Key Points

GTRI warns that slashing farm tariffs under a proposed India-US trade deal could expose 700 million Indian farmers to volatile global markets. The think tank highlights risks from subsidized US grain exports and potential GM crop contamination. Niti Aayog's recommendations for tariff-free rice and pepper imports face criticism for ignoring structural vulnerabilities. The debate underscores tensions between trade liberalization and protecting India's agricultural sovereignty.

Key Points: GTRI Warns India-US Farm Tariff Cuts Risk 700 Million Farmers

  • GTRI warns US farm subsidies could destabilize Indian markets
  • Niti Aayog pushes for rice, pepper tariff cuts despite export risks
  • GM imports may contaminate local agriculture
  • Dairy SPS standards face US trade challenges
3 min read

Tariff reduction on farm products is risky, should be debated under proposed India-US trade deal: GTRI

GTRI cautions against tariff reductions in India-US trade deal, citing risks to farmers, food security, and GM crop contamination from subsidized US imports.

"Keeping tariff flexibility is not outdated protectionism—it's a smart, essential policy tool - Ajay Srivastava, GTRI"

New Delhi June 10

Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) is cautious about tariff reductions on farm products under the proposed India-US trade deal and emphasised that the potential impact of opening India's markets to subsidised American farm products needs careful consideration and thorough debate.

GTRI argued, once tariffs are cut in such agreements, it becomes nearly impossible to raise them again, even if prices crash, global trade is disrupted, or local farmers face sudden losses. It said this would expose India, especially as rich countries like the US and EU subsidise their agriculture heavily.

Niti Aayog's May 2025 working paper, "Promoting India-US Agricultural Trade Under The New US Trade Regime," recommends that India open its market to a wide range of U.S. farm products, including rice, pepper, soybean oil, shrimp, tea, coffee, dairy, poultry, apples, almonds, pistachios, corn, and genetically modified (GM) soy products, under the proposed India-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

The government advisory body argues for eliminating tariffs on rice and pepper because India exports these items in large volumes. But GTRI contends that subsidised grain exports from developed nations like the US and EU have been a major driver of global grain price volatility, which can impact India's farmers and exports.

Niti Aayog's recommendations also address the supply gaps for reciprocal access, but GTRI says they ignore the structural risks to India's 700 million farmers.

Citing past experiences, such as binding zero tariffs for rice and wheat under GATT in the 1960s/70s, GTRI says it left India vulnerable and forced costly renegotiations. India should go for a flexible tariff regime.

"Keeping tariff flexibility is not outdated protectionism--it's a smart, essential policy tool to protect food security, support rural incomes, and respond to market shocks. Once this flexibility is given up in a trade agreement, getting it back is extremely difficult," said Ajay Srivastava, founder of GTRI.

Niti Aayog also backs importing GM products like DDGS and soybean seeds under strict controls. However, GTRI argues that India's fragmented logistics and weak regulatory enforcement make such containment unfeasible. "Once GM material enters the domestic chain, it risks contaminating local agriculture, creating trade disputes, and undermining public trust," added Srivastava

The government planning body also recommends importing dairy and poultry products from the US, subject to the US meeting sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures rather than tariffs.

On dairy products, the US has challenged India's SPS requirement that imported milk must come from animals not fed meat, blood, or internal organs. The US sees this as an unjustified trade barrier, but India considers it essential for public health and cultural values.

GTRI says replacing tariffs with weaker and challenge-prone SPS standards can erode both safety and ethical standards. It adds that NITI Aayog's recommendations are risky and require broader public consultation before being considered.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rahul K.
GTRI makes valid points. Our farmers are already struggling with MSP issues and climate challenges. Flooding markets with subsidized American farm products could be disastrous. Remember what happened to our cotton farmers after US subsidies distorted global prices? 🇮🇳 #ProtectIndianFarmers
P
Priya M.
While trade deals are important, we must not compromise our food security. The US agricultural system is completely different - their farm sizes and subsidies can't be compared to our small landholdings. Let's learn from the wheat import mess during the Green Revolution era.
A
Arjun S.
The GM crops issue is particularly worrying. We've seen what happened with Bt cotton - initially promising but later created so many problems. Our regulatory system isn't strong enough to monitor these imports properly. Jai Kisan! 🙏
S
Sunita R.
Why is Niti Aayog in such a hurry? First let's strengthen our farmers with better infrastructure, storage facilities and fair prices. America's 'help' always comes with strings attached. Remember how they bullied us on solar panels? 🤔
V
Vikram J.
I disagree with GTRI on one point - we can't remain isolated forever. Selective tariff reductions on products where we're net exporters (like rice) could benefit us. But yes, dairy and poultry must be protected - it's not just economics but our culture too.
N
Neha P.
The dairy issue is crucial! American cows are fed all sorts of things we'd never allow here. Our milk standards are among the highest in the world - why compromise? This isn't protectionism, it's about maintaining our food values. 🐄
K
<

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50