By Olivia Herken for the Wisconsin Independent.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Wisconsin Independent-Public News Service Collaboration

On his farm in Maribel, a small town in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin farmer Michael Slattery grows cash crops such as corn, soybeans and canning vegetables, along with hosting a fleet of honeybees and about 50 fruit trees.

He’s run his farm for about 25 years, and he sells his crops to canning companies, corporations and farming cooperatives to make a living. But in 2018, when President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on goods imported from China, it cost him. 

Trump’s tariffs prompted the Chinese government to place retaliatory tariffs on American agricultural products. Slattery told the Wisconsin Independent he lost 60% of his revenue from soybean sales because China was one of the biggest importers of U.S. soybeans at the time. Farmers were left with a surplus of product with nowhere to go, Slattery said, adding that it’s not easy for them to quickly pivot to new buyers because it takes years or decades to develop trade relationships.

“We can’t turn around and just go simply someplace else,” he said.

Now, just a few weeks into his second term, Trump again plans to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico — the United States’ largest trade partners. This could hurt Wisconsin farmers again, Slattery and experts say, as well as raise prices for consumers and have negative ripple effects on other businesses and industries in Wisconsin.

Trump announced on Feb. 1 that he would impose 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada and 10% on imports from China. Initially, both Canada and Mexico responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged Canadians not to buy American-made products, but later Trump claimed he won concessions from the leaders and announced he had agreed to pause the tariffs for 30 days. Trump’s tariffs on imports from China went into effect on Feb. 4, and the Chinese government imposed 15% counter tariffs on U.S. goods that morning.

Tariffs are taxes one country imposes on goods imported from another country. Trump issued tariffs in his first term with the promise of increasing the number of factory jobs in the United States, which he didn’t do. This time, his tariffs on goods from the country’s largest trading partners are, he claims, part of his efforts to curb immigration and the importation of drugs into the United States.

The potential imposition of tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China, and the trade war with all three that could ensue, could have significant effects on Wisconsinites’ wallets, according to University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire economics professor Thomas Kemp.

“If all three of those were to be implemented, Wisconsin consumers would see a pretty substantial increase in costs in general, because those are our three largest trading partners as a state, and as a nation,” Kemp said.

Prices could be raised for groceries, fuel, cars, machinery, appliances, electronics, toys and clothing. Specifically, the U.S. imports a lot of fruit and vegetables from Mexico; lumber, oil and vehicles from Canada; and machinery and computer equipment from China.

Kemp said that often when tariffs affect the prices of consumer goods, there are sometimes cheaper substitutions to be found at the store. But because these tariffs will be placed on goods imported from America’s three main trade partners, and some of them are simply not produced domestically, it will be impossible for consumers to avoid some imported goods, Wisconsinites’ access to a range of products could be limited.

“There’s a reason why we trade, and there’s a reason why we specialize, and that allows us to consume a variety of goods and services. It’s unlikely that we’re going to produce mangoes in Wisconsin, because it’s just too cold. It’s unlikely they’re going to produce soybeans in the south of China because it’s just too hot and wet,” he said.

Retaliatory tariffs on American exported goods such as the ones China implemented and the leaders of Mexico and Canada have threatened, are also likely to hurt Wisconsin businesses and workers, especially those who rely on specific markets.

Producing more in the U.S. isn’t as desirable as people might think, Kemp said. Since manufacturing and agriculture have gotten more efficient and productive with fewer workers, producing more domestically wouldn’t necessarily result in many additional jobs. Kemp also noted that some specialized jobs are dependent on trade relationships.

“I don’t know if we think of things like the very specialized machinist in Wisconsin only can exist because of the very generalist manufacturing plant in China,” Kemp said.

Kemp said Trump’s promise that tariffs will shore up production and jobs in America is unlikely to be fulfilled immediately.

“The simple reason why it’s unlikely to happen in the short term is you just don’t start up an automobile factory overnight,” Kemp said. “You’re talking years, almost certainly, and perhaps even decades, before you start to see those effects.”

Many businesses, from mom-and-pop shops to big corporations, rely on equipment that comes from overseas, Kemp said, meaning their production and supply chains could be slowed by Trump’s tariffs.

In Wisconsin, many farmers use fertilizer and equipment, such as tractors, that are imported from other countries, Slattery said.

“This adversely affects us as farmers,” he said. “It affects us as both the lack of markets for us to sell our produce into, our products into, as well as increases our cost of doing business.”

All of this, he said, could lead to more small and mid-sized farms across Wisconsin being squeezed out by larger farms at a time when they’re already shuttering at rapid rates.

“We’re in a bad position,” Slattery said.


Olivia Herken wrote this article for the Wisconsin Independent.


get more stories like this via email

The Florida tomato industry is stepping into uncharted territory following the termination of a decades old trade agreement with Mexico, marking what growers hope will be a turning point in their fight for fair competition.

The U.S. Department of Commerce's decision to end the 2019 Tomato Suspension Agreement has been met with optimism from domestic producers but the path forward remains uncertain as the market adjusts to new trade realities.

Robert Guenther, executive vice president of the Florida Tomato Exchange, framed the move as a necessary reset for protection from unfair competition.

"This decision has been affirmed multiple times now, by the U.S. government, in multiple administrations during the time period of this agreement that dumping has occurred," Guenther explained. "Thus, there need to be penalties applied to the Mexican industry to ensure that the American tomato farmers can have a just and fair playing field."

If it stays the course, on July 14, most Mexican tomatoes will face a 20.91% tariff. U.S. growers lost half their market share since 1994, with imports surging 400% under the agreement. Mexico plans to renegotiate while maintaining antidumping tariffs on pork and chicken, replicating its tomato deal strategy.

The transition unfolds as Florida's agricultural sector faces parallel challenges, particularly with labor costs Guenther identified as the industry's "highest input cost" which depends heavily on the H-2A visa program, which brings workers into the country to work temporarily.

"That's been a very successful program for the tomato industry and a lot of specialty crops and fruit and vegetables in Florida," Guenther noted. "Still, the cost of that program it continues to rise, the bureaucracy of that program continues to rise."

The intersecting challenges, trade policy, labor supply and market dynamics, will determine whether Florida's tomato fields see a renaissance or continued struggle in the post-agreement era. The Commerce Department's 90-day implementation clock continues ticking toward a July deadline which could redefine fresh produce aisles across North America.


get more stories like this via email

When consumers buy a meat product, they might like the idea it came from a local farm or ranch. But experts say there are still logjams in regional supply chains and a bipartisan bill in Congress is back in play to open pathways for more processing.

This week, a handful of federal lawmakers from both parties reintroduced a bill they have said would make it easier for local livestock and poultry producers to rely on processing sites close by. It would address issues related to inspections, and create a competitive grant program for smaller establishments.

Corey Hart, president of Bowdon Meat Processing in North Dakota, welcomes the approach, noting even when busy, it can be tough to stay competitive.

"Everything's so costly in the meat-processing business," Hart pointed out. "Everything's stainless steel as far as your equipment, plus the building costs."

He said local shops handle the challenges while trying to meet strong demand. Bill supporters said their plan is another way to make local food production more resilient in an industry often dominated by a handful of corporations. The bill's main sponsor is Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-S.D., is a co-sponsor.

Despite the bipartisan push, it is unclear how far the measure will go.

Connor Kippe, policy specialist for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, said the plan would likely have to be part of the next Farm Bill, a sometimes politically divisive topic. If the proposal does become a reality, he noted consumers might see more meat products raised in an environmentally friendly way.

"Theoretically, it'll allow for a more diversified processing sphere: mixed-species plants versus large single-species plants," Kippe explained.

For example, building up capacity could allow for more processing of grass-fed beef. Kippe added the timing is important because of increased uncertainty for farmers under the emerging trade war.


get more stories like this via email

Members of a Texas House committee this week will consider a bill that would limit the number of permits farmers must have to participate at farmers markets.

Currently in Texas, growers must have a permit from both the state health department and their local jurisdiction. House Bill 5459 would make it so they only need one permit.

Judith McGeary, executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, said extra permits add expenses that cut into farmers' profits.

"And it's particularly damaging when you think about smaller markets, especially those in food deserts where people have less access to healthy food," she said, "because the reality is, when farmers markets set up, odds are those farmers are making even less money."

McGeary said the bill would expand opportunities for farmers and increase access to healthy food across Texas.

Several other bills designed to help small growers are being considered by state lawmakers. One bill would allow farmers to sell ungraded eggs to restaurants and retailers. Another bill being considered is called the "cottage food law," which allows Texans to make foods in their home kitchens and make up to $50,000 annually by selling it.

McGeary said everyone benefits if these bills are passed.

"It is valuable to the entire community to make it easier for our farmers to grow and get healthy food to the consumers," she said.

The legislative session ends on June 2. McGeary encouraged anyone interested in these bills to reach out to their legislators.


get more stories like this via email