107% Tariff on Italian Pasta to Impact U.S. Sales

Starting January, thirteen Italian pasta brands may either withdraw from U.S. grocery store shelves or increase their prices due to a hefty 107% tariff. This move marks one of the most significant trade actions by the White House against a specific product since former President Trump initiated a stricter stance on imports.

This high tariff adds to an existing 15% baseline tariff on goods from the European Union, along with a punitive 92% surcharge aimed at Italian pasta manufacturers accused of undermining U.S. competitors.

The U.S. Commerce Department claims that certain penne suppliers have violated “anti-dumping” laws by selling their products at excessively low prices in the U.S. market. This investigation kicked off last year, motivated by complaints from two American pasta makers regarding Italian exports.

In the course of the inquiry, the U.S. government sought information from brands like Pasta Garofalo and La Morisana, though both companies refuted the allegations against them.

Federal authorities eventually imposed steep tariffs across all thirteen brands. They cited a lack of cooperation from these companies, mentioning issues like submitting documents with untranslated Italian and unspecified acronyms. It seems they viewed the actions of Garofalo and La Morisana as representative of the entire group.

Italian companies argue that their responses were consistent with previous reviews and the only noticeable change stems from a more rigorous approach by the Commerce Ministry. La Morisana, in a recent submission, claimed governmental errors in calculating prices, confusing net and gross figures.

Aside from Pasta Garofalo and La Molisana, other affected brands include Agritalia, Aldino, Antiche Tradizioni Di Gragnano, Barilla, Gruppo Milo, and several others.

Interestingly, Italy mentions that Barilla manufactures pasta in the U.S. specifically for the local market and likely won’t feel the impact of these tariffs. The Post has reached out to Barilla and the renowned brand Rummo for their perspectives.

The companies are pressing the Commerce Department for a reassessment of the duty before it takes effect in January. Italian pasta brands have long been scrutinized under anti-dumping regulations since the mid-1990s, following complaints that importers were flooding the U.S. with low-priced options.

There’s a pattern of U.S. companies frequently filing complaints regarding Italian firms, prompting federal investigations into dumping claims. While the Commerce Department has occasionally taken action against Italian pasta brands, past penalties have typically been less severe than the current fines.

Some officials in Italy are suggesting that this decision may be politically motivated. Francesco Lollobrigida, the Agriculture Minister, referred to the tariffs as “overprotectionism,” questioning their necessity and justification.

In the meantime, local media has reported headlines such as “President Trump declares war on Italian pasta,” which captures the gravity of the situation.

An official from the White House indicated that Italian companies had ample chances to provide necessary information before these tariffs were finalized. They dismissed claims of politicization regarding anti-dumping reviews and recommended that companies concentrate on cooperating with investigations instead of complaining about the media coverage.

The Commerce Department has yet to comment in response to inquiries from the Post.

Earlier this summer, Trump announced what he referred to as “the greatest deal in history” with the European Union, which includes substantial energy product purchases and investments from the bloc. However, basic tariffs on EU products
remain at 15%, along with additional rates on European steel and aluminum.

EU trade representative Maros Sefcovic recently called the 107% tariff on pasta “clearly unacceptable,” indicating discussions on the matter with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. Meanwhile, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has established a committee aimed at contesting these anti-dumping duties.