New findings from the Pew Research Center show 56 percent of Americans believe the North American Free Trade Agreement is good for the United States. Just one-third, 33 percent, of respondents to a Pew Research poll say the trade deal is bad for the United States. The study surveyed more than 1,500 adults at the end of October as President Donald Trump has raised questions about the fairness of the agreement. Relatively small shares of Americans say that NAFTA benefits Mexico or Canada more than the U.S. However, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say NAFTA benefits those two countries more than the U.S., and the partisan gap is especially wide when it comes to Mexico. Meanwhile, for agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture data points out that since NAFTA’s implementation in 1994, U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico have more than quadrupled.

(NAFB) Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross pointed a finger at special interest groups, including those in agriculture, as reason for hiccups in the North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiation. Ross earlier this week said the U.S. will “continue to take a hard line” on its proposals as talks get under way in Mexico City. Speaking at an event Tuesday, Ross said the negotiating environment has only grown more complicated because of industries like agriculture that have voiced a greater level of concern over the direction the administration is taking. Specifically, Ross said: “As one special interest group, say agriculture, for example, gets nervous, they start screaming and yelling publicly.” He says action from special interest groups “complicates the environment” and “makes the negotiations harder.” However, the administration has continually threatened to remove the U.S. from NAFTA, a move agriculture groups call an economic disaster.

Road crews around the country are preparing for winter weather by running preparedness drills and stocking up on road treatment products. The Missouri Department of Transportation added a new product to their lineup for dealing with ice and snow on the roadways, one that includes a corn-based compound. “We added another road treatment option to our winter operations,” says MODOT St. Louis Maintenance Engineer, Mark Croarkin. “The corn-based portion of the product is a carrier for Magnesium Chloride. There are similar products that result in an approximately 2% Magnesium Chloride treated salt that use other base materials. These products typically cost a little more to mix, but they can be more effective.” Croarkin says the corn-based product MODOT started using goes by IceBan M20 or IceBan 300. “If I was trying to quantify I would estimate the IceBan treated material is about 25% more effective overall,” says Croarkin. “The benefits we have seen depend on the temperature; the colder the storm the better results.” The corn-based compound is designed to keep roads ice-free longer. “For us, this is another tool in our toolbox to treat roadways,” Croarkin said.

(NAFB) Round five of the North American Free Trade Agreement talks are set to begin Friday in Mexico City. However, Politico points out that talks will unofficially begin today.

Much of the two-day prelude to the official talks are expected to focus on textiles, labor, cross-border trade and intellectual property. There’s little expectation of talks regarding agriculture, at least for the start of the negotiations.

The Trump administration must still find a way to address Canada’s dairy supply management system, among other agriculture issues. The administration is hoping to wrap up the talks by the end of March. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says the negotiations do not have a hard deadline, but says if a resolution is not reached by the end of March, “the political calendar will make it very difficult to complete a deal.”

An Open Letter to U.S. Farmer and Rancher Organizations:

While tax reform dominates the discussion in Washington, D.C., U.S. agriculture must not allow its focus to be diverted from the equally important issue of agricultural trade. Reforming our nation’s tax code is critical to growing the economy and can benefit all Americans. However, there will be little to no benefit of tax reform to farmers and ranchers if their ability to sell what they produce around the world is diminished.

Coming from Kansas, the economic case for pro-agricultural trade policies is clear: my state exported more than $4.5 billion worth of agricultural products in 2016, generating more than $5.7 billion in economic activity and supporting more than 36,000 jobs. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, more than 20 percent of total U.S. agricultural products are exported. In Kansas, approximately 40 to 45 percent of planted acres any given year will utilize export markets.

There are real Kansans behind these numbers who often get lost in the conversation: farmers and ranchers who hope to see the family operation stay in the hands of their kids and grandkids; teenagers and college students who want to return to the farm or ranch. The ability of a new generation of young producers to make a living in agriculture is impacted far more by the wheat, corn, cotton, and beef being exported each year than by any single tax deduction. And tax rates are irrelevant to the farmer or rancher who loses half of their income due to lost export markets.

President Trump has been consistent in his criticism of trade deals, especially NAFTA, and every indication coming from the administration points toward outright withdrawal from the agreement. Terminating a major trade deal would be unprecedented, which may make the threat hard for some to take seriously. But I am convinced our country is headed down a path toward withdrawal from NAFTA unless action is taken by agricultural groups to change the administration’s course.

This letter is not intended as criticism of farm and ranch organizations. In conversations with agricultural groups and individual producers, I am impressed with the knowledge and conviction exhibited in defense of agricultural trade. I have heard the deep concern for the economic harm that will be done to rural America if key export markets, such as Mexico and Canada, are closed or restricted to agricultural producers.

I write this letter to encourage all of us to do more. To urge agricultural and commodity groups to raise their concerns with the President and his administration through op-eds, letters, social media campaigns, and other venues about the importance of trade. The voices of lawmakers raising alarm will only go so far – the real power to change the conversation lies with the American people.

Tax reform is critical to our nation. But we can’t afford to let the debate over taxes take our attention away from simultaneously protecting the ability of farmers and ranchers to continue to export food and fiber across the globe. The news that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will move forward without U.S. involvement heightens the consequences of NAFTA withdrawal. With the leadership of agricultural organizations, we can help rally farmers and ranchers to speak up about the importance of trade to the future of a livelihood in agriculture. Tough negotiations on improvements – yes; withdrawal from NAFTA – no.

(ASA)

In response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s withdrawal of its proposed rule to overhaul federal regulation on biotechnology and plant breeding innovations like gene editing.

American Soybean Association President and Illinois farmer Ron Moore issued the following statement, “USDA’s withdrawal of the proposed rule is both a positive and a negative for soybean farmers.

On the plus side, there were a considerable number of aspects about the rule that would have stifled innovation and created additional regulatory uncertainty and ambiguity. So we’re happy that USDA recognized the flaws in portions of the proposed rule and has taken it back to square one so that those may be remedied.

We appreciate that the proposed rule addressed gene editing techniques and we hope that, however USDA opts to move forward with rulemaking, they will maintain a positive focus on these new technologies.

Specifically, we hope that USDA will continue to recognize that new plant breeding innovations are distinct from and do not fall under the same USDA regulatory review process as transgenic biotechnology.”

(NCGA) Much of the U.S. agricultural world converged on Kansas City last week to participate in the annual convention of the National Association of Farm Broadcasting.

The meeting provides a great opportunity for agricultural businesses and organizations like the National Corn Growers Association to tell the story of the industry. ”

As a farmer, I also appreciate the unique relationship I have with my local farm broadcaster who shadows me throughout the day in my home, my tractor, my shed and my truck. They provide important information I need from markets to weather,” said Kevin Skunes, NCGA president from Arthur, North Dakota.

“Sometimes we forget that farm broadcasters also provide an opportunity to reach many urban folks. Consumers get farther and farther from the farm while the list of issues they are concerned about continues to grow.”

So, leaders of NCGA spent hours last Thursday doing dozens of interviews on critical issues like the new farm bill, trade and ethanol. But they also discussed the expansive efforts underway to make farming more sustainable and protect our soil and water resources.

“Trade is obviously a hot topic here that effects farmers and consumers alike. Farmers continue to grow their productive capacity and we are producing a crop the world needs.

But building and maintaining the relationships necessary to keep trade moving is a constant process and one we can’t ignore,” Skunes said.

“Corn and corn product exports account for 33 percent of my income. With corn prices at or below break even, every market counts. And everyone has a stake because each dollar of agricultural exports creates an additional $1.27 in business activity.”