative Mike Collins, Republican, Georgia Total trades: 2 Representative Kevin Hern, Republican, Oklahoma Total trades: 2 Representative Rick Larsen, Democrat, Washington Total trades: 2 Representative Vicente Gonzalez, Democrat, Texas Total trades: 2 Representative Gilbert Cisneros, Democrat, California Total trades: 1 Representative Victoria Spartz, Republican, Indiana Total trades: 1 Representative Max Miller, Republican, Ohio Total trades: 1 Representative Donald Sternoff Beyer, Democrat, Virginia Total trades: 1 Despite being the two most prolific traders on this list, Pennsylvania Republican Bresnahan and New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer have both in the past advocated for regulations on congressional stock trading. In 2024, Bresnahan penned an article in the Pottsville Republican Herald in which he said he would "happily co-sponsor" bipartisan legislation aimed at banning congressional stock trading. In May, following a report on his stock trades in the New York Times, Bresnahan introduced a bill entitled the Transparency in Representation through Uniform Stock Trading Ban Act, which would go into effect in 2027 and require lawmakers to place certain assets into a blind trust, an arrangement in which assets are transferred to and managed by a third party without the individual's knowledge or control. Bresnahan said he would work to move his own personal assets into a blind trust in a May 6 press release. Gottheimer told CNBC in 2022 that he didn't believe members of Congress should not be "be directly involved in trading," and instead said hand control of their investments over to a blind trust, later cosponsoring legislation to this end. Gottheimer said that his own investments were managed by an outside party, adding: "I think that's the way it should be: Hands off, third-party, no decision-making from a member of Congress." Newsweek has reached out to the offices of Representatives Bresnahan and Gottheimer via phone for comment. Republican Representative Mike Lawler, in response to a chart showing the gains made by a stock purchased by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, wrote: "Just another reason why stock trading by members of Congress or their spouses should be banned. The appearance of impropriety, or worse, is too great." Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff, in a statement following the introduction of the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, said: "Members of Congress should not be playing the stock market while we make Federal policy and have extraordinary access to confidential information. Stock trading by members of Congress massively erodes public confidence in Congress and creates a serious appearance of impropriety, which is why we should ban stock trading by members of Congress altogether." President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs are still subject to the 90-day pause announced on April 9, which will expire in early July. The administration has said that this window will allow for comprehensive negotiations with America's main trading partners. Related Articles Donald Trump Issues Next Trade Deal Update After ChinaTrump Tariffs Face Delay as White House Struggles To Meet 90 Deals DeadlineTrump Says Trade Deal With China 'Done'Retail Layoffs Soar Nearly 300% So Far This Year 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.