The Beef Over Beef: A Dispute About Tariffs and Protectionism, but Not in the Way You Imagine It

News Analysis

The sweeping 10 percent “Liberation Day” tariffs on Australian exports—notably its beef trade—is not just a dispute about trade barriers, but a deeper ideological clash that has been the bone of contention between the Trump administration and governments around the world.

In the era of globalisation and free trade, U.S. authorities have accused countries like Australia of quietly deploying a different type of trade barrier—opaque regulation and drawn-out approval processes.

It’s an ironic twist given the Trump administration is often the first to be accused by media outlets of engaging in protectionism and disrupting free trade.

An Overview of US-Australia Beef Ties

On April 2, U.S. President Donald Trump revealed all U.S. trading partners would be subject to a baseline 10 percent tariff on goods entering the United States, however, quite a few countries were slapped with much higher tariffs, notably Cambodia, Vietnam, and Taiwan.

Regarding Australia, which escaped Liberation Day with the baseline 10 percent tariffs, its beef sector will be the most heavily impacted—aluminium and steel exports are already under a higher tariff regime.

Australia exported about 400,000 tonnes of beef last year to the value of $2.9 billion—the largest exporter to the United States. The United States imports about 15 percent of its beef, while the remainder is locally produced.

Related Stories

Australia also dominates the U.S. wagyu market, accounting for 48 percent of produce—more than local American producers who account for 41 percent.

The chief concern from the U.S. peak beef industry body, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), is that while Australia has been given relatively easy access to the U.S. beef market, U.S. producers in turn have struggled to navigate Australia’s biosecurity regulations with the NCBA calling it “lop-sided and unfair.”

In 2003, American raw beef products were banned from Australia when a single Canadian cow in the States was found to have bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—better known as “mad cow disease.”

This ban was finally lifted in 2019, but U.S. producers are yet to be able to sell products to Australian customers.

Since 2003, Australia has sent about US$29 billion worth of beef to the country, while U.S. producers have sent US$31 million the other way.

What Is the Sticking Point for US Producers?

According to the federal Agriculture Department, successive Australian governments maintain a “conservative, but not a zero risk, approach to the management of biosecurity risks.”

Any company wanting to import fresh beef into Australia has to undergo a BSE assessment which is carried out by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).

In 2015, Food Standards Australia published a risk assessment on the United States giving it “Category 1” status, which means there are well-established measures in place to prevent BSE outbreaks.

A Category 1 rating means a country can apply to export its meat to Australia, and a Category 2 status means the country’s products can be exported along with FSANZ risk management controls.

Australian authorities have determined that a new assessment was needed, with a draft report released but no sign yet of the final version.

Lobby Group Says Australia’s Biosecurity Measures Need an Audit

The NCBA wrote a very critical submission on these processes to Trump’s Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, dated March 11.

“For 20 years, Australia has used a myriad of sanitary concerns and endless bureaucratic red tape to delay the approval of U.S. beef even though the United States is internationally recognised as having some of the highest food safety and animal health standards in the world,” the submission said.

“For the past few years, we have been told by the Australian government that we are in the final stages of approval, yet we continue to see delays.”

The United States also foots the bill for biosecurity procedures on Australian meat imports, NCBA said.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick took aim at Australian authorities after the Liberation Day tariffs were announced.

“Our farmers are blocked from selling almost anywhere … Europe won’t let us sell beef, Australia won’t let us sell beef,” Lutnick told CNN.

“They want to say: ‘Oh, what, the seeds are different?’ Other people in the world are using [those] seeds … come on, this is nonsense … What happens is they block our markets.”

NCBA has also pushed for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to audit the health standards Australia uses for its biosecurity.

“This should also take into account the rate of rejected shipments at U.S. customs over the past five years, and if necessary, increase inspection rates to 100 percent until further audits are conducted to confirm systemic problems have been resolved,” their submission said.

Australian Producers Stand By Process

Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) maintains that Australian beef has always been free of BSE and should remain so.

MLA credits the country’s biosecurity measures with achieving this.

BSE develops from feeding cattle meat and bone meal. The disease has a lengthy incubation period and can go undetected for years.

The feeding of animal products to cattle in Australia is banned.

Nationals Senator Matt Canavan said Australia was lucky to have a strong biosecurity presence.

“The cost of having mad cow disease coming to this country would be in the tens of billions of dollars, I think it’s been measured at about $40 billion dollars,” he told The Epoch Times.

“The impact on Australia would be huge, we‘d have massive culls, there’d be movement of cattle restricted, it would be horrible for our nation so we want to keep it out.”

Canavan said the issue for U.S. ranchers is they cannot assure Australian authorities that their beef exports are definitely American.

He said Australia’s rules were reasonable, and all the United States needs to do is to provide a supply chain assurance of the origin of their cattle.

Being an island nation, Australia has a history of taking a near zero-tolerance approach to biosecurity.

Last year, the highly pathogenic strain of Avian influenza, H7N3, was detected at five poultry farms in the state of Victoria.

“Rather than imposing financial tariffs, we use the biosecurity regime as a form of trade policy,” she told AAP.

“Everyone involved in primary industries knows it. Everyone that watches politics knows it.”

And it is this practice that the Trump administration is tackling globally, in all its different manifestations.

The White House fact sheet accompanying Trump’s Liberation Day announcement pointed to a plethora of “non-tariff barriers.”

“Countries including China, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have pursued policies that suppress the domestic consumption power of their own citizens to artificially boost the competitiveness of their export products.

“Such policies include regressive tax systems, low or unenforced penalties for environmental degradation, and policies intended to suppress worker wages relative to productivity.” Unions are virtually non-existent, or are ineffective, in many Asian countries.

And it wasn’t just Australia targeted for its biosecurity measures, the UK and Argentina were both mentioned for their actions banning U.S. meat imports.

Argentina’s concerns about BSE were labelled “unsubstantiated,” while the UK was accused of maintaining “non-science-based standards.”

Who’s Ready to Make a Deal?

The Liberation Day announcement effectively throws the ball into the collective courts of governments worldwide, meaning leaders will need to respond to the Trump administration with their best offer.

Countries can otherwise pay the tariffs, or try to establish new trade relationships—a long process.

Meanwhile, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, and Israel have already publicly announced they will be cutting their own trade barriers.

On April 6, Kevin Hassett, head of the White House’s National Economic Council, said about 50 countries have already reached out for further negotiation.

Australian leaders have vowed to continue negotiations while exploring new markets.

The Epoch Times has contacted Australia’s federal agriculture department, Agriculture Minister Julie Collins, and Opposition agriculture spokesman David Littleproud for comment.