U.S. President Donald Trump on April 2 announced a baseline 10% tariff on worldwide imports and a higher number on a select few countries. The news will force many of the country’s trading partners to adjust and strategize.
Here are some of the responses from well-known agriculture organizations and farmers’ associations from around the globe.
United States
The American Seed Trade Association ASTA released a statement saying the seed sector is highly concerned about the tariff announcement and that international trade plays an integral and necessary part in delivering innovative seeds to U.S. farmers.
“The continued escalation of tariffs with our trading partners is expected to significantly increase costs associated with seed production – costs that U.S. farmers and consumers will unfortunately shoulder,” said Andy LaVigne, President & CEO of the American Seed Trade Association. “Like many of our partners across the agricultural sector, our seed sector relies on a stable and predictable economic landscape.”
He added that the ability to move seed internationally is a fundamental component of the years long research and development (R&D) pipelines that allow U.S. farmers to have access to the best seeds and agricultural innovations in the world and that plant breeders rely on trade for the whole process: expedite crop improvement, test-drive new crop varieties in specific environments, and conduct critical functions to increase volumes of seed in a clean and efficient way.
LaVigne added that the organization continues to encourage the Trump administration to quickly come to a resolution with the U.S.’s trading partners that benefits both our national security and our food security, and that “the news of additional tariffs, as well as expected retaliatory actions, introduces significant uncertainty that will negatively impact those who help grow the food, feed, fiber, and fuel for millions of American families.”
The American Farm Bureau Federation‘s president Zippy Duvall said the additional tariffs, along with expected retaliatory tariffs, will take a toll on rural America.
“Farmers and ranchers are concerned with the decision to impose increased tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico and China – our top trading partners. Last year, the U.S. exported more than $83 billion in agricultural products to the three countries,” he said.
“Approximately 85% of our total potash supply – a key ingredient in fertilizer – is imported from Canada. For the third straight year, farmers are losing money on almost every major crop planted. Adding even more costs and reducing markets for American agricultural goods could create an economic burden some farmers may not be able to bear.”
The organization urged the President of the U.S. to continue working with international partners to find ways to resolve the disagreements.
USApple, the largest representative of the United States apple industry made up of more than 20,000 apple growers, associations, processors, marketers, and shippers, said the organization believes trade matters to the future of the U.S. apple industry. This is a message that 90 apple growers, packers, and shippers from 14 states communicated in more than 100 meetings with House and Senate officers on USApple’s Capitol Hill Day a week ago.
The organization added that it does not support the choice of holding trading partners accountable, but that U.S. tariffs can trigger retaliatory measures that restrict access to key export markets and harm apple growers across the country, as we have seen with India in the past.
“With the President’s tariffs announcement, all of the top 5 export markets for U.S. apples have been targeted. Mexico, Canada, Taiwan, Vietnam, and India in 2024 combined to purchase $756 million worth of U.S. apples,” Jim Blair, President and CEO of the USApple Association, said. ” Countries that would be ideal markets for U.S. apples shut us out due to non-tariff trade barriers. That’s why USApple strongly supported the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is working well, and those countries remain our largest export destinations.”
European Union
Bernd Lange, Chairman of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, said President Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ from an ordinary citizen’s point of view should be called ‘Inflation Day,’ adding that the EU will respond through legal, legitimate, proportionate, and decisive measures.
“These unjustified, illegal and disproportionate measures can only lead to further tariff escalation and a downward economic spiral for the US and the world as a whole,” he added. “Because of this decision, US consumers will be forced to carry the heaviest burden in a trade war. These tariffs will only make processes and manufacturing more inefficient. They have prompted damaging uncertainty in the investment climate. Stock markets could hardly be clearer in their reactions.”
He stated that the European Union will consider which of the tools at the region’s disposal are best suited for its response, adding that it has no plan of backing down. Lange says the EU’s door will always remain open to finding a solution and hopes that the Trump administration is genuinely interested in engaging with the EU, although he’s not confident of it.
“We will defend our sovereignty, and we will not change legislation that we have shaped democratically and in the interest of EU citizens, even if this displeases some US billionaires. The countries that have been targeted by these measures must respond with a united front and send a clear message to the US to end this tariff madness.”
Spanish agriculture organization The Valencian Association of Farmers (AVA-ASAJA) warns that the United States government’s imposition of a 20% tariff on European Union agricultural products “is not good news for either the Valencian Community or the United States, as it will result in a loss of competitiveness and an increase in food prices.”
The organization calls on the Spanish government and the European Union to “properly compensate affected sectors and not abandon them as happened with the Russian embargo or the tariffs imposed during Trump’s previous administration.” It also advocates for reciprocity from EU and Spanish leaders.
“We would not understand any response from our leaders other than imposing the same tariff on U.S. agricultural products coming in, using the additional revenue to compensate the affected sectors,” AVA-ASAJA president Cristóbal Aguado said.
The organization highlights almonds and walnuts, which “flood our market and drive down farmgate prices.”
For Valencian agriculture, AVA-ASAJA president Cristóbal Aguado adds that “the U.S. market was very attractive until they closed off shipments of clementines. Since then, it has become a much smaller destination compared to the European Union, where wine, oil, and vegetable sales now stand out.”
He added that even so, losing competitiveness in another international market with millions of consumers is not a positive development, and the Valencian agricultural sector may suffer indirect losses if products from other countries that were previously sent to the U.S. become competitors for Valencian products.
Chile
The Chilean Fruit Producers Federation (Fedefruta) has stated that the 10% tariff will be detrimental to both producers and workers in Chile.
“The United States does not need to impose tariffs on Chilean fruit, especially when it has other tools such as the Marketing Order, a mechanism dating back to 1937 that is typically used to protect local producers,” said Víctor Catán, president of Fedefruta.
The president of the National Agriculture Society (SNA), Antonio Walker, said the U.S. tariff policy, which now affects Chile, is regrettable.
“This is a setback in bilateral trade relations, and we are analyzing its effects on the agricultural export sector. At first glance, the affected products would be fresh fruits such as cherries, blueberries, apples, pears, and table grapes, as well as wines, all of which have a strong presence in the U.S. market due to their quality, food safety, and strict compliance with international regulations,” he said.
Walker added that the imposition of tariffs on Chile creates uncertainty, “which could affect the competitiveness of our products compared to those from other countries while also making it more expensive for American consumers to access safe, sustainably produced healthy foods.”
“Chile has built its development on an open trade policy based on long-term agreements and clear rules. That is why the application of these trade barriers on exports that comply with the rules of origin established in the bilateral treaty with the United States is incomprehensible,” said the SNA president.
Peru
Gabriel Amaro, president of the Association of Agricultural Producers’ Guilds of Peru (AGAP), told Freshfruitportal.com that the list released by Trump includes practically all countries “that are in the Southern Hemisphere and have several counter-seasonal crops.”
“At least 35% of all our agricultural exports go to the United States, a significant percentage, and now they will all enter with a 10% higher cost,” he stated.
“This will obviously impact consumer behavior and the market due to the increase in the final price for consumers. And if the market and consumption are negatively affected, production will inevitably be affected as well,” Amaro explained.
The AGAP president added that they are still analyzing the situation. “We need to take measures to counter these risks, which are now a reality. We have been working for years on a plan to expand access to global markets.”
He added that they are accelerating efforts in Asian markets for Peruvian products, highlighting infrastructure initiatives such as the Chancay Port, which will help bring them closer to the Asian continent with lower costs and shorter transit times.
When asked which fruits would be most affected, Amaro pointed to table grapes, avocados, and blueberries.
Ecuador
The executive director of the Ecuadorian Banana Exporters Association (ACORBANEC), Richard Salazar, told Freshfruitportal.com that Ecuador previously benefited from a 0% tariff.
“Following the announcement, we will obviously be paying the 10% tariff, just like other banana-producing and exporting countries such as Costa Rica, Colombia, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Peru. This puts us on equal footing, but you don’t see Mexico or Canada on the list – and Mexico is both a producer and exporter of bananas,” he stated.
He pointed out that the situation could have been worse compared to other countries. “However, the devaluation we will now face will come from consumer reactions, as this measure will undoubtedly lead to inflation and increased product prices.”
Salazar expressed hope that, despite the new tariff, consumers will continue purchasing the same amount of bananas.
Meanwhile, José Antonio Hidalgo Molina, executive director of the Ecuadorian Banana Exporters Association (AEBE), said that the U.S. measure “has a major global impact but does not specifically harm the competitiveness of Ecuadorian bananas compared to their main competitors.”
Hidalgo noted that all banana-supplying countries to the United States “operate under comparable tariff conditions.”
“Nonetheless, it is important to note that we are still waiting for the official and detailed proclamation of the measure, which will determine its final implementation not only for bananas but also for other agricultural products,” he added.
In this regard, the AEBE leader reaffirmed, “We are committed to continuing to work in coordination with our authorities and allied trade organizations, carrying out the necessary technical and political monitoring to preserve the stability and competitiveness of Ecuador’s export supply.”
Colombia
Miller Preciado, general manager of Agroventure Capital, analyzed the situation from a macroeconomic perspective. He told Freshfruitportal.com that “Colombia fared well in the process because having only a 10% reciprocal tariff puts us in an attractive position when viewed from the perspective of global agricultural development.”
He added that countries like Vietnam – a major coffee producer – were hit with much higher tariffs compared to Colombia, “which puts the coffee sector in an unmatched position to reach the market.”
According to Preciado, Colombia’s flower industry could also benefit, as the tariffs imposed on the European Union – a major flower producer and exporter – “leave us in a good place,” he said.
Regarding the blueberry industry, he noted that “when we look at countries like Chile, Peru, and Colombia, which are all blueberry producers, we are under the same conditions: a 10% tariff.”
He emphasized that in the berry sector, compared to Chile and Peru, Colombia has “significant logistical advantages that we need to capitalize on. “We are closer to the U.S. market, we are close to the Canadian market, and that presents interesting opportunities for our berries.”
In this context, he stated, “We need to be very efficient in costs, production capacity, and optimization. This does not put us at a disadvantage.”
He added that Colombian agriculture, in general, “will not face discouragement; on the contrary, some sectors are being significantly favored.” Finally, Preciado concluded that “while there is an impact on costs, it does not necessarily lead to discouragement, at least from our perspective and analysis.”