U.S. farm organization praised the announcement that Canada has agreed to new NAFTA terms, to be known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement, or USMCA. National Pork Producers Council President Jim Heimerl, said the agreement, along with a new trade agreement with South Korea “represent welcome momentum during what has been a challenging year.” The U.S. Grains Council said in a statement it was “pleased” with news of the agreement, saying “No trade agreement has had more impact on our sector than NAFTA.” The American Soybean Association says the new deal will help “stabilize the U.S.’s two neighboring export markets for growers.” Meanwhile, Ag lawmakers, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Pat Roberts, commended the administration for delivering an agreement. Roberts offered similar comments as ASA, saying the agreement “will provide our farmers and ranchers with much-needed export market certainty and will strengthen the relationship with two of our most important trading partners.”

The updated North American Free Trade Agreement has many procedural hurdles to pass before farmers and ranchers can see any benefits. President Trump called the agreement a “promise kept” regarding his trade agenda, as NAFTA will become the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement, or USMCA. The late-night announcement Sunday allows the Trump administration to beat a self-set deadline. The administration must allow for a statutory 60-day notification period before sending a deal to Congress. Given the way the timeline works under Trade Promotion Authority, the administration set a deadline at the end of September to complete the talks to allow Mexico’s outgoing President to sign the pact, before a new administration takes over. However, Politico reports that if the U.S. House of Representatives switches leadership to Democrats, the chamber may be inclined to vote against the Trump win in 2019, when the agreement will likely be before Congress. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said House Democrats would “closely scrutinize the text” of the NAFTA proposal.

While Monday was a good day for trade, it also marked the first day without a farm bill. Lawmakers failed to gain a consensus in the farm bill conference committee before the September 30th deadline as the previous farm bill expired. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway says he is willing to stay in negotiations this month, even though the U.S. House has left for a pre-election recess. Ag lawmakers and Department of Agriculture officials warn of little harm, for now, without a farm bill. The hope is to pass a bill following the November elections. Conaway seems eager to wrap up as much work as possible, saying last week “producers don’t need the additional anxiety or uncertainty” of not having a five-year farm bill. Food Business Network reports that with the expiration of the 2014 farm bill, 39 “orphan” programs lost both authorization and funding. These programs include certain conservation programs and most bioenergy, rural development and agricultural research programs. Meanwhile, also last week, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said arrangements were being made to ensure USDA operations are not left behind.

The National Farmers Union has sent a second letter to the Food and Drug Administration regarding the labeling of cell-cultured meat. The letter calls for officials to finally formalize the definition of protein products that don’t come from livestock and are currently labeled as cell-cultured “meat.” The industry website Meating Place Dot Com says the group wants the FDA to come up with a consistent standard of identity for meat and related products to prevent mislabeling of meat products in the marketplace. Farmers Union President Roger Johnson says the common names for meat products are understood by consumers to mean meat from animals that have been slaughtered for food. In the letter, Johnson says the NFU is concerned about the topic because of “extreme consolidation in the beef, pork, and poultry industries, which has diminished the market share of family farmers and ranchers.” The letter is the second attempt by the NFU to get the federal agency to clarify the difference between products that come from food animals from those that come from a lab. Earlier this year, the NFU joined the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, and the Nebraska Farm Bureau in seeking USDA clarification on the issue.

It’s possible that Chinese soybean buyers could still be getting American soybeans by purchasing their beans from Argentina. Export reports show that Argentina is buying soybeans from the U.S. and exporting its own production to China. However, a grain market expert says that’s not likely because a drought left Argentina grain stocks in short supply. “The issue is that Argentina simply doesn’t have the beans,” says Standard Grain President Joe Vaclavik during a conversation with Farm Journal. “They had a short crop this year.” Also, Vaclavik says Argentina doesn’t typically export soybeans at this point in the year. Typically, Argentina crushes most of their soybean production. “It looks like Argentina is going to get their soybeans from the U.S.,” says Vaclavik. “They’ve booked 850,000 metric tons of soybeans since the first of September.” From September to February last year, Vaclavik says Argentina sold zero soybeans to China. This year, Argentina plans to ship 1.8 million metric tons during the same period. Even if U.S. beans aren’t being sold directly to China, he says the export market is still helping prices. Farmers have long suspected China of buying soybeans through “gray” market channels.

Senate Ag Committee Chair Pat Roberts says he’s working on getting the U.S. Ag Department to extend a “lifeline” to programs that will lack funding if the farm bill didn’t pass by the Sunday deadline. The current farm bill ran out over the weekend and funding for a lot of smaller initiatives will be in limbo. Politico says there are about 40 programs that could be in trouble because they’ll lack mandatory baseline funding without a new farm bill. Advocates and industry groups are concerned that some of the programs may have to temporarily close their doors if there isn’t a reliable source of funding for them to stay active. The Kansas Republican says they’re making arrangements so those programs don’t have to close during the interim period. “The same thing happened in 2012,” Roberts recalls. “That’s not the way we would have liked to see things go, but I think they know they’ll be fully funded. Right now, it’s just a temporary hiccup.” House Ag Committee Chair Michael Conaway says the USDA’s trade aid package could help fill in for the Foreign Market Development Program, which wouldn’t have baseline funding. The aid package contains a trade-promotion element of $200 million, while the FMD program costs $34.5 million annually.

The current farm bill is set to expire on Sunday. Top lawmakers now admit they will likely have to finish putting together a new farm bill after the November 6th midterm election. Politico says the timing isn’t surprising to most observers. There’s been a lot more sniping between House and Senate negotiators than there have been signs of progress over the past month. Failure to meet the September 30th deadline is a defeat for ag leaders who said they were determined to finish a new farm bill before the current one expired in order to give needed certainty to farmers and ranchers. Senate Ag Chair Pat Roberts says he hopes negotiations will make enough progress to vote on a final farm bill the week after the election. However, political leverage could shift significantly if Republicans lose control of the House and Senate. Some members of the farm bill conference committee are warning that waiting until November will add a whole lot more challenges to the negotiations. North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp says there “may not be the political will to get it done” after the midterms. Not a single farm bill title had been finalized through the middle of this week.