People sometimes assume their breakfast is locally sourced. The eggs may come from a nearby farm, but the animal feed was probably imported. The fruit might be Chilean, the coffee Ethiopian and the wheat in the toast from Kansas or Ukraine. Like smartphones, the food we eat is a global product.
Agriculture accounted for 8% of global merchandise trade in 2023, and it continues to play a central role in food access, affordability and stability. With trade wars and protectionist policies on the rise, the delicate balance of global food systems is increasingly at risk.
Global trade is a key driver of a secure food system
Global trade is fundamental to ensuring food reaches those who need it most. About 80% of the world’s population live in countries that import more food than they export, relying on trade to supply basic staples, stabilise prices and provide year-round access. In times of crisis—whether due to conflict, climate events or economic shocks—this interconnected system plays a vital role in preventing shortages and curbing price spikes. For food-importing countries, the volatility of trade flows can mean the difference between stable prices and empty shelves.
Global trade doesn’t just move goods; it builds resilience, acts as a buffer against droughts and fills in seasonal gaps. When a bad harvest hits one part of the world, another can often pick up the slack—if the system is working.
Consider the example of Ukraine. Before Russia’s invasion in March 2022, Ukraine and Russia were together responsible for nearly 30% of global wheat and barley exports. The war halted shipments overnight, creating ripple effects in import-reliant countries like Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Lebanon. These countries, which are heavily dependent on wheat imports due to limited domestic supply, saw bread prices soar and protests follow. But a total food crisis was averted, because alternative suppliers such as Australia, Brazil, the EU, India and the United States were able to step in and fill the gap.
That’s what makes trade such a powerful stabiliser. It’s not just about efficiency—it’s about accessibility and resilience. Trade helps countries absorb shocks and maintain food supply when crises hit.
Trade wars can create ripples far beyond their borders
The United States is the world’s largest agricultural exporter. In 2023, its agricultural exports accounted for nearly 7% of its total exports. It shipped $27bn-worth of soyabeans, $13bn of corn and $7bn of wheat around the world. China buys US soya to feed livestock, Mexico depends on US corn for tortillas and animal feed, and the EU and Japan rely on American grains for staples.
However, export strength does not guarantee stability. During the 2018-20 US-China trade war, retaliatory tariffs on American soyabeans led to a sharp drop in exports. The resulting losses for the agriculture sector were estimated at $27bn and many farmers faced severe financial strain.
Critically, the impact of trade disruptions between the United States and China didn’t remain confined to these two markets. They rippled outward, impacting countries that are large exporters and those that rely on consistent imports. Many countries in Africa and Asia, such as South Africa and the Philippines, struggled to adapt due to limited diversification and weaker global integration, with their exports to both the United States and the rest of the world declining following the tariff increases. In Rwanda, soyabean prices rose by 25%—from $520 to $650 per tonne—after China imposed retaliatory tariffs on US soyabeans and turned to African suppliers, creating regional shortages. In 2025, similar patterns are emerging elsewhere: shrimp farmers in Mexico are facing rising feed costs, driven in part by the new US tariffs, forcing producers to seek alternatives as they grapple with falling shrimp prices and tight profit margins.
Given the importance of US-China trade to global food systems, a good number of farm goods are likely to be affected. The most significant are shown in Table 1 below.
Rethinking trade to strengthen food systems
Whether it is geopolitical tensions or climate challenges, the risks facing our food system are only increasing. We need to make our food systems more resilient so they can adapt to external shocks without breaking.
A good place to start is trade. Rethinking trade rules to safeguard food flows would help. Exempting critical farm goods from tariffs and export bans could steady supplies when tensions rise. Multilateral bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Food Programme should defend these exemptions and mediate disputes, to stop food becoming collateral damage in trade wars.
But shielding trade is not enough. Many countries—especially in the developing world—need to diversify their suppliers. Doing so would reduce their exposure to disruption and improve their bargaining position. Regional trade blocs can help. The EU, for instance, has shown that shorter supply chains and cross-border co-operation can support food security when global markets stumble.
However, trade comes with costs. Shipping food across the world adds to greenhouse-gas emissions. Perishables require cold chains that consume energy. Transport accounts for almost a fifth of emissions from food systems. But that does not mean shutting borders. Smarter trade is the answer: shorten supply routes where possible, invest in greener logistics and grow more food closer to where it will be eaten, while keeping trade open where it matters most.
Such changes depend on better infrastructure. Modern cold chains are essential to preserve food quality during delays or detours. Countries should invest in decentralised storage, efficient refrigeration and digital monitoring to keep food moving, fresh and safe, even when global trade falters.
This isn’t just about economics: it’s about resilience
History demonstrates that food insecurity breeds unrest. The 2007-08 global food-price crisis led to protests in many countries, while rising food costs fuelled protests during the Arab spring. As climate change, conflict and economic shocks increase, we are likely to see more of the same, unless we act now.
Fundamentally, the world cannot afford to allow food to become collateral damage in trade wars. We need a food system that is resilient, inclusive and built to withstand 21st-century shocks. That means keeping trade going, but making it smarter, greener and fairer.