To open or not: US beef, agriculture imports remain flashpoint in trade talks
Cuts of U.S. beef are displayed at a discount chain store in Seoul, Tuesday. Yonhap
By Lee Gyu-lee
Published Jul 20, 2025
As Korea and the United States accelerate tariff negotiations before their planned implementation on Aug. 1, the U.S. demand that Korea expand imports of American agricultural products has once again emerged as a critical negotiation flashpoint.
Even in Korea, opinions are split over the reduction of import restrictions in the agricultural sector, which the U.S. regards as nontariff barriers.
The issue surfaced here after Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo, Korea's top trade negotiator, indicated the government is weighing options to accept the U.S. demand for Korea to increase beef and agricultural imports, following his Washington trip earlier this month.
Washington has been pressing Seoul to allow the import of beef from cattle aged 30 months or older, increase purchases of rice and ease quarantine restrictions on apples and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially potatoes. The age restriction on U.S. beef was put in place in 2008 amid fears over mad cow disease.
Yeo hinted at the possibility of accepting the demand by saying, “In these sectors, we need to make strategic decisions.”
Experts point out that decisions on this issue require a strategic approach, balancing the immediate stakes of the negotiations against broader economic impacts.
International trade professor Heo Yoon of Sogang University explained that a blanket refusal of U.S. demands could lead to missed opportunities in other negotiation areas.
“Trade negotiations are about give and take. If there are too many items we refuse, there will be less that the U.S. will concede for us,” he said.
Regarding 30-month-old U.S. beef, Heo explained Seoul can opt out on reasonable grounds.
“Even in the U.S., opinions are divided. Cattle over 30 months old account for less than 10 percent of production. Export volume to Korea would be small, but it could trigger a major food safety scare in the Korean market. So, in reality, I think it’s unlikely the U.S. will press too hard for it,” he said, adding that Seoul has leverage in Korea being one of the biggest U.S. beef export markets.
“Right now, the U.S. exports more beef to Korea than to any other country, accounting for over 25 percent (of the total exports). So if we explain to the U.S. negotiators that it would not make sense to jeopardize trust in their major export market for the sake of a small volume of over-30-month beef, I think it would make a convincing point.”
However, he said that opening up the agricultural market could bring a positive effect for Korean consumers amid soaring food prices. Pointing out the Korean government’s control over the distribution of imported agricultural goods in the local market, he noted that opening up the import and distribution system will help consumers’ welfare.
“The U.S. has continuously raised issues with the Korean government being involved in (distributing) imported agricultural goods in the local market … The reason for the government system is to protect farmers, but because of this, consumers are paying four to five times the international price for rice,” he said, noting that strict quarantine measures on GMOs, far above the international standard, have also been considered a harsh nontariff barrier.
“In order to improve consumers’ real purchasing power and overall welfare in this environment, I believe the government could consider making a broader, more forward-looking decision.”
Lee Tae-kyu, a senior research fellow at the Korea Economic Research Institute, noted it all comes down to understanding how serious the U.S. is in pushing its agricultural exports.
“We have to figure out whether the U.S. is leveraging the issues in order to secure higher tariff levels than what we’re demanding, which only those directly involved in the negotiations can really sense," he said.
"Agricultural products, like apples, come with various conditions, like whether U.S. apples are actually of good enough quality for us to consume by the time they arrive. We need to thoroughly assess these factors before we can have a serious internal discussion about accepting such imports."
Even in Korea, opinions are split over the reduction of import restrictions in the agricultural sector, which the U.S. regards as nontariff barriers.
The issue surfaced here after Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo, Korea's top trade negotiator, indicated the government is weighing options to accept the U.S. demand for Korea to increase beef and agricultural imports, following his Washington trip earlier this month.
Washington has been pressing Seoul to allow the import of beef from cattle aged 30 months or older, increase purchases of rice and ease quarantine restrictions on apples and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially potatoes. The age restriction on U.S. beef was put in place in 2008 amid fears over mad cow disease.
Yeo hinted at the possibility of accepting the demand by saying, “In these sectors, we need to make strategic decisions.”
Experts point out that decisions on this issue require a strategic approach, balancing the immediate stakes of the negotiations against broader economic impacts.
International trade professor Heo Yoon of Sogang University explained that a blanket refusal of U.S. demands could lead to missed opportunities in other negotiation areas.
“Trade negotiations are about give and take. If there are too many items we refuse, there will be less that the U.S. will concede for us,” he said.
Regarding 30-month-old U.S. beef, Heo explained Seoul can opt out on reasonable grounds.
“Even in the U.S., opinions are divided. Cattle over 30 months old account for less than 10 percent of production. Export volume to Korea would be small, but it could trigger a major food safety scare in the Korean market. So, in reality, I think it’s unlikely the U.S. will press too hard for it,” he said, adding that Seoul has leverage in Korea being one of the biggest U.S. beef export markets.
“Right now, the U.S. exports more beef to Korea than to any other country, accounting for over 25 percent (of the total exports). So if we explain to the U.S. negotiators that it would not make sense to jeopardize trust in their major export market for the sake of a small volume of over-30-month beef, I think it would make a convincing point.”
However, he said that opening up the agricultural market could bring a positive effect for Korean consumers amid soaring food prices. Pointing out the Korean government’s control over the distribution of imported agricultural goods in the local market, he noted that opening up the import and distribution system will help consumers’ welfare.
“The U.S. has continuously raised issues with the Korean government being involved in (distributing) imported agricultural goods in the local market … The reason for the government system is to protect farmers, but because of this, consumers are paying four to five times the international price for rice,” he said, noting that strict quarantine measures on GMOs, far above the international standard, have also been considered a harsh nontariff barrier.
“In order to improve consumers’ real purchasing power and overall welfare in this environment, I believe the government could consider making a broader, more forward-looking decision.”
Lee Tae-kyu, a senior research fellow at the Korea Economic Research Institute, noted it all comes down to understanding how serious the U.S. is in pushing its agricultural exports.
“We have to figure out whether the U.S. is leveraging the issues in order to secure higher tariff levels than what we’re demanding, which only those directly involved in the negotiations can really sense," he said.
"Agricultural products, like apples, come with various conditions, like whether U.S. apples are actually of good enough quality for us to consume by the time they arrive. We need to thoroughly assess these factors before we can have a serious internal discussion about accepting such imports."
Apple farm owners hold a press conference near the presidential office in Yongsan District, Seoul, to protest the potential importing of U.S. apples. Newsis
The farming industry is strongly protesting the government’s decision to consider easing agriculture-related barriers.
“When it comes to agriculture, (allowing) any imports on American agricultural products would actually put us at a disadvantage … In the U.S., with vast land, it focuses on mass production, making the costs for all agricultural goods much lower,” an industry insider said on condition of anonymity.
“Ultimately, incomes (for farmers) will decrease due to a disadvantage in price competitiveness. In fact, in the long run, people will recognize the taste and quality of locally produced goods. However, right now, with the difficult economic situation, people are more likely to simply opt for the cheaper products.”
The Rural Development Administration also pointed out the dilemma that the lower barrier might interfere with Korea’s ongoing development of GMO crops.
“We are consistently improving apple varieties and introducing new ones, but if imported apples from the U.S. suddenly flood in as a result of negotiations, it could make the long-term process of breeding and distributing new varieties more difficult,” it said.
“Our ongoing innovation and plans for climate adaptation could be thrown off if supply conditions change abruptly.”
Lee Gyu-lee is a business writer at The Korea Times, focusing primarily on IT & telecommunications, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and KOTRA. Prior to this, she has covered a wide range of cultural news, from film, television and K-pop to lifestyle and fashion.
No comments:
Post a Comment