{
  "id": "R45448",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45448",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 589319,
      "date": "2018-12-31",
      "retrieved": "2019-01-03T14:09:57.040825",
      "title": "Profiles and Effects of Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agricultural Exports",
      "summary": "Countries have imposed tariffs on U.S. agricultural products to retaliate against actions the Trump Administration took in spring 2018 to protect U.S. steel and aluminum producers and in response to Chinese intellectual property rights and technology policies. Since then, more than 800 U.S. food and agricultural products have been subject to retaliatory tariffs from China, the European Union (EU), Turkey, Canada, and Mexico. U.S. exports of those products to the retaliating countries totaled $26.9 billion in 2017, according to USDA export data. The choice of agricultural and food products for retaliatory tariffs likely reflects the large volume of agricultural trade involved and that many of these products can be sourced from non-U.S. trading partners. Such tariff hikes threaten to reduce U.S. agricultural exports.\nChina, which is subject to both the U.S. Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs and separate Section 301 tariffs aimed as punishment for its handling of U.S. intellectual property rights, has placed retaliatory tariffs on the largest number and highest value of U.S. agricultural and food products. More than 800 products\u2014including soybeans, pork, dairy products, fruits and nuts, seafood, and processed products\u2014accounting for almost all U.S. agricultural and food exports to China in value terms in 2017 (the last full year without retaliatory tariffs) are now subject to additional tariffs of 5%, 10%, 15%, 25%, or a combination of those amounts. U.S. exports to China of those products that are subject to retaliatory tariffs were worth about $20.6 billion in 2017. China has fallen from the leading export market for U.S. agricultural products in FY2017 to the third-leading export market in FY2018 due to the retaliatory tariffs, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). USDA forecasts that China will fall to the fifth-leading market for those products in FY2019. \nCanada and Mexico are each targeting about 20 U.S. food and agricultural products, which accounted for approximately $2.6 billion and $2.5 billion in exports to each respective country in 2017. The EU and Turkey have each put retaliatory tariffs on about 40 U.S. agricultural and food products that were valued at about $1 billion and $250 million, respectively, in 2017. India has threatened to impose tariffs on seven U.S. agricultural and food products, which accounted for about $857 million in exports in 2017. U.S. agricultural exports account for about 20% of U.S. farm income, according to USDA. Thus any loss in exports could have negative economic consequences for U.S. farmers.\nCommodities that are highly dependent on exports to the retaliating markets may be more severely affected than others by any loss of markets from the tariffs. For instance, commodities for which U.S. exports to the retaliating countries represent 30% or more of its total exports include soybeans, sorghum, pork, cheese, apples, cherries, seafood, ginseng, whiskey, and some processed foods. U.S. soybean exports to China for January through October 2018 are 63% lower than during the same time period in 2017\u2014a change due in large part to the tariffs.\nUSDA is attempting to ease the downside effects of the retaliatory tariffs on farmers and ranchers through a $12 billion trade aid package. Under this initiative, USDA has committed to making direct payments to farmers of selected commodities subject to the tariffs, as well as buying up surplus quantities of some commodities and providing funding for additional trade promotion efforts. In addition, legislation that was introduced in the 115th Congress sought to provide more trade assistance funding for farmers and ranchers, though none of the bills passed.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45448",
          "sha1": "a81285dc23872ec1e588f172a46e85ec6fbc6fba",
          "filename": "files/20181231_R45448_a81285dc23872ec1e588f172a46e85ec6fbc6fba.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45448_files&id=/2.png": "files/20181231_R45448_images_aa9e2bcd84e8e345581b421283eece4c8c4ae780.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45448_files&id=/4.png": "files/20181231_R45448_images_052e9c8e8310cb23dba07538a523d0f392edf3d4.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45448_files&id=/3.png": "files/20181231_R45448_images_fc5628197bffb0bcbf0ee7f4d1e2fc25853d3a30.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45448",
          "sha1": "c4b1356e5c8d996016a49d20b9ee9aba54db46c4",
          "filename": "files/20181231_R45448_c4b1356e5c8d996016a49d20b9ee9aba54db46c4.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Agricultural Policy",
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}