Take advantage of U.S. farmers, ranchers and agricultural businesses by modernizing and strengthening food and agricultural trade in North America. Since the first negotiations, agriculture has been a controversial topic within NAFTA, as has been the case with almost all free trade agreements signed under the WTO. Agriculture was the only party that was not subject to trilateral negotiation; Three separate agreements have been signed between the two parties. The Canada-U.S. agreement provided for significant tariff restrictions and quotas for agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy products and poultry products), while the Mexico-U.S. pact allowed for broader liberalization within a time frame (this was the first North-South free trade agreement for agriculture to be signed). [Clarification needed] From June to the end of August 2018, Canada was sidelined due to bilateral discussions between the United States and Mexico.  On August 27, 2018, Mexico and the United States announced that they had reached a bilateral agreement on a revised NAFTA trade agreement, which includes provisions that would boost U.S. auto production a 10-year data protection period against generic drug production on an expanded list of products enjoyed by pharmaceutical companies. , particularly U.S. manufacturers of high-quality bionological drugs.
, a sunset clause – a 16-year expiry date with periodic audits over 6 years to eventually extend the contract for an additional 16 years, and a high de minimis threshold, where Mexico increased the de minimis value of US$50 in terms of duty-free and tax-free online purchases to $100.   According to an August 30 article in The Economist, Mexico has agreed to increase the rules of origin, which would mean that 75% of a vehicle`s components must be manufactured in North America, as opposed to the previous 62.5%, in order to avoid tariffs.  Given that automakers are currently importing cheaper components from Asia, consumers would pay more for vehicles under the revised agreement.  In addition, approximately 40 to 45 per cent of vehicle components must be produced by workers earning at least $16 an hour, as opposed to the current $2.30 per hour that a worker earns on average at a Mexican auto plant.   The Economist described this as a “Mexican car construction in a straitjacket”.  On the other hand, critics of the agreement claim that it is responsible for job losses and wage moderation in the United States, driven by low-wage competition, companies that have relocated their production to Mexico to reduce costs and a growing trade deficit. Dean Baker of the Centre for Economic and Political Research (CEPR) and Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute argue that the post-NAFTA increase in imports has resulted in a loss of up to six hundred thousand U.S. jobs over two decades, although they acknowledge that some of this import growth would likely have occurred without NAFTA. Before sending it to the U.S. Senate, Clinton added two subsidiary agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) to protect workers and the environment, as well as to allay the concerns of many members of the House of Representatives.