Anyone reading the signals could not have been mistaken in believing that the current barney over bananas and an imminent bust-up over hormones in beef, were going to be a tame prelude.
What was around the corner was war over GM foods with the beleaguered World Trade Organisation the reluctant referee. The US Agriculture Secretary, Mr Dan Glickman, has frequently set the scene, underlying the importance of trade with Europe but warning the EU to put in place "a strong science-based embrace of new technologies".
It did not require well-tuned diplomatic antennae to understand he was referring to biotechnology - and GM foods, which US companies have pioneered with investment over 25 years of many billions of dollars.
We are after all, as President Clinton has reminded us, living in the biotech era: "If the last 50 years were the age of physics, the next 50 will be the age of biology."
His Under-Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, Mr Stuart Eizenstat, recently typified the polite but firm approach as he talked of ramifications for the future of the WTO trade dispute settlement system. "We must continue to advance the basic principles of respecting trade commitments, establishing transparent and predictable regulatory processes, and using science-based decision making on environmental, health and safety issues."
Then came more indications that the big row could come over biotechnology and GMOs. "We of course respect the EU's right to have a system of government oversight for GMOs. But the EU approval system for GMOs is non-transparent, unpredictable, not based on scientific principles, and all too susceptible to political interference."
It was, however, last week's comment from Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Mr Richard Rominger, that strongly suggested a change of approach. Speaking at a conference in Brussels, he issued the warning that the EU must swiftly improve its approval systems for GM crops. But he then suggested that the US was unlikely to take the Europeans to the World Trade Organisation to get its way on GM foods.
Pushing aside the hysteria associated with the claims of Dr Arpad Pusztai that GM foods could damage immune systems (until a definitive scientific read on it emerges), calm evaluation of other recent events is enough to indicate the scale of European consumer opposition.
And it's growing. Its extent may be suggesting to the US that bludgeoning Europe, armed with WTO rulings in its favour, in an attempt to force acceptance of genetically modified foods may not be the way to go.
The move by seven leading EU supermarket groups, including Superquinn, to phase-out GM ingredients in their own brands was not made as a great philanthropic gesture in the interests of public health. It was made in response to meticulous evaluation of customer response and sensitive economic indicators of current and future buying trends.
The announcement by other big supermarket groups of a similar phase-out of GM ingredients is simply confirmation of the change in attitude by the hard-nosed food retailers themselves.
The consortium of seven represents interests with a combined turnover in excess of $100 billion. It doesn't all go on US soya but with so much American soya now genetically modified, it will trigger a significant market shift in favour of non-GM varieties, which are less and less easy to source in the US.
The British government's response to consumer unease is another valuable indicator, should the US need another. Here is an administration that is unashamedly pro-biotech, yet introducing regulations on GM crops which makes the British regime the third most restrictive in the EU (after Austria and Luxembourg, which have outright bans).
Now the Blair government is moving to force restaurants, cafes and even takeaways to identify GM ingredients in their fare. Noble as it may be - in the interests of consumer choice - it is likely to be a legislative minefield and ultimately unworkable.
The pain for Europe, and in turn the US, will not ease until consumers have what they believe to be "proper choice". Consumers would like to be able to choose between a food that has nothing whatsoever to do with process of genetic modification, and a food that either contains a genetically engineered ingredient or was produced from GM crops.
The ability to provide that straight choice every time one sits down to a meal or takes a product off a supermarket shelf may in reality prove to be beyond producers, suppliers, food outlets and even governments; such is difficulty in establishing origin of ingredients right back to the field of origin.