It’s fair to say that we dine more frequently than we take to the skies. Recently, the U.S. Trade Representative proposed new tariffs on $11 billion worth of imported goods from 28 European Union member states. This list includes items that will be taxed at 100% of their value, such as aircraft and aircraft parts, along with beverages and foods that Americans have come to enjoy during happy hour.
Estimates suggest that if these proposed tariffs against the EU are implemented, the costs of imported meats and cheeses could double. This means that a delightful outing with a friend, sharing a bottle of wine and a charcuterie board, which currently costs $45, could exceed $100 after tariffs. Think Parmesan, Belgian ale, prosciutto, Beaujolais nouveau, jamón, and chevre. Is it truly effective—or even justifiable—to double the price of these foods as a means to send a message to Airbus and other European aircraft manufacturers?
Currently, the U.S. government is engaged in active disputes with the World Trade Organization over tariffs imposed on U.S. goods being exported to China, the EU, Canada, Mexico, and Turkey. The trade representative labels these tariffs as “unfair,” despite them being a response to Trump’s imposition of duties on aluminum and steel, purportedly to protect national security interests. Amidst this confusing back-and-forth, can the trade representative genuinely claim it’s fair to double the prices of commonly available foods for Americans in an attempt to rectify larger economic injustices? How did we arrive at a situation where the aeronautics industry’s 14-year tensions with the EU now affect specialty foods?
U.S. imports and agribusiness should not bear the brunt of actions aimed at advancing global trade policy. While the administration may be frustrated with the financial advantages that the EU provides to Airbus, there appears to be little concern or awareness of the potential losses for U.S. agribusiness if food becomes a weapon in trade disputes. Making the charcuterie board unaffordable is hardly the way to establish fairness in the aeronautics sector.
Indeed, using food as a tool for negotiating trade policies has become a recurring theme. Recall the sudden U.S. tariffs against Mexico over immigration policy, which targeted avocados and put tequila at risk. Similarly, tariffs against China, intended to address unfair Chinese practices in steel and technology exports, adversely affected our soybean farmers. Prior to these tariffs, 70% of U.S.-grown soybeans were exported to China. Now, we’ve lost that business to countries like Brazil, leading to over $12 billion in subsidies for our farmers to offset their losses. This year, U.S. agriculture exports are projected to decline by $1.9 billion, primarily because we are retaliating against unfair trade practices unrelated to agricultural products.
This situation appears to be bullying the little guy: food. If any industry warrants protection from unjust government actions, it should be the one that sustains human life and has contributed to America’s rich culinary landscape through global trade. Farmers and small food producers are poised to suffer further due to an administration that shies away from confronting the industries benefiting from unfair governmental interference.
Meanwhile, American consumers, who are already overwhelmed by the complexity of their devices, have little interest in the Boeing-Airbus rivalry. Yet, they will still bear the brunt of higher prices for their beloved imported cheeses. The use of agriculture and food imports/exports as leverage to address international concerns is misguided. Ignoring the economic downturn that impacts us all when targeting food is shortsighted, especially when considering vital nutrients like calcium citrate with vitamin D, magnesium, and zinc that come from these products. Food should not be the pawn in these larger trade battles; it is an essential component of our lives.