Food and ag groups press for USMCA renewal before 2026 review

A broad coalition of nearly 160 food and agricultural organizations is pressing the U.S., Mexico, and Canada to renew and strengthen the USMCA as the trade pact’s first six-year joint review arrives on July 1, 2026. For the pet food and feed sectors, the message is straightforward: keep the North American trade framework intact, and improve it where needed, rather than letting uncertainty spread through tightly linked supply chains. Pet Food Processing reported that both the American Feed Industry Association and the Pet Food Institute signed the letter. (ustr.gov)

This review has been building for months. USTR formally sought public comment in September 2025 and scheduled a public hearing as part of the review process required under U.S. law. In March 2026, the U.S. and Mexico launched bilateral discussions in advance of the joint review, with negotiators directed to examine measures aimed at reducing dependence on outside-the-region imports, strengthening rules of origin, and reinforcing North American supply chains. (ustr.gov)

Since then, the process has become more concrete. USTR said the first bilateral round with Mexico concluded on May 29, 2026, and that negotiators discussed automotive rules of origin, steel and aluminum, economic security, and regulatory compatibility. Agriculture is specifically scheduled for discussion in the next round on June 16-17 in Washington, followed by a third round the week of July 20 in Mexico City. That means the food and agriculture coalition’s letter lands as governments are actively shaping negotiating priorities, not simply taking comments. (ustr.gov)

The policy backdrop is more complicated than a simple renewal push. In its 2026 Trade Policy Agenda, USTR said it will recommend renewal only if review-related issues can be resolved, and pointed to concerns including non-market investment in the region, industrial overcapacity, transshipment, offshoring, and tighter rules of origin. Separately, American Farm Bureau Federation commentary has framed the review as both a defense of existing market access and an opportunity to revisit unresolved disputes, including Canada’s dairy implementation and produce trade tensions with Mexico. (ustr.gov)

For animal food companies, there’s a clear industry rationale for wanting predictability. AFIA said when USMCA was first finalized that Mexico and Canada were the largest and second-largest export markets for U.S. feed, feed ingredients, and pet food. That history helps explain why feed and pet food groups are now aligning with a much larger food-and-ag coalition: even if the highest-profile review fights center on autos, steel, or broader industrial policy, any instability in the agreement can spill into agricultural and animal food trade. (petfoodindustry.com)

Why it matters: Veterinary professionals may not track trade negotiations day to day, but they do feel the effects of supply-chain friction. Pet food formulas, specialty diets, ingredients, packaging inputs, and some companion animal nutrition products move through a North American market that depends on cross-border consistency. A stable USMCA doesn’t eliminate every sourcing or pricing risk, but it lowers the odds that tariff threats, compliance disputes, or shifting rules will add new pressure to product availability and cost for clinics, distributors, and pet parents. That’s especially relevant for practices managing nutrition-sensitive patients or relying on predictable access to therapeutic and specialty products. This is an inference based on the sectors named in the coalition, AFIA’s export-market emphasis, and USTR’s focus on supply chains and agriculture in the review. (ustr.gov)

There’s limited public expert commentary so far from the pet food side specifically, but agriculture groups are clearly trying to shape the debate early. Farm Bureau’s David Salmonsen has described the run-up to July as an active preparation period involving trade agencies and Congress, underscoring that this is a live policy process with room for sector-specific demands. In other words, the coalition letter is less a symbolic show of support than a bid to keep food and agriculture from being sidelined by bigger geopolitical fights inside the review. (fb.org)

What to watch: The next signal will be whether agriculture and animal food concerns gain visible traction in the June 16-17 talks and in the formal July 1 joint review. After that, watch for any country-specific flashpoints, especially around market access, rules of origin, and supply-chain security, because those issues could determine whether renewal is treated as a straightforward extension or a leverage point for broader renegotiation. (ustr.gov)