Business
Why America’s ‘Beautiful Beef’ Is a Trade War Sore Point for Europe
Hendrik Dierendonck, a second-generation butcher who has become, as he describes it, “world famous in Belgium” for his curated local beef, thinks Europe’s way of raising cattle results in varied and delicious cuts that European consumers prize.
“They want hormone-free, grass-fed,” Mr. Dierendonck explained recently as he cut steaks at a bloody chopping block in his Michelin-starred restaurant, which backs onto the butchery his father started in the 1970s. “They want to know where it came from.”
Strict European Union food regulations, including a ban on hormones, govern Mr. Dierendonck’s work. And those rules could turn into a trade-war sticking point. The Trump administration argues that American meat, produced without similar regulations, is better — and wants Europe to buy more of it, and other American farm products.
“They hate our beef because our beef is beautiful,” Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, said in a televised interview last month. “And theirs is weak.”
Questions of beauty and strength aside, the administration is right about one thing: European policymakers are not keen on allowing more hormone-raised American steaks and burgers into the European Union.
Further opening the European market to American farmers is just one ask on a laundry list of requests from the Trump team. American negotiators also want Europe to buy more American gas and trucks, to change their consumption taxes and to weaken their digital regulations.
Trade officials within the European Union are willing to make many concessions to avert a painful and protracted trade war and to avert higher tariffs. They have offered to drop car tariffs to zero, to buy more gas and to increase military purchases. Negotiators have even suggested they could buy more of certain agricultural products, like soy beans.
But Europeans have their limits, and those include America’s treated T-bones and acid-washed chicken breasts.
“E.U. standards, particularly as they relate to food, health and safety, are sacrosanct — that’s not part of the negotiation, and never will be,” Olof Gill, a spokesman for the European Commission, the E.U. administrative arm, said at a recent news conference. “That’s a red line.”
It is not clear how serious the Americans are about pushing for farm products like beef and chicken. But the topic has surfaced repeatedly. When U.S. officials unveiled a trade deal with Britain on Thursday, for instance, beef was part of the agreement.
But according to Britain, the deal would simply make it cheaper for Americans to export more hormone-free beef to the country and would not weaken British health and safety rules, which are similar to those in the E.U.
When it comes to the European Union, the United States can already export a large amount of hormone-free beef without facing tariffs, so an equivalent deal would do little to help American farmers.
But diplomats and European officials have repeatedly insisted that there is no wiggle room to lower those health and safety standards. And when it comes to meat-related trade restrictions more broadly, there is very little. Chicken, for instance, faces relatively high tariffs, and there is limited appetite to lower those rates.
That’s because Europe is protective of both its food culture and its farms.
Where America tends to have massive agricultural businesses, Europeans have maintained a more robust network of smaller family operations. The 27-nation bloc has about nine million farms, compared with about two million in the United States.
Subsidies and trade restrictions help to keep Europe’s agricultural system intact. The European Union allocates a big chunk of its budget to supporting farmers, and a mix of tariffs and quotas limit competition in sensitive areas. E.U. tariffs on agricultural products are around 11 percent overall, based on World Trade Organization estimates, though they vary hugely by product.
And the bloc could place higher tariffs on U.S. farm goods if trade negotiations fall through. Their list of products that could face retaliatory levies, published Thursday, includes beef and pork, along with many soy products and bourbon.
But it’s not just tariffs limiting European imports of American food. Strict health and safety standards also keep many foreign products off European grocery shelves.
Take beef. Mr. Dierendonck and other European farmers are banned from using growth stimulants, unlike in the United States, where cattle are often raised on large feedlots with the use of hormones. European safety officials have concluded that they cannot rule out health risks for humans from hormone-raised beef.
To Mr. Dierendonck, the rules also fit European preferences. The lack of hormones results in a less homogenous product. “Every terroir has its taste,” he explains, describing the unique “mouth feel” of the West Flemish Red cow he raises on his farm on the Belgian coast.
But farming beef without hormones is more expensive. And American exporters have to adhere to hormone limitations when they send steaks, hamburgers or dairy products to E.U. countries, which European farmers argue is only fair. Otherwise, imports produced using cheaper methods could put European farmers out of business.
“We cannot accept import products that do not meet our production standards,” said Dominique Chargé, a cattle farmer from the west of France who is also president of La Coopération Agricole, a national federation representing French agricultural cooperatives.
The result is that the United States does not sell much beef to Europe. It makes more economic sense for U.S. farmers to sell into markets that allow hormone-raised cattle.
One frequent American complaint is that European health standards are more about preference than actual health.
American scientists have called the risks of hormone use in cows minimal. And though E.U. officials and consumers frequently sneer at America’s “chlorinated chickens,” that rallying cry is a bit dated. American farmers have for years been using a vinegar-like acid, and not chlorine, to rinse poultry and kill potential pathogens.
Some studies in Europe have suggested that such treatments are not a replacement for raising a chicken in a way that makes it pathogen-free from the start. American scientists have concluded that the rinses do their job and are not harmful to humans.
“I don’t know that it’s really about the science,” said Dianna Bourassa, a microbiologist specializing in poultry at Auburn University. “In my microbiological opinion, there are no health implications.”
From the perspective of European farmers, though, whether the health risks are genuine is besides the point. So long as European voters oppose chemical-treated chicken and hormone-treated beef, Europe’s farmers cannot use those farming techniques.
“When you speak to our farmers, it’s about fairness,” explained Pieter Verhelst, a member of the executive board of a Belgian farmers’ union, Boerenbond. “The policy framework we start with is totally different, and those issues are mostly totally out of the hands of farmers.”
And European consumers do seem to support E.U. food and farming rules.
Farmer protests last year loudly opposed more beef imports from South American countries, in part over concerns that the cows might be raised with a growth hormone. An Obama-era trade deal died in part thanks to popular anger over “chlorine chicken” (“Chlorhünchen,” to derisive Germans.)
E.U. public opinion polling has suggested that policies that promote farming and farmers are very popular. In a 2020 poll fielded in-person across the bloc, nearly 90 percent of Europeans agreed with the idea that agricultural imports “should only enter the E.U. if their production has complied with the E.U.’s environmental and animal welfare standards.”
In Europe, including at Mr. Dierendonck’s butchery and farm, there’s a value placed on the old-fashioned, small-scale way of doing things, policymakers and farmers agreed. Mr. Dierendonck does buy some American beef for customers who ask for it — it’s easy to cook, he said — but it’s a small part of the business.
“I like American beef very much, but I don’t like it too much,” said Mr. Dierendonck, explaining that to him, the beef his European suppliers provide is varied, like a fine wine. “For me, it’s about keeping traditions alive.”
Business
Newsom’s budget includes $200 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday doubled down on California’s commitment to electric vehicles with proposed rebates intended to backfill federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration.
The plan would allocate $200 million in one-time special funds for a new point-of-sale incentive program for light-duty zero-emissions vehicles. It was part of a sweeping $348.9-billion state budget proposal released Friday, which also included items to address air pollution and worsening wildfires, amid a projected $3-billion state deficit.
EVs have become a flashpoint in California’s battle against the Trump administration, which moved last year to repeal the state’s long-held authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards and eventually ban the sale of new gas powered cars.
Last year, Trump ended federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for EV customers that were part of President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In September, his administration also let lapse federal authorization for California’s Clean Air Vehicle decal program, which allowed solo EV drivers to use carpool lanes.
“Despite federal interference, the governor maintains his commitment to protecting public health and achieving California’s world leading climate agenda,” Lindsay Buckley, spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, said in an email. “This incentive program will help continue the state’s ZEV momentum, especially with the federal administration eliminating the federal EV tax credit and carpool lane access.”
Newsom had previously flip-flopped on this idea, first vowing to restore a state program that provided up to $7,500 to buy clean cars and then walking it back in September. That same month, a group of five automakers including Honda, Rivian, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Audi wrote a letter urging Newsom and state legislators to establish a $5,000 EV tax rebate to replace the lost federal incentives, Politico reported.
During his State of the State speech Thursday — one year after the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles — Newsom said California “refuse[s] to be bystanders” while China and other nations take the lead on electric vehicles and the clean energy transition. He touted the state’s investments in solar, hydrogen, wind and nuclear power, as well as its recent move away from the use of any coal-fired power.
“We must continue our prudent fiscal management, funding our reserves, and continuing the investments Californians rely on, from education to public safety, all while preparing for Trump’s volatility outside our control,” the governor said in a statement. “This is what responsible governance looks like.”
Several environmental groups had been urging Newsom to invest more in clean air and clean vehicle programs, which they say are critical to the state’s ambitious goals for human health and the environment. Transportation is the largest source of climate and air pollution in California and is responsible for more than a third of global warming emissions, said Daniel Barad, Western states policy manager with the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.
“As federal attacks threaten California’s authority to protect public health, incentives are more essential than ever to scale up clean cars and trucks,” Barad said. “The governor and legislative leaders must act now to fully fund zero-emission transportation and pursue new revenue to grow and sustain climate investments.”
Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, called it “an essential step to save money for Californians, cut harmful pollution, spur innovation, and support the global competitiveness of our auto industry.”
While the budget proposal does not include significant new spending proposals, it contains other line items relating to climate and the environment. Among them are plans to continue implementing Proposition 4, the $10-billion climate bond approved by voters in 2024 for programs geared toward wildfire resilience, safe drinking water, flood management, extreme heat mitigation and other similar efforts.
Among $2.1 billion in climate bond investments proposed this year are $58 million for wildfire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction projects in vulnerable communities, and nearly $20 million to assist homeowners with defensible space to prevent fire. Water-related investments include $232 million for flood control projects and nearly $70 million to support repairs to existing or new water conveyance projects.
The proposal also lays out how to spend money from California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions. State lawmakers last year voted to extend the program through 2045 and rename it cap-and-invest.
The spending plan includes a new tiered structure for cap-and-invest that first funds statutory obligations such as manufacturing tax exemptions, followed by $1 billion for the high speed rail project, $750 million to support the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and finally secondary program funding such as affordable housing and low-carbon transit options.
But while some groups applauded the budget’s broad handling of climate issues, others criticized it for leaning too heavily on volatile funding sources for environmental priorities, such as special funds and one-time allocations.
The Sierra Club called the EV incentive program a crucial investment but said too many other items were left with “patchwork strategies that make long-term planning harder.”
“Just yesterday, the Governor acknowledged in his State of the State address that the climate risk is a financial risk. That is exactly why California needs climate investments that are stable and ongoing,” said Sierra Club director Miguel Miguel.
California Environmental Voters, meanwhile, stressed that the state should continue to work toward legislation that would hold oil and gas companies liable for damages caused by their emissions — a plan known as “Make Polluters Pay” that stalled last year amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure.
“Instead of asking families to absorb the costs, the Legislature must look seriously at holding polluters accountable for the harm they’ve caused,” said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, California Environmental Voters’ chief strategy officer.
Sarah Swig, Newsom’s senior advisor for climate, noted that the state’s budget plan came just days after Trump withdrew the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a major global treaty signed by nearly 200 countries with the aim of addressing global warming through coordinated international action.
“California is not slowing down on climate at a time when we continue to see attack after attack from the federal government, including as recently as this week with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the UNFCCC,” Swig told reporters Friday. “California’s leadership has never mattered more.”
Business
Abandoned shops and missing customers: Fire-scarred businesses are still stuck in the aftermath
The charred remains of the historic Pacific Palisades Business Block cast a shadow over a once-bustling shopping district along West Sunset Boulevard.
Empty lots littered with debris and ash line the street where houses and small businesses once stood. A year since the Palisades fire roared through the neighborhood, only a handful of businesses have reopened.
The Starbucks, Bank of America, and other businesses that used to operate in the century-old Business Block are gone. All that remains of the Spanish Colonial Revival building are some arches surrounding what used to be a busy retail space. The burned-out, rusty remnants of a walk-in vault squat in the center of the structure.
Nearby, the Shade Store, the Free-est clothing store, Skin Local spa, a Hastens mattress store, Sweet Laurel Bakery and the Hydration Room are among the many stores still shuttered. Local barbershop Gornik & Drucker doesn’t know if it can reopen.
“We have been going back and forth on what it would take to survive,” co-owner Leslie Gornik said. “If we open, we have to start over from scratch.”
Hundreds gathered around Business Block on the anniversary of he fire on Wednesday to witness a military-style white-glove ceremony to pay respects to the families who lost loved ones. Photos of those killed from the neighborhood were placed at the Palisades Village Green next door.
The Palisades fire burned for 24 days, destroying more than 6,800 structures, damaging countless others and forcing most of the neighborhood’s residents to move elsewhere. About 30 miles northeast, the Eaton fire burned more than 9,400 structures. Combined, the fires killed 31 people.
Remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block, which was completed in 1924 and burned in the Palisades fire.
The few businesses that are back in Palisades serve as a beacon of hope for the community, but owners and managers say business is down and customers haven’t returned.
Ruby Nails & Spa, located near the Business Block, was closed for eight months before reopening in September. Now business is only half of what it was before the fires, owner Ruby Hong-Tran said.
“People come back to support but they live far away now,” she said. “All my clients, their houses burned.”
Ruby Hong-Tran, owner of Ruby Nails & Spa in Pacific Palisades, says her business is half of what it was since reopening.
It took months to clean all the smoke damage from her shop. The front is still being fixed to cover up burn damage.
The firestorms destroyed swaths of other neighborhoods, including Malibu, Topanga, Sierra Madre and Altadena, where businesses and homeowners also are struggling to build back.
Some are figuring out whether it is worth rebuilding. Some have given up.
The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation estimated last year that more than 1,800 small businesses were in the burn zones in Pacific Palisades, Malibu and Altadena, impacting more than 11,000 jobs.
Businesses say they often have been on their own. The Federal Emergency Management Agency tasked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clean up debris at private residences, some public buildings and places of worship — but not commercial properties.
Business owners had to clean up the charred debris and toxic waste on their properties. Many had to navigate complicated insurance claims and apply for emergency loans to stay afloat.
Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt’s Palisades Hardware, said damage to her store was limited, and insurance covered the cleaning, so she was able to open quickly. The store reopened just one month after the fire.
Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt Palisades Hardware, in front of of the store in Pacific Palisades.
Still, sales are 35% lower than what they used to be.
“In the early days, it was bad. We weren’t making anything,” Maravilla said. “We’re lucky the company kept us employed.”
The customer base has changed. Instead of homeowners working on personal projects, the store is serving contractors working on rebuilding in the area.
An archival image of the area in Pacific Palisades hangs over the aisles in Anawalt Palisades Hardware, where business is down despite a customer base of contractors who are rebuilding.
Across the street from the Business Block, the Palisades Village mall was spared the flames and looks pristine, but is still closed. Shop windows are covered with tarps. Low metal gates block entry to the high-end outlets. The mall is still replacing its drywall to eliminate airborne contaminants that the fire could have spread.
All of its posh shops still are shut: Erewhon, Lululemon ,Bay Theater, Blue Ribbon Sushi, athletic apparel store Alo, Buck Mason men’s and Veronica Beard women’s boutiques.
Mall owner and developer Rick Caruso said he is spending $60 million to reopen in August.
The need to bring back businesses impacted by the fires is urgent, Caruso said, and not just to support returning residents.
“It’s critical to bring jobs back and also for the city to start creating some tax revenue to support city services,” he said. ”Leaders need to do more to speed up the rebuilding process, such as speeding up the approval of building permits and stationing building inspectors closer to burn areas.”
Pedestrians walk past the Erewhon market in Palisades Village that plans to reopen this year.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Wednesday, on the anniversary of the fire, Caruso sent three light beams into the sky over the mall, which met in one stream to honor the impacted communities of Pacific Palisades, Altadena and Malibu.
The nighttime display will continue through Jan. 31.
Business Block’s history dates to 1924, when it served as a home for the community’s first ventures. In the 1980s, plans to tear it down and build a mall sparked a local uprising to save the historic symbol of the neighborhood’s vibrancy. It was designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 1984.
Tiana Noble, a Starbucks spokesperson, said the landlord terminated the company’s lease when the building burned down. Bank of America said it secured a new lease to rebuild nearby.
Business Block’s fate is still unclear. Some people want to preserve its shell and turn it into a memorial.
This week, it was ringed by a fence emblazoned with the words “Empowering fresh starts together.”
Caruso said the ruins should be torn down.
“It needs to be demolished and cleaned up,” he said. “It’s an eyesore right now and a hazard. I would put grass on it and make it attractive to the community.”
Twisted and scorched remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block still are there a year after the fire.
A short walk from the Business Block and near a burned-down Ralphs grocery store is the Palisades Garden Cafe, one of the few places in the neighborhood to get food and drink. The small, vibrant cafe was closed for two months after the fire, during which the employees went without pay.
Manager Lita Rodriguez said business is improving, but misses the regulars.
“We used to get tons of students and teachers who live and work here,” she said. “Our customers are mostly contractors now.”
Business
California led the nation in job cuts last year, but the pace slowed in December
Buffeted by upheavals in the tech and entertainment industries, California led the nation in job cuts last year — but the pace of layoffs slowed sharply in December both in the state and nationwide as company hiring plans picked up.
State employers announced just 2,739 layoffs in December, well down from the 14,288 they said they would cut in November.
Still, with the exception of Washington, D.C., California led all states in 2025 with 175,761 job losses, according to a report from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
The slowdown in December losses was experienced nationwide, where U.S.-based employers announced 35,553 job cuts for the month. That was down 50% from the 71,321 job cuts announced in November and down 8% from the 38,792 job cuts reported the same month last year.
That amounted to good news in a year that saw the nation’s economy suffer through 1.2 million layoffs — the most since the economic destruction caused by the pandemic, which led to 2.3 million job losses in 2020, according to the report.
“The year closed with the fewest announced layoff plans all year. While December is typically slow, this coupled with higher hiring plans, is a positive sign after a year of high job cutting plans,” Andy Challenger, a workplace expert at the firm, said in a statement.
The California economy was lashed all year by tumult in Hollywood, which has been hit by a slowdown in filming as well as media and entertainment industry consolidation.
Meanwhile, the advent of artificial intelligence boosted capital spending in Silicon Valley at the expense of jobs, though Challenger said the losses were also the result of “overhiring over the last decade.”
Workers were laid off by the thousands at Intel, Salesforce, Meta, Paramount, Walt Disney Co. and elsewhere. Apple even announced its own rare round of cuts.
The 75,506 job losses in technology California experienced last year dwarfed every other industry, according to Challenger’s data. It attributed 10,908 of the cuts to AI.
Entertainment, leisure and media combined saw 17,343 announced layoffs.
The losses pushed the state’s unemployment rate up a tenth of a point to 5.6% in September, the highest in the nation aside from Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data released in December.
September also marked the fourth straight month the state lost jobs, though they only amounted to 4,500 in September, according to the bureau data.
Nationally, Washington, D.C., took the biggest jobs hits last year due to Elon Musk’s initiative to purge the federal workforce. The district’s 303,778 announced job losses dwarfed those of California, though there none reported for December.
The government sector led all industries last year with job losses of 308,167 nationwide, while technology led in private sector job cuts with 154,445. Other sector with losses approaching 100,000 were warehousing and retail.
Despite the attention focused on President Trump’s tariffs regime, they were only cited nationally for 7,908 job cuts last year, with none announced in December.
New York experienced 109,030 announced losses, the second most of any state. Georgia was third at 80,893.
These latest figures follow a report from the Labor Department this week that businesses and government agencies posted 7.1 million open jobs at the end of November, down from 7.4 million in October. Layoffs also dropped indicating the economy is experiencing a “low-hire, low-fire” job market.
At the same time, the U.S. economy grew at an 4.3% annual rate in the third quarter, surprising economists with the fastest expansion in two years, as consumer and government spending, as well as exports, grew. However, the government shutdown, which halted data collection, may have distorted the results.
Still, December’s announced hiring plans also were positive. Last month, employers nationwide said they would hire 10,496 employees, the highest total for the month since 2022 when they announced plans to hire 51,693 workers, Challenger said.
The December plans contrasted sharply with the 12-month figure. Last year, U.S. employers announced they would hire 507,647 workers, down 34% from 2024.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
Detroit, MI6 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska3 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Dallas, TX1 day agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis