Food and ag groups push USMCA renewal as review turns uncertain

Nearly 160 food and agricultural organizations, including the American Feed Industry Association and Pet Food Institute, urged the United States, Canada, and Mexico to renew and strengthen the USMCA ahead of its first required six-year review on July 1, 2026. Their message was straightforward: preserve the trade framework that underpins integrated North American food and feed markets. Since then, the review has taken on added significance because the United States declined to approve an automatic extension, pushing the agreement into annual review cycles instead of a clean 16-year renewal. (petfoodprocessing.net)

The timing matters. USMCA took effect on July 1, 2020, replacing NAFTA, and Article 34.7 built in a first-of-its-kind review process for July 1, 2026. Under that structure, all three countries can confirm in writing that they want to extend the pact for another 16 years. If one party declines, the agreement does not end immediately. Instead, it stays in force, and the countries move into annual joint reviews until they either agree on an extension or the pact reaches its scheduled July 1, 2036 termination date. Congress’s research arm noted well before this year’s review that the mechanism itself could create uncertainty for business investment, even while supporters framed it as a way to force periodic modernization. (congress.gov)

That is the backdrop for the June 1 coalition letter. Posted by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the letter says the signatories represent food and agricultural value chains across all three countries, including animal health and agribusiness interests. It argues that North American trade integration has helped triple agrifood trade among the three countries from 2005 to 2023, reaching $285 billion, and says the agreement supports high standards in sanitary and phytosanitary policy, agricultural biotechnology, affordability, and supply resilience. Pet Food Processing reported that AFIA and PFI were among the signatories and framed the appeal as especially important with the July 1 review approaching. (nasda.org)

Since then, the policy picture has shifted. Trade lawyers at White & Case summarized the July 1 outcome this way: current tariff preferences, rules of origin, and investment protections remain unchanged, but the 16-year extension was deferred, not secured. That distinction matters for feed and pet food manufacturers that depend on predictable cross-border movement of ingredients and finished goods. The review process is now likely to create recurring decision points, which can complicate long-term sourcing, plant investment, and pricing strategies even without an immediate change in tariff treatment. (whitecase.com)

Industry reaction has not been uniform. USTR published supportive comments from several agricultural and manufacturing groups after the July 1 decision, with some saying the administration was right not to “rubber stamp” renewal before addressing unresolved trade concerns. The National Milk Producers Federation and U.S. Dairy Export Council, for example, backed continued work toward a stronger renewed agreement, while the Consumer Brands Association said the review creates an opening to strengthen North American competitiveness. At the same time, AFIA-aligned reporting and other trade observers have emphasized the downside risk of prolonged uncertainty for sectors that rely on stable regional supply chains. (ustr.gov)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is a regulatory and supply-chain story with practical implications. Companion animal nutrition depends on a cross-border ecosystem of rendered products, grains, specialty ingredients, packaging, and finished pet food. The coalition’s emphasis on science-based SPS rules and regulatory transparency is especially relevant to veterinary stakeholders because those provisions can affect how smoothly animal-related products move between markets. If annual reviews turn into prolonged renegotiation, clinics and hospitals may not feel the impact immediately, but manufacturers, distributors, and pet parents could eventually see more volatility in product costs, availability, and planning. (nasda.org)

There is also a broader policy signal here. The six-year review was not a surprise; USTR opened the consultation process in September 2025 and held a public hearing in December 2025 ahead of the July 1, 2026 review. In other words, this has been building for months, and stakeholders have had time to stake out positions on market access, enforcement, and modernization. For animal feed and pet food companies, that means the current uncertainty is likely to be managed through a mix of lobbying, compliance planning, and scenario modeling rather than a quick resolution. (ustr.gov)

What to watch: The next key markers are additional annual review discussions, any U.S.-Mexico or trilateral negotiating rounds, and whether the three governments can eventually agree to a 16-year extension “at any time,” as trade analysts note. For veterinary businesses, the practical watchpoints are ingredient sourcing risk, pricing pressure, and whether trade friction starts to spill into pet food and feed logistics before any formal change to the agreement itself. (whitecase.com)