Where’s The Beef In Trump’s Tariff TACO Negotiations?

Last Updated on: 30th June 2025, 12:01 pm

Europe’s method of raising cattle results in varied and delicious cuts that consumers prize. Hormone-free, grass-fed beef seems both the epitome of taste and the norm, due to strict European Union food regulations. A US-Europe trade war over beef hasn’t made much news, but it should. The Trump administration wants US beef — that shiny, long-lived, chemical-infused, heart attack-producing, climate-killing staple — to be part of cross-pond trade deals.

“They hate our beef because our beef is beautiful,” Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, said. “And theirs is weak.”

That’s one perspective. But Europeans aren’t relinquishing their dietary mandates, and they refuse to import US treated T-bones and acid-washed chicken breasts. Strict health and safety standards also keep many foreign products off European grocery shelves, but a frequent US complaint is that European health standards are more about preference than actual health.

Europeans have more small family farms than the US — the 27-nation bloc has about nine million farms, compared with about two million in the US. The bloc could place higher tariffs on US farm goods if trade negotiations fall through. Their list of products that could face retaliatory levies includes beef and pork, along with many soy products and bourbon.

Yet Europe’s small and large farms have work to do, too. Andrew Voysey, chief impact officer at Soil Capital, writes today in Sustainable Views that Europe’s food system is under pressure, with farmers feeling the first shocks of climate, trade tensions, wars, rising input prices, aging farmer demographics, and market consolidation.

The result? “Rising prices, volatile yields, and livelihoods on the line,” Voysey concludes. Farmers need to become strategic partners in a collective resilience, he says, and governments need to “invest accordingly to secure our food, our economy, and our future.” Voysey calls for farmers and food companies to have a credible, standardized benchmarking framework for key indicators — from carbon to soil function, water use, and biodiversity.

Such a collective resilience must point to reductions in animal agriculture and investments in regenerative agriculture.

What Big Animal Ag Knew & When They Knew It

Food production accounts for roughly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and beef contributes the biggest percentage. Cattle produce large amounts of methane while negatively impacting soil and water.

The beef industry has been aware of its products’ climate impacts for a very, very long time. Loy and Jaquet write in a January 2025 Climate Policy issue that, as early as 1989, “the animal agriculture industry hired scientists to produce industry-friendly emissions reports and challenge individual action, influenced public discourse around dietary change, and created a front group, the Food Facts Coalition, with a mission to defend the industry against ‘anti-cow arguments.’”

Remember the “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner” campaign?

The authors trace how trade groups worked to incite doubt that consumers could make a difference, by choosing to eat less meat, on global climate emissions. The meat industry efforts worked: 74% of poll respondents said not eating meat would have little or no impact on climate change.

Meat industry protectionism has continued on. The American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture (AFBFA) has issued an educational program to provide 1.65 million educators across the country with “materials that teach science through the lens of beef production.” Jacquet, who is one of the researchers who has analyzed the NCBA’s archival documents, told Sentient Media their agenda is clear. “They are certainly shaping the sort of popular discourse around what you can do to address your environmental concerns for children.”

Beef’s Impact On The Environment Needs To Be Factored Into Policies

The climate impact of food is measured in terms of greenhouse gas emissions intensity. The emissions intensity is expressed in kilograms of “carbon dioxide equivalents” — which includes not only CO2 but all greenhouse gases — per kilogram of food, per gram of protein, or per calorie. The environmental impact of animal-based foods is generally higher than for plant-based foods because of both direct processes related to livestock management (for example, methane [CH4] production by ruminants) and indirect processes through the inefficiency of using crops for animal feed rather than directly for human consumption. For measures of GHG emissions, land use, water use, eutrophication, and biodiversity, the level of impact is strongly associated with the amount of animal-based products that are consumed.

Despite its outsized emissions, animal agriculture has long escaped most litigants’ notice. The scale of humanity’s meat consumption is enormous: 360 million tons of meat every year. Researchers have found that the global livestock industry uses dwindling supplies of freshwater, destroys forests and grasslands, and causes soil erosion, while pollution and the runoff of fertilizer and animal waste create dead zones in coastal areas and smother coral reefs. There also is concern over increased antibiotic resistance, since livestock accounts for 50% of antibiotic use globally.

Daniel Mascarenhas writes in The Jesuit Post, “the fact that even meat-eaters who are sympathetic to environmental issues do not know the impact of their own diets underscores the severity of the problem of ignorance in this pressing issue. Ignorance of our contribution is a primary cause of our apathy towards the ecological crisis.”

Final Thoughts About Beef — Alternatives Are Everywhere

Meat-eating in rich countries must be sharply reduced in order to tackle the climate crisis, largely caused by the methane and deforestation associated with cattle. That goal can be aided significantly if men open up their minds and hearts to flexitarian food selections with more plant-based items.

And it’s not as restrictive or difficult as it might sound.

Unlike animal meat, fungi-based proteins require a fraction of the land and water needed to grow crops or livestock. Fungi leave a tiny carbon footprint. They’re also gluten- and allergen-free and packed with natural nutrients and all essential amino acids. Most importantly, they’re versatile in the kitchen and tasty for the consumer.

Prime Roots co-founders Kim and Josh say they were “fed up with settling for preservative filled meats or ‘dirty’ options but crave the nostalgic flavors and protein.” They believe that clean deli meats should be the new normal, “to nourish our families and the next generation.” They knew that 42% of global consumers identify as “flexitarian,” or people who are actively reducing their meat consumption, and the saw a market potential for a line of fungi-based protein deli products.