Food industry leaders in the U.S. are flooding Trump’s trade team with one message: don’t slap tariffs on products we can’t grow. That plea, coming from grocers, seafood firms, restaurants, and fresh produce lobbies, follows the White House decision this month to hit dozens of countries with a wave of new duties. According to the […]Food industry leaders in the U.S. are flooding Trump’s trade team with one message: don’t slap tariffs on products we can’t grow. That plea, coming from grocers, seafood firms, restaurants, and fresh produce lobbies, follows the White House decision this month to hit dozens of countries with a wave of new duties. According to the […]

Food lobby begs Trump for tariff carveouts on cucumbers and fis

2025/08/25 07:40

Food industry leaders in the U.S. are flooding Trump’s trade team with one message: don’t slap tariffs on products we can’t grow.

That plea, coming from grocers, seafood firms, restaurants, and fresh produce lobbies, follows the White House decision this month to hit dozens of countries with a wave of new duties.

According to the Financial Times, Trump’s latest tariffs have pushed America’s overall trade tax rate to the highest it’s been in decades, and food lobbyists are now working overtime to get their most vulnerable products exempted.

Their pitch is blunt: some items just aren’t grown in this country at scale, and tariffs on them are going to wreck prices across the food chain. Instead of launching an all-out war on Trump’s policy, the lobbyists are going in one-by-one, trying to carve out exceptions for cucumbers, fish, shrimp, pineapples, coffee; anything that could make a grocery bill worse.

Seafood industry defends imports as essential

Gavin Gibbons, the chief strategy officer at the National Fisheries Institute, argued that the seafood trade should be treated differently. “There are so many voices, so many products that say, ‘Well, we just need an exemption, because we’re unlike others’,” he said, and added, “We would like an exemption for all [seafood].”

Gavin said that 85 percent of seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported, and American fisheries are already capped at their legal harvest limits. Expanding domestic fish farms isn’t feasible either, thanks to tight federal rules.

Government data shows the U.S. had a $24 billion seafood trade deficit in 2022, and Gavin warned that without tariff relief, that number would only grow. Shrimp is especially dependent on imports. He said 90 percent of shrimp eaten in the U.S. is brought in from abroad, and over a third of that comes from India, which Trump is now punishing with a 50 percent tariff in response to its oil deals with Russia.

Restaurants are also caught in the crossfire. The National Restaurant Association sent a letter last month to trade representative Jamieson Greer warning that food prices on menus could climb fast if fresh ingredients, many of which are only available seasonally, get hit with high duties.

Produce groups push back on rising food costs

On the produce front, the industry is just as alarmed. The U.S. imports $36 billion worth of fresh fruits and vegetables, with Mexico leading the pack, followed by Peru for fruits and Canada for vegetables.

Andy Harig, a vice-president at the Food Industry Association, which represents major grocers like Walmart and Albertsons, explained what’s at stake if exemptions aren’t granted. “Tariffs are designed to raise prices.

Some of these are significant enough that they will raise prices by a very noticeable amount,” he said. Andy’s team recently analyzed the case of cucumbers, a product that’s become almost entirely import-reliant.

In 1990, just 35 percent of cucumbers came from outside the U.S. That number is now close to 90 percent. If the U.S. tried to grow them year-round, it would need massive greenhouse operations — a costly undertaking that would hit shoppers hard.

Andy added that his group isn’t calling for a return to old trade models. “There is still a desire to be able to ask for exemptions, and try to turn these tariffs into a more targeted and focused kind of approach to addressing both reshoring production in the U.S. and supporting U.S. jobs,” he said.

There are a few trade deals on the table that might offer partial relief. A new agreement with Indonesia includes language about natural resources that aren’t available domestically, which might open a door for exemptions on things like tropical fruits. A similar line appears in the U.S.–EU trade deal, but that document doesn’t say which products might qualify.

Brazil, which just got slapped with a 50 percent tariff, managed to get some foods excluded — like orange juice and Brazil nuts — while coffee was left out, despite not being produced in the U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick hinted last month that items like coffee, mangoes, and pineapples could eventually be spared, but again, nothing’s guaranteed.

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00