HR-2558-119
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
What it does
The SAFETY Act of 2025 would direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), working with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), to negotiate agreements with foreign countries to preserve U.S. producers' rights to use common food and beverage names — such as "parmesan," "basmati," "pale ale," and "chateau" — in international markets. The bill defines "common name" using Codex Alimentarius Commission standards and provides a specific list of protected names across food products, wine, and beer categories. USDA and USTR would be required to brief Congress on their progress every six months.
Who benefits
U.S. agricultural producers, food processors, and exporters who use common food names (e.g., rice growers marketing "basmati," cheesemakers selling "parmesan," craft brewers exporting "pale ale"). U.S. wine producers using terms like "chateau" or grape varietal names. Small and mid-sized food businesses that rely on internationally recognized names to market their products abroad. U.S. consumers who benefit indirectly from a more competitive domestic food export industry. Trade attorneys and consultants who would work on resulting agreements.
Who is hurt
European producers and governments — particularly the EU — who have long sought to restrict common food names as "geographical indications" (GIs) exclusively tied to their regions of origin (e.g., Italy's claim to "Parmesan/Parmigiano-Reggiano"). Foreign trading partners may face diplomatic friction or reciprocal pressure in trade negotiations. U.S. trade negotiators may have less flexibility in broader trade deals if food naming rights become a mandatory negotiating priority. Taxpayers would bear the administrative costs of the required semi-annual briefings and expanded USDA/USTR coordination efforts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the EU and other trading blocs have aggressively used geographical indication (GI) agreements to lock U.S. producers out of foreign markets by claiming exclusive rights to common names like "parmesan" and "feta" — names that American producers have used for generations. They contend that U.S. food and agricultural exports totaled over $196 billion in 2023, and that market access restrictions tied to GI disputes directly cost American farmers and processors billions in lost sales. They argue the bill gives USDA and USTR a clear congressional mandate to push back in trade negotiations, leveling the playing field for U.S. exporters.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating specific naming outcomes in trade negotiations could reduce U.S. negotiators' flexibility and create diplomatic friction that undermines broader, more economically significant trade agreements. They contend that many of the names on the bill's list — such as "parmesan" and "chateau" — are already subject to active international disputes where U.S. trading partners hold strong legal and cultural claims, meaning the bill may entrench conflict rather than resolve it. Critics also argue that the Codex Alimentarius standard used to define "common names" is itself contested internationally, potentially weakening the legal foundation of any agreements reached under this bill.
Constitutional context
The bill operates within Congress's broad Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) to regulate foreign commerce and its power to direct executive branch trade negotiations. No significant constitutional tension is present; directing USDA and USTR to pursue specific trade agreement objectives is a well-established exercise of congressional authority over foreign commerce and treaty-adjacent executive action.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (USDA and USTR) gains a directed negotiating mandate, but Congress retains oversight through required semi-annual briefings and its existing authority to approve or reject formal trade agreements.
Historical precedent
The U.S. has previously sought to protect common food names in trade agreements, including provisions in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, 2020) that preserved U.S. and Canadian producers' rights to use certain cheese names that the EU sought to restrict.