LEADING, Feb 28 (IPS) – Who bears the brunt in trade wars? The answer is absolutely everyone. Not just the countries enacting or retaliating with tariffs and export bans, and not just the citizens of those countries. It’s everyone.
Global headlines have been warning of looming trade wars between the United States, Mexico, Canada and China. Though many of the tariffs floated by President Donald Trump have since been lifted or delayed, many are rightly concerned that trade restrictions will be an all too present part of our future.
Trade wars cause tremendous economic damage to countries affected by them; to companies, workers and suppliers; and to the consumers to whom these costs are invariably passed.
But the damage is not only economic. There are profound implications to both global and national food and nutrition security as well. Though many of these measures seek to protect homegrown industries, or in the case of U.S. tariffs – to protect borders, they all too often lead to increased food prices and supply chain disruptions that undermine access to healthy and nutritious food we all need to thrive.
The recently threatened U.S. tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada are a good example of how these kinds of restrictions can impact what ends up on our plates. In 2023, the US imported $195.9 billion of its agricultural produce from foreign suppliers, with almost half of this ($86 billion) coming from its two closest neighbors.
When you look at more nutrient-rich foods, the impacts are even more pronounced: the US imports approximately 60% of its fresh fruit and 40% of its fresh vegetables from abroad.
Economists warn that such measures would not only strain consumers’ wallets but also disrupt supply chains, leading to potential longer-term shortages and reducing the availability of diverse and nutritious foods.
This is not a price that US policymakers should be willing to pay.
47.4 million Americans – 1 in 7 people, including 1 in 5 children – are already experiencing food insecurity, meaning many lack access to the basic vitamins and minerals they need to power their bodies and fuel their minds. Among the most vulnerable groups – communities of color, rural communities, veterans, seniors, and low-income households – these inequalities are even more stark.
The impacts can easily stretch beyond the borders of North America. The interconnectedness of our global food systems – the complex web of processes that take our food from farm to fork – mean that trade restrictions in one region can have ripple effects worldwide.
The World Economic Forum highlights that the combined effects of the pandemic and geopolitical tensions have exposed the fragility of global supply chains essential for food security. The outbreak of war in Ukraine, for instance, sent shockwaves through markets for key commodities like fertiliser and grains, demonstrating how restriction in the trade or production of essential goods in one part of the world can exacerbate the vulnerabilities of the whole system.
As with most things in life, trade policies have distinct implications for women and girls. In many developing countries, women play a crucial role in agriculture and food production. Trade barriers that increase input costs or limit market access can disproportionately affect women farmers, reducing their incomes and economic independence.
Additionally, higher food prices resulting from tariffs can strain household budgets, where women often bear the responsibility of managing limited resources and the health of their families. As the International Monetary Fund (IMF) notes, whilst increased trade can provide women with better job opportunities and access to resources, trade restrictions can limit these opportunities and exacerbate existing gender disparities.
Fears about trade restrictions and breakdowns in global supply chains lead some countries to shift policies toward self-sufficiency, focusing on meeting the basic needs of production locally. While it’s easy to see the advantages of an approach like this in terms of control and protecting farmers at home, it is often a struggle for countries to efficiently produce such a wide range of food products domestically due to constraints including weather patterns and arable land, which can result in less varied diets and increased malnutrition.
The FAO suggests conceptualizing food self-sufficiency along a continuum. Others have described an optimal approach as a balanced one, embracing open trade while also enhancing domestic production by diversifying supply sources, investing in resilient agricultural practices, and fostering international cooperation to ensure stable and affordable food supplies.
Ultimately, while trade restrictions are often implemented with protective intentions, they can have adverse effects on food and nutrition security. They can increase food prices, disrupt supply chains, and disproportionately impact vulnerable populations.
To ensure equitable access to nutritious food for healthy populations both home and abroad, policymakers should carefully consider the broader implications of trade measures and strive for solutions that encourage both global cooperation and domestic resilience.
Matt Freeman is Executive Director of Stronger Foundations for Nutrition.
