The annual ASA conference is an opportunity for reflection on the role of science and technology in agriculture and the agri food industry.

This year’s conference had keynote presentations from Phil Hogan, recently nominated EU Trade Commissioner, and Gregg Doud, chief agricultural negotiator for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

Unfortunately, he was somewhat constrained in that he stayed on script, probably reflecting the confrontational role the USA has in global trade affairs at present.

Technology

However, he was very clear in communicating the need to embrace technology, as the world has to contemplate feeding a population of €9bn in a couple of decades from now.

The USA and the EU are diametrically opposed on this.

The American approach is to use technology where possible to maximise output and efficiency.

The most commonly referred to examples are use of growth-promoting hormones in cattle to maximise beef output and use of a chlorine wash in chicken processing.

Adjudication

The US has had a successful adjudication by the WTO, which is the global referee on international trade disputes, on the use of hormones in beef production.

While there is no scientific reason not to use hormones in beef, the EU has decided on the “precautionary principle” that they should remain banned in the EU.

This is a major cause of tension with the USA and while there is special tariff quota (for non-tariff beef) agreed as a result of the WTO ruling, it could easily be the basis of the US getting into a trade conflict with the EU should the US president ever decide to do so.

US trade tensions with the EU

It was narrowly avoided last July and no doubt the EU taking China’s place as a major market for US soya helped, and while it is currently outside the trade negotiation that is ongoing between the USA and the EU as referred to by Phil Hogan in his presentation, the US is unhappy with this.

It has also been clear in all US pronouncements about future trade negotiations with the UK post-Brexit, they would expect the US not the EU standard for agricultural products to be accepted for exports to the UK.

There is a clear and direct conflict between the precautionary-based and scientifically-based productions promoted by the EU and US respectively.

Commissioner Hogan, who is nominated to take over the trade portfolio from 1 November, highlighted the role of WTO in ensuring a rules-based trade system, referring to the ongoing US disputes, particularly with China, but also Canada, Mexico and potentially the EU could be involved.

The US has acted unilaterally, but the WTO works slowly and, ultimately, while it can rule against a member, it has little real ability to enforce rulings.

The one ruling the US has in its favour may be 15 years old, but it is in favour of hormones and against the EU.

Role of CAP

It was interesting to hear Gregg Doud refer to a conversation with an EU official where he claims the official said that EU farmers are subsidised and their views don’t matter.

It has historically been the quid pro quo for EU farmers that the CAP would provide a level of income support in return for adopting production practices that reduce the potential outputs for EU farms.

However, this is losing attractiveness as the CAP budget reduces and EU regulatory demands increase further, such as with the position on glyphosate.

Assuming the outgoing Agriculture Commissioner gets confirmed in trade, he can expect that managing the trade relationship with the USA will be every bit as challenging as Brexit.