An official website of the United States government.
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A
.gov website belongs to an official government
organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A
lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to
the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official,
secure websites.
About the USITC
Commissioners 
Administrative Law Judges
Offices
Agency Planning & Financial Reports
Reports
Staff Publications 
Harmonized Tariff Information
Tariff DatabaseAuthor(s)
This paper uses a price-adjusted index of demand to estimate the change in Korean consumers’ demand for U.S. beef from 2003 through 2011. The paper provides an overview of Korea’s consumption, production, and imports of beef over this period, which included Korea’s ban on imports of U.S. beef following discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the U.S. cattle herd in December 2003, the signing of the U.S.-Korea Beef Protocol in April 2008, and the subsequent recovery of U.S. beef imports. The paper also includes background information on BSE and Korean consumers’ perceptions of the safety of U.S. beef. Korean demand for U.S. beef is estimated to have increased substantially since 2009 (the first full year after signing of the Beef Protocol), but in 2011 remained well below the level observed in 2003.
Author(s)
China and India have posted impressive growth rates over the past decade, but face a number of challenges to sustained growth, including bureaucratic hurdles, large swaths of populations in poverty, and policy regimes that are sometimes at odds with global trade norms. These issues factor heavily in the evolving agricultural sectors of each country. Both China’s and India’s agricultural policies are developed out of a concern for domestic food security, and both nations use that objective as a justification for their policy regimes. But aside from this overarching goal, what do these countries have in common when it comes to agricultural trade? In this paper, we undertake a systematic analysis of the agricultural sectors of China and India, comparing and contrasting both domestic policies and trade regimes, and exploring how these regimes affect agricultural trade levels in both countries.
Author(s)
This paper compares and contrasts how innovation—the successful introduction of new products, services, or techniques—is occurring in biotechnology seeds in China and India. We begin with an overview of the agricultural challenges faced by China and India and the substantial investments that both countries are making in agricultural research and development (R&D) and biotechnology to address these challenges. We next describe each country’s approach to three factors identified by industry as important to innovation in biotech seeds: market access, intellectual property (IP) protection, and efficient regulatory review processes. We find substantial problems in all three areas including limited market access for foreign firms in China and significant price caps in India; limitations and gaps in IP protection and enforcement; and lengthy delays in regulatory review. We conclude with a case study highlighting how the three factors shaped the introduction and adoption of the first widely commercialized biotech crop in China and India, Bt cotton.
Author(s)
This paper examines the issue of export taxes on primary commodities; almost 40 countries applied export taxes in recent years. The case of Argentina, which is a prominent user of the export tax and a leading exporter of soybean products, is then considered. In 2006, it taxed exports of soybeans, soybean meal and soybean oil, respectively, at 23.5 percent, 19.3 percent, and 20 percent. We simulate the effects of altering these taxes. Removing export taxes on soybean oil and meal, but continuing the tax on soybeans causes exports of meal and oil to rise and exports of soybeans to fall. Exports of each product increase when taxed uniformly at 10 percent. Removal of the taxes on all products increases exports of each product. Devaluation of the Argentinean peso by about 60 percent in 2002 likely affected these exports more than the changes in the export tax that were considered.
Author(s)
This article covers major events in the long-standing dispute between the United States and Mexico regarding bilateral sugar and nonsugar sweetener trade. It discusses the rulings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in disputes between the two countries regarding the antidumping duties Mexico levied on its nonsugar sweetener imports from the United States (1997-2001), and the taxes Mexico subsequently levied on the sale of products containing such sweeteners (2002-2006). In both disputes the WTO ruled in favor of the United States. These WTO rulings, as well as changes in the supply and demand of sugar and other sweeteners that began taking place in the second half of 2005 helped create the conditions that led to a bilateral agreement on sugar and nonsugar sweeteners in July 2006.
The article also charts U.S. exports of nonsugar sweetener HTS 1702.60 in 1997-2005 to Canada and Mexico. It illustrates how Mexico’s import-restraining actions substantially reduced U.S. sales of nonsugar sweeteners to their market in 2002-2004, and reduced overall U.S. exports of this commodity.
