IN a move that has sent shockwaves through the global trade ecosystem, US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs — including a staggering 30% rate on South African fresh produce — has been met with widespread criticism.

The tariffs, announced on April 2 and effective from April 9, 2025, have been described as reckless and punitive by industry leaders and policymakers alike. While framed as a measure to address trade inequities, the policy risks destabilising fragile supply chains, inflating food prices, and undermining food security worldwide.

The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA), a leading voice in the global fresh produce sector, has expressed sharp disapproval of the tariffs. Alexis Taylor, IFPA’s chief global policy officer, minced no words in condemning the broad application of these measures: “IFPA firmly supports fair and thriving international trade. Fair trade expands markets, drives prosperity, and ensures access to fresh, nutritious foods worldwide.”

She continued, warning that: “The global trade of fresh produce is essential to the health and well-being of people in every nation, and we are concerned about the broad application of tariffs on global trading partners and the resulting disruptions to supply chains, market stability, and food prices worldwide.”

Taylor emphasised the cascading consequences of such policies, stating: “Additionally, the risk of retaliatory tariffs from other countries further exacerbates these issues, creating a cycle of trade barriers that harm consumers and producers alike.

“While targeted use of tariffs can be a tool for addressing inequities between trading partners, the broad application of this blunt tool often disrupts markets, raises consumer costs, and places unnecessary strain on growers and producers across the supply chain.”

For South Africa, the impact of Trump’s tariffs is particularly dire. Already grappling with economic and logistical challenges, South African producers now face an uphill battle to maintain their foothold in the US market.

Jane Strijdom, IFPA Southern Africa country manager, lamented: “The imposition of these tariffs will be a major setback for the fresh produce industry.” She further said: “South African producers are already navigating numerous economic and logistical challenges. Adding a 30% tariff on top of these existing pressures will hamper their ability to compete fairly in the global market.”

Strijdom also highlighted the broader implications for global food security, noting: “Fresh produce trade is uniquely complex, shaped by seasonal and regional factors that require a well-functioning market for year-round availability. Once businesses lose market share, reclaiming it is difficult — if not impossible — dealing a lasting blow to an industry vital to food security and economic stability.”

The South African government responded with a mix of resilience and strategic recalibration. In a statement released on Saturday, Pretoria underscored its commitment to safeguarding national interests amidst the turbulence.

“In response to the US Government’s imposition of tariffs, South Africa will continue to navigate the challenges and opportunities these measures present with resilience and innovation,” the statement read. The government outlined six key strategies, including negotiating favorable agreements, diversifying trade relations, and enhancing regional collaboration under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

However, Pretoria did not shy away from expressing its dissatisfaction with the unilateral nature of the tariffs. “While South Africa remains committed to a mutually beneficial trade relationship with the US, unilaterally imposed and punitive tariffs are a concern and serve as a barrier to trade and shared prosperity,” the statement read. It reiterated the urgency of negotiating “a new bilateral and mutually beneficial agreement with the US” to establish fair-trade relations and secure long-term trade certainty.

Critics have argued that Trump’s tariffs fail to recognise the symbiotic nature of US-South Africa trade relations. In 2024, the US accounted for just 7.45% of South Africa’s total exports, while South Africa represented a mere 0.4% of US imports.

As Pretoria pointed out: “South Africa does not constitute a threat to the US, and where there is a trade imbalance in favour of South Africa, it is mainly on agricultural products, which are counter-cyclical, and on minerals, which are inputs in US industries.”

Moreover, the exemptions granted to certain products — such as copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and critical minerals — underscore the arbitrary nature of the tariffs. South Africa supplies 97% of the US’s chrome ore requirements, 6% of fluorspar imports, and 24% of manganese needs.

These materials, deemed essential to US industries, remain untouched by the tariffs, raising questions about the rationale behind targeting fresh produce and other sectors.

The ripple effects of Trump’s trade war extend far beyond South Africa. By nullifying the preferences sub-Saharan African countries enjoy under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), the tariffs threaten livelihoods and economic growth across multiple sectors, including agriculture, automotive manufacturing, and chemicals. The stakes could not be higher for nations striving to build resilient economies in an increasingly interconnected world.

As South Africa and other affected nations rally to mitigate the fallout, one thing is clear: Trump’s tariffs represent a perilous step backward in the quest for equitable global trade. In the words of Alexis Taylor: “Once businesses lose market share, reclaiming it is difficult — if not impossible.”

For an industry as vital as fresh produce, the consequences of this policy may reverberate for years to come, leaving consumers and producers on both sides of the Atlantic to bear the brunt of a self-inflicted wound.