What would happen if American companies lost the ability to call their homegrown sparkling wine "champagne," or their crumbly and salty curd cheese "feta"? If a current proposal by the European Union through the World Trade Organization (WTO) is passed, then Champagne would become a geographical indication (GI), and the name could only be used for bubbly that comes from the Champagne region of France. Likewise, cheese called Feta would have to come from the sheep or goats of Greece and not from the cows of Wisconsin. With the threat of losses to U.S. companies, U.S. trade negotiators have opposed the proposal from the start. But could GIs be used to protect high-value, uniquely American products in world markets? A briefing paper published by the Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center describes and contrasts three systems of protecting property rights for agricultural products: certification marks, E.U.-wide GIs, and WTO GIs. The paper discusses some of the benefits and problems of each system and its effectiveness in helping to differentiate and protect high-value U.S. agricultural products. The paper, "Geographical Indications and Property Rights: Protecting Value-Added Agricultural Products," is available at www.matric.iastate.edu.

(Released September 2004)

As consumers become more interested in the origin of the foods they eat and devote more of their expendable income on the purchase of value-added foods and unique experiences, interest in the concept of agritourism has grown as a possible opportunity for farmers to market not only their products but also their bucolic way of life. Writing in the summer 2004 issue of the Iowa Ag Review newsletter, Roxanne Clemens, managing director of ISU's Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC), cites the case of farmers in the Veneto region of Italy, where she recently studied agritourism and other research topics. "Over the past five years, agritourism in Italy has increased by 25 percent, mostly because of the increase in the number of farms offering overnight accommodations." In Italy, as in other countries of the European Union, farmers have incentives to produce high-value food products and to encourage customers to visit their farms to experience rural activities, social customs, and locally grown items. In the European Union, this kind of agritourism is highly regulated and functions mostly as a secondary activity to support main farming operations. Clemens suggests that the United States would need greater policy incentives to nurture similar agritourism ventures on U.S. farms. The article, titled "Keeping Farmers on the Land: Agritourism in the European Union," is available at www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_04/article4.aspx.

(Released July 2004)

Brazil's emergence as a commodity-producing powerhouse has kept U.S. economists, trade representatives, and policymakers interested in learning more about the country's infrastructure, production capacity, and growing capital investment in agriculture. In September 2003, economists with the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University traveled to Brazil to get a first-hand impression of its agricultural sector-particularly of its future potential in crop production. In a briefing paper summarizing the fact-finding trip, the researchers say that Brazil's future expansion of production and exports is almost certain. However, other social, economic, and political pressures may cause Brazilian policymakers to reassess the large-scale, low-cost model embraced in the Center-West region of the country. The authors write, "We observed factors within Brazil itself that have potential for creating tensions which may ultimately force politicians to consider reforms that reduce production efficiency to achieve other social and environmental objectives." Some of those tensions include pressures to support small farmers and rural economies, lobbies against deforestation and environmental degradation, and the agrarian reform movement to benefit the landless poor. The briefing paper, titled "Brazil: The Future of Modern Agriculture?" was published by the Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center and is available at www.matric.iastate.edu. Contact Frank Fuller, (515) 294-2364, Jay Fabiosa, (515) 294-6183, or Sandy Clarke, (515) 294-6257.

(Released May 2004)

Having a national identification system did not protect Canadian cattle from a sole case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) discovered in the spring of 2003, but it did help speed and lend confidence to the investigation. These are the findings of a team of researchers from the Iowa Beef Center who recently visited Ontario and Alberta, Canada, to study the Canadian cattle identification system. A report on the trip has been published by the Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC) at Iowa State University and is available online at www.matric.iastate.edu. In Canada's mandatory system, initiated in July 2001, animals are tagged before leaving the farm of origin and the tags are read when the animal is either harvested or exported. The team found that the cost to develop and initiate the system in Canada was relatively low. Producers support the industry-owned, government-enforced program, as evident by the high rate of compliance. Despite a Japanese ban on Canadian beef following discovery of the BSE case, the identification system "has proven to be a valuable tool in the surveillance of BSE and other animal diseases," according to the report. Contact John Lawrence, 515-294-6290, or Sandy Clarke, CARD-ISU communications, 515-294-6257.

(Released October 2003)

The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 allowed U.S. food and agricultural products into Cuba for the first time in forty years. The opening of Cuba's borders to U.S. exports sparked little enthusiasm at first from the U.S. Department of Agriculture or State Department. But recent trips of the Iowa trade delegation to Cuba have discovered what could be a lucrative market for Iowa agricultural interests, according to Tom Rial of the Iowa Export Assistance Center and Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center. Writing in the latest edition of the Iowa Ag Review, the newsletter of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University, Rial cites a study that concludes Iowa could gain more than $70 million in agricultural sales to Cuba, with an additional spin-off of more than $206 million into the Iowa economy. Rial says with aggressive marketing efforts, Iowa pork, beef, processed egg products, animal feed, and soy protein and oil could flourish in Cuban markets. An Iowa company, FC Stone, has already secured a $5 million contract for corn and soybeans. But trade with Cuba is far from easy, and future success depends on such factors as recovery of the country's economy and further liberalization of the Cuban trade regime. Rial says interested firms should do their homework and seek out prospective distributors. The full text of the article is available at www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/winter_03/article2.aspx. For more information, e-mail info@exportpartnership.com, or call Sandy Clarke, CARD communications, 515-294-6257.

(Released February 2003)

In 1989, the European Union banned imports of beef treated with growth-promoting hormones. Suddenly, a large market for U.S. variety meats and a niche market for U.S. non-treated beef had all but disappeared. In an effort to recapture lost market share, many U.S. producers hastened to adopt the European Union's stringent guidelines for producing, harvesting, and certifying non-hormone treated beef. But, according to a report of the Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC) at Iowa State University, the producers' efforts have gone largely unrewarded. In general, the added costs of producing and certifying non-treated beef have made U.S. product too expensive to export, say the report's authors. And while some producers have been able to sell their non-treated beef in the domestic natural beef market, they have received little in the way of a premium to cover their extra costs as compared to producers who verify their "natural" beef in less-expensive ways. Although U.S. retaliation to the hormone ban was hoped to even the field by blocking some E.U. agricultural imports, the researchers say U.S. beef stands to lose even more trade potential as more countries accede to the European Union and adopt the ban. The full text of the report is available at www.matric.iastate.edu/publications.aspx. Contact Roxanne Clemens, MATRIC Director, (515) 294-8842, or Sandy Clarke, Communications, (515) 294-6257.

(Released December 2002)

Question: Can Vidalia onions be grown in Iowa? Answer: No, Vidalia onions can only be grown in a legislated geographical region in the state of Georgia, and the producers who grow these famous sweet onions have a federal marketing order that says so. An analysis of how a trademark and a federal marketing order can be part of a strategy to increase the economic value of agricultural products is available from the Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC) at Iowa State University. Vidalia onions represent a proven success story in using effective marketing, legislation, and research to develop a niche market for an agricultural product. By protecting a product's name, quality, and image through state ownership of the trademark, producers can protect their market from becoming oversupplied, thus creating higher value throughout the marketing chain. The paper, "Why Can't Vidalia Onions Be Grown in Iowa? Developing a Branded Agricultural Product." Contact Roxanne Clemens, MATRIC, (515) 294-8842, or Sandy Clarke, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, (515) 294-6257.

(Released September 2002)

China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 was a significant event for U.S. agricultural trade. China has promised to cut tariffs and further open its markets to U.S. products. The exact composition and extent of U.S. agricultural and food trade with China, however, remains unclear. Recent research at the Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center (MATRIC) compares the productivity and cost of production of China and the U.S. Midwest to see how the two agricultural powers might stack up. The results show that the U.S. Midwest has a substantial advantage in land and labor productivities in producing corn and soybeans. Only China's Northeast region has an advantage over the U.S. in cost of production. In hog production, the U.S. Midwest has a cost advantage over China in feed cost and labor productivity, but this advantage is more than offset by the lower cost of feeder pigs and possible lower capital replacement cost in China. Land policy and labor productivity will be important determinants of the competitive positions of the two countries in the future. For more information, see "Does the U.S. Midwest Have a Cost Advantage Over China in Producing Corn, Soybeans, and Hogs?." Contact Jacinto Fabiosa, (515) 294-6183, or Sandy Clarke, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, (515) 204-6257.

(Released September 2002)