Tariffs on Pasta: U.S.–Italy Trade Dispute Threatens Prices and Trade

Introduction and Latest Developments

A simmering trade dispute over tariffs on pasta is boiling over between the United States and Italy. In late 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce proposed steep anti-dumping tariffs – an additional 91.7% import duty – on certain Italian pasta imports, targeting major brands like Barilla, Garofalo, La Molisana, and other. These punitive tariffs would come on top of an existing 15% tariff already imposed on most European Union (EU) food imports, resulting in effective import taxes above 100% for many Italian pasta exporters. Italian officials warn this would “double their price” in the U.S. market. The tariffs, slated to take effect in January 2026, have been met with outrage in Italy – a country for whom pasta is both cultural staple and big business. Rome is lobbying intensively, in coordination with the EU, to reconsider or revoke the proposed duties, fearing a severe impact on trade, consumers, and transatlantic relations.

U.S. Anti-Dumping Tariff Proposal on Italian Pasta

The U.S. investigation underlying the new tariffs found that two major Italian producers – La Molisana and Pastificio Garofalo – were allegedly “dumping” pasta in the U.S. (selling below fair market value) between July 2023 and June 2024. American pasta makers had pushed for the probe, arguing Italian rivals undercut prices unfairly. In September 2025, the Commerce Department issued preliminary findings imposing a massive 91.74% dumping margin on those companies’ pasta. Moreover, 11 other Italian pasta brands – including family-owned Barilla (the world’s largest pasta maker) and Rummo – were swept into the case by extrapolation. The proposal effectively levies +91.7% duties on all these producers’ pasta exports to the U.S., on top of the existing 15% tariff on EU good. Italian pasta that currently retails for about $4 per pound in American stores could see prices roughly double if the tariffs kick in. Garofalo’s marketing director flatly stated the company has “no intention of opening factories in the US” despite the pressure, underscoring Italian firms’ resistance to offshoring production. The extra duties are poised to take effect in January 2026 after a comment period, unless a diplomatic solution is reached.

History of U.S. Pasta Tariffs and Trade Measures

Trade frictions over pasta are not new. The U.S. has maintained an anti-dumping duty order on Italian pasta since 1996, a legacy of past disputes over Italian and EU pasta subsidies. For decades this order resulted in minimal extra duties, as Italian exporters generally complied with fair pricing. However, broader tariffs entered the mix during recent transatlantic trade tussles. In 2019–2020, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on a range of EU products (e.g. as retaliation in the Airbus subsidy case), and by August 2025 President Trump agreed to a flat 15% tariff on most EU exports to the U.S.. Italian food producers “thought the worst was behind them” after this deal, hoping Trump’s rapport with Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni might spare them further pain. Indeed, the 15% blanket tariff introduced on EU goods was a reduction from earlier, higher duties on some items. Pasta fell under this 15% regime as a processed agricultural good.

That 15% baseline tariff on EU pasta remains in effect, layering on top of any anti-dumping duties. For comparison, U.S. trade partners with free trade agreements face zero pasta tariffs (e.g. Canada, Mexico, and Australia all export pasta to the U.S. duty-free). Most other countries ship pasta under the normal WTO MFN rate, which is low (often a few cents per kilogram) – effectively a few percent ad valorem or sometimes duty-free under a 1980s US-EU pasta accord. In other words, Italian and EU pasta currently carry a unique extra 15% burden that competitors from Asia or the Americas do not. This context makes the proposed additional 91.7% duty on Italian pasta particularly incendiary. It harkens back to the 1980s “pasta war” when the U.S. slapped 40% tariffs in retaliation for European pasta subsidies – a dispute eventually resolved by an agreement limiting EU export refunds on pasta. Today, Italian officials decry the new tariff threat as “hyper-protectionist” and unjustified, noting that it comes after a period of easing trade tensions (the move to 15%). The stage is set for another pasta trade war, unless negotiators can boil down a compromise.

Current Tariff Rates and Escalation Scenarios

As of late 2025, U.S. import tariffs on pasta from various origins are as follows:

• Italy & EU: 15% import tariff (blanket rate on most EU goods) currently applies. Proposed: an additional 91.74% anti-dumping duty on many Italian pasta exporters, bringing the total effective tariff to ~107% for those companieslavocedinewyork.com. For example, Garofalo and La Molisana pasta would face 107% duty starting Jan 2026 if the proposal is finalized. Other Italian brands named in the case (e.g. Barilla, Rummo) would likewise see import taxes double their U.S. prices. (Notably, Barilla also manufactures pasta within the U.S., which would not incur these import tariff.)

• Canada & Mexico: 0% tariff under USMCA trade agreement. North American pasta imports enter duty-free, giving them a price advantage over tariff-burdened EU pasta.

• South Korea: 0% tariff under the KORUS FTA. South Korea is a major supplier of wheat noodles/ramen to the U.S. (classified under the same HS code 1902), and enjoys tariff-free access.

• Other countries (e.g. China, Turkey, Thailand): Low MFN tariffs. The base U.S. MFN duty on dry pasta is typically small – for instance, the HTS specifies rates like Free or 6.6¢/kg for uncooked pasta depending on formulations. This is roughly equivalent to a 3–6% ad valorem rate. These countries have no additional special tariffs, so their pasta generally faces <10% total duty, far less than the ~107% looming over Italian pasta.

• U.S. domestic production: No import tariff, of course. (However, it’s worth noting the U.S. pasta industry does benefit indirectly from a small tariff on imported durum wheat, which raises input costs for foreign pasta makers. The Italian side points out that tariffs on wheat or other raw inputs could also affect pasta pricing.)

In short, if the U.S. goes forward, Italian pasta would become by far the most tariffed in the market. Competing imports from Asia or the Americas would stand to fill store shelves at lower cost. This discrepancy raises the possibility of trade diversion – importers might shift orders to Turkish or Asian suppliers, for example, if Italian pasta becomes prohibitively expensive. (Turkey is the world’s #2 pasta exporter and not in the EU, so its products currently face only minimal U.S. duties. Turkish exporters could see an opportunity to grab U.S. market share in a high-tariff-on-Italy scenario.)

Italy’s Pasta Exports and U.S. Import Dependence

The United States is a crucial market for Italy’s pasta industry. Italy’s pasta exports to the U.S. were worth approximately €671 million in 2024 (about $782 million). That makes the U.S. one of the top three destinations for Italian pasta, alongside EU neighbors and the UK. In fact, about 17%–18% of Italy’s pasta export value goes to the U.S. alone. For context, Italy’s total global pasta exports exceeded €4 billion in 2024 (around 2.5 million tons) – so the U.S. share is significant. The Italian pasta sector, from giant companies to family-run brands, has thrived on American demand for authentic “Made in Italy” products.

On the flip side, the U.S. has become increasingly reliant on imported pasta to satisfy domestic consumption. According to trade data, the U.S. imported roughly $987 million worth of pasta in 2025, a figure that has grown in recent years. This represents roughly 15–16% of U.S. pasta consumption by value (the rest being supplied by domestic U.S. pasta production). U.S. pasta exports, by contrast, are modest – around $118 million in 2025 – mostly going to nearby markets like Canada and Mexico. In other words, America runs a large pasta trade deficit of about $870 million per year, relying on imports for a sizable portion of its pasta supply.

Figure: U.S. pasta import and export values, 2019–2030 (in millions of USD). Imports far exceed exports, making the U.S. a net importer of pasta by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The U.S. imported about $975.6 million in pasta in 2024 versus $120.1 million exported. Future projections (2026–2030) show imports continuing to rise gradually if no major trade disruptions occur.

Notably, Italy is the single largest supplier of pasta to the United States. In 2023, about 41% of U.S. pasta import value came from Italy (approximately $669 million). Other major sources included South Korea (13%), Canada (10.5%), China (6.8%), Thailand (5.7%), and Mexico (4.6%). The remaining ~18% of imports came from a mix of other countries (Turkey, Vietnam, Japan, etc.). The chart below illustrates the dominant share held by Italy:

Figure: Major sources of U.S. pasta imports by country in 2023. Italy alone accounts for about 41% (by value) of U.S. pasta importstrendeconomy.com. Other significant suppliers – like South Korea, Canada, China, Thailand, and Mexico – collectively make up around 40%, while all other countries comprise ~18%. These dynamics underline why a tariff on Italian pasta would reverberate through the U.S. market.

This heavy reliance on Italian imports means the proposed tariffs could have an outsized impact. If Italy’s exports become prohibitively expensive or are curtailed, the U.S. would need to find alternative sources for roughly $700–800 million worth of pasta annually (or Americans could face shortages and higher prices). Some substitution could come from ramping up U.S. production – but domestic pasta makers would need time and investment to significantly increase output. More immediately, importers might turn to second-tier supplier countries. However, for consumers who specifically want Italian pasta brands or Italy’s renowned quality (e.g. premium bronze-cut spaghetti from Gragnano), substitutes may not fully satisfy demand.

Impact on U.S. Consumers, Producers, and Retail

If the tariff hike proceeds, American consumers are likely to feel it in their wallets. Imported Italian pasta on grocery shelves could see price increases of 50–100%, according to industry observers. A box of authentic Italian spaghetti that used to sell for $2 might cost $4 or more in the future. Coldiretti, Italy’s largest farming and food consortium, cautions that U.S. consumers will face higher prices for imported Italian pasta – effectively a tax on American pasta lovers with a taste for Italian brands. Restaurants and foodservice would also pay more for Italian pasta, potentially passing costs onto diners. An executive chef in New York quipped he might have to start making pasta from scratch by hand if packaged imports get too expensiveyoutube.com.

From a grocery retail perspective, pasta is a staple category with slim margins, and sudden cost surges are disruptive. Supermarkets might respond by shifting shelf space to cheaper domestic or non-Italian brands to keep prices attractive. However, Italian pasta has a strong following in the U.S., especially in higher-end and specialty markets, due to its reputation for quality (many consumers seek out durum wheat pasta “Made in Italy”). Retailers could find that simply swapping in alternatives might not satisfy customers, potentially reducing choice and denting sales of premium pasta segments. There is also concern that steep tariffs will encourage a wave of “Italian-style” imitations – products branded with Italian names or imagery but made elsewhere. The U.S. market is already rife with such “Italian-sounding” items (from sauces to cheeses), and higher barriers on genuine imports might inadvertently boost counterfeit Italian products that are cheaper, as Coldiretti warns.

For U.S. domestic pasta manufacturers, the tariffs are a double-edged sword. In the short term, they represent a win – a protective shield against competition. The initial dumping petition itself was driven by U.S. producers seeking relief from low-priced imports eroding their market sharetheguardian.com. If Italian imports drop or become far pricier, American pasta companies (and their employees and wheat suppliers) could regain some market share. Factories in states like North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota might see higher demand for their products. In economic terms, tariffs act as a subsidy to domestic industry by raising competitors’ costs. The North American Millers’ Association and pasta manufacturers have previously argued that Italian pasta benefited from unfairly cheap European wheat and subsidies, and thus welcomed enforcement of trade rules.

However, in the longer run domestic producers face complexities. They would need to scale up production to fill any gap, which may require capital investments in new production lines or even new plants – not an overnight process. Additionally, some U.S. pasta firms are foreign-owned (Barilla’s largest U.S. plant in Iowa is an Italian company’s asset, and Ebro Foods of Spain owns brands like Creamette, etc.), so the line between “domestic” and “import” isn’t always clear. Those companies might find themselves juggling internal logistics – potentially increasing local output to replace imported SKUs. If Italian companies choose to bypass tariffs by expanding manufacturing in the U.S., it could ultimately mean more investment and jobs stateside, which is arguably one goal of the U.S. tariff strategytheguardian.com. Indeed, observers note that similar U.S. protectionism in other sectors (like pharmaceuticals) has prodded European firms to open American facilitiestheguardian.com. The Commerce Department’s move could be interpreted as a pressure tactic to “encourage Italian producers to set up factories in the US”theguardian.com. Some Italian pasta makers, however, see that as an existential threat to authenticity – for example, Garofalo’s representative emphasized they have made pasta in Gragnano, Italy since 1789 and “are not moving” production for the U.S. markettheguardian.com.

In summary, U.S. consumers would likely pay more and have fewer authentic Italian options if the tariffs stick. U.S. pasta producers and wheat farmers could gain a reprieve from import competition and possibly expand their sales. Grocery retailers might pivot toward domestic brands or absorb some costs to keep pasta affordable, squeezing their margins. And the overall market could see a shake-up – with potential new entrants or substitute products rushing in. For example, Turkey (a low-cost producer) could sharply increase exports to the U.S., providing budget-friendly pasta that undercuts pricier tariff-laden Italian goods. But even if supply is replaced, something intangible may be lost – as Coldiretti’s president Ettore Prandini put it, this risks “selling off one of our flagship products of excellence” and flooding the market with knock-offs.

Italian and EU Responses: Diplomacy and Possible WTO Action

Italy has reacted to the U.S. pasta tariffs with a mix of diplomacy, legal defense, and public outcry. The Italian government activated a special “Tariff Task Force” at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to coordinate strategyesteri.it. Officials quickly filed formal briefs in the U.S. anti-dumping proceedings in support of the Italian companies, contesting the methodology and urging U.S. authorities to revisit the findingsesteri.it. Italy’s Foreign Ministry blasted the 91.7% duty as “disproportionate” and emphasized the full cooperation Italian firms gave during the investigationesteri.it. Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida condemned the targeting of pasta as “hyper-protectionist” and lacking justification. He and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani have been lobbying their U.S. counterparts through diplomatic channels to avert the tariff’s implementation.

Crucially, Italy has the backing of the European Commission in this fight. Brussels views the U.S. move as not just an Italian issue but an attack on the EU single market’s exports. The Commission’s Trade and Economic Security Commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, wrote to U.S. officials emphasizing adherence to transatlantic trade agreementsesteri.it. He specifically urged the U.S. to honor the deal capping tariffs on EU goods at 15%, and warned against exceeding that limit in any new trade actionsesteri.it. This stance implicitly includes the pasta case – the EU expects that its products “will not be subject to duties exceeding 15%” under current understandingsesteri.it. The Commission has pledged to “support Rome” and is prepared to escalate the matter if neededft.com. One possible avenue is a challenge at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The EU could argue that the U.S. anti-dumping duties violate WTO rules (for example, disputing the use of adverse facts or the calculation of margins). In the past, the EU has taken U.S. trade remedies to WTO dispute settlement – though the process can be slow and, currently, the WTO’s appellate body is paralyzed by unrelated U.S. actions.

Italian industry groups are also urging a WTO case if bilateral pressure fails. Coldiretti and pasta makers highlight that this tariff not only harms Italy but also distorts global markets – a key point for a WTO argument. They note that imitation products (often not bound by geographic indications or naming rules) could proliferate, undermining consumers’ ability to get genuine productst. If diplomacy doesn’t yield results, Italy and the EU may retaliate or seek arbitration. However, tit-for-tat retaliation is fraught – slapping tariffs on American goods in response could escalate a broader trade war, which both sides had been trying to avoid after the Airbus/Boeing disputes were paused.

As of October 2025, Italy’s Foreign Ministry stated it is working “through the embassy in Washington” to assist companies and seek a resolutionreuters.com. High-level dialogues are ongoing. Rome has made it clear this issue is significant enough to potentially affect overall Italy–U.S. relations. Prime Minister Meloni, who had cultivated a friendly relationship with President Trump, is under pressure domestically to defend a cornerstone of Italian culinary exports. The European Commission, for its part, has hinted at linking this issue to other trade discussions – for example, the letter from Šefčovič also raised U.S. steel/aluminum tariffs and new investigations, trying to address all irritants in one packageesteri.it. This suggests a negotiated solution might emerge where concessions in one area trade off for another. Italian officials are pushing for the U.S. to “backtrack” on the pasta duty before it takes effect, ideally by revising the final determination to a much lower margin or zero.

Authenticity and “Made in Italy” Branding Concerns

Beyond the immediate economics, Italian stakeholders have raised a fundamental issue of branding and authenticity. They argue that punitive tariffs would punish those producing genuine Italian pasta – made in Italy from Italian durum wheat (or other high-quality wheat) using traditional methods – while rewarding producers of ersatz Italian-style pasta abroad. “It is very harmful… especially after Europe had reached the agreement on 15%,” said Coldiretti’s president Ettore Prandini, calling the tariffs a “fatal blow” for authentic Italian pasta. Prandini pointed out the irony that the U.S. market is flooded with products that mimic Italian names and flag colors. In fact, by Coldiretti’s estimates, the “Italian sounding” market is worth €120 billion globally, with about €40 billion produced in the U.S. alonetheguardian.com. This includes everything from “Parma” ham made in the USA to “Tuscan” olive oil blends from California – and of course pastas branded with Italian words or city names that aren’t actually from Italy.

Italian pasta makers fear the tariffs will only exacerbate this issue. If real Italian imports become scarce or expensive, American consumers might turn to deceptively marketed alternatives. For instance, brands with Italian-esque names (but U.S.-made) could position themselves as the affordable choice for “Italian style” pasta. “This is a real challenge in America,” Prandini said, “the country is the biggest culprit when it comes to producing ‘Italian sounding’ brands”. The tariffs thus threaten not just current sales but the integrity of Italian culinary heritage abroad. An inferior product masquerading as Italian could disappoint consumers and damage the reputation of Italian pasta overall.

Italian officials and consortia have long fought to protect Geographic Indications and authentic branding. In the pasta arena, it’s less about protected names (as it is for cheeses or wines) and more about general marketing.

Nonetheless, the Made in Italy tag is a powerful differentiator. Brands like De Cecco, Barilla, and others prominently note if a product is produced in Italy versus in the US or elsewhere. Some Italian companies (Barilla, De Cecco) do operate plants in the U.S. and use U.S.-grown durum wheat for those products, which can muddy the waters. Barilla’s blue-box pasta sold in the U.S. is often made in Iowa or New York from American wheat, yet many consumers still associate it with Italy. In contrast, a niche brand like Rummo exports genuine Italian-made pasta that proudly carries Italian certification symbols. Italian stakeholders argue that forcing production to relocate (to avoid tariffs) dilutes what makes the product Italian– the water, the air, the traditional know-how of Naples or Parma – none of which can be replicated in Illinois or Texas. As one pasta executive remarked, “We have been in Gragnano since 1789 and are not moving”, underlining that authenticity is tied to place.

This clash highlights a broader philosophical debate: Should a country’s treasured foods be reproduced anywhere in the world under the same name, or is there intrinsic value in origin? Italy firmly believes the latter. Thus, the pasta tariff dispute touches a nerve about protecting cultural patrimony vs. adapting to globalization. American policy, intentionally or not, is pressuring Italian companies to globalize production, but Italy views that as sacrificing quality and heritage on the altar of commerce.

Stakeholder Positions at a Glance

To recap, the key stakeholders in this pasta tariff saga and their positions are:

• Italian Pasta Producers: Strongly opposed. They face devastating losses in the U.S. market if >100% tariffs apply. Companies like Rummo, La Molisana, and Garofalo call the tariffs “impossible for us to work”undertheguardian.com. Many are pursuing legal appeals through U.S. courts or WTO channels. They insist they did not dump product and that the Commerce findings are flawedlavocedinewyork.com. A few larger firms (e.g. Barilla) that have U.S. factories will be less impacted, but even they oppose the principled notion of such steep barriers. Italian industry is united in viewing this as an attack on one of Italy’s emblematic industries.

• 
  

• Italian Government: Actively resisting. Prime Minister Meloni’s administration is lobbying hard for the U.S. to reverse course. The Foreign Ministry has formally intervened in the caseesteri.it, and ministers have raised the issue at high levels. Italy is also coordinating with EU partners for a broader responseesteri.it. Retaliation has not been ruled out, but the preference is a negotiated solution. Officials have hinted at taking the case to the WTO if necessary, and Italy’s Ambassador in Washington is closely engaged. The government’s stance: the tariffs are unjustified and harmful, and “we see neither the need nor any justification” for them.

• European Commission: Backing Italy. The EU trade authorities share Italy’s view that the U.S. action is excessive. They have filed their own brief echoing Italy’s arguments in the Commerce proceedingt. The Commission is reminding the U.S. of the 15% tariff ceiling agreement and has threatened to enforce it (implying counter-tariffs or legal action if breached). Brussels’ position is that this dispute could undermine the broader EU-U.S. trade détente and that a resolution must be found to avoid escalating trade tensions.

• U.S. Pasta Industry (Domestic Producers): Quietly supportive. Although not very vocal publicly, U.S. pasta manufacturers (through trade groups or companies) were the ones that petitioned for relief. They argue that Italian imports benefited from unfair advantages and that U.S. producers were losing sales and profits as a result. The additional tariffs are seen as a way to “level the playing field.” Domestic firms like Dakota Growers, TreeHouse Foods (maker of American Italian Pasta Company brands), and Barilla’s U.S. division stand to gain if imports become pricier. Their long-term hope is increased capacity utilization and maybe expansion. However, some industry voices worry about supply chain disruptions if import volume suddenly drops – for instance, durum wheat growers in the U.S. could face lower prices if Italian demand for high-quality wheat falls due to reduced U.S. sales. Overall, though, the domestic pasta sector’s stance is that enforcing trade rules is appropriate and that Italian companies could always avoid tariffs by producing locally (something U.S. firms note they themselves have done).

• U.S. Grocery Retailers & Food Businesses: Concerned about prices and supply. Supermarket associations and importers haven’t waged a public campaign on this niche issue, but many are uneasy. Italian pasta is a staple for specialty grocers, Italian-American delis, and restaurants. These businesses fear sudden cost increases and product shortages. Importers and distributors would either have to cut their margins or raise prices; some may drop certain Italian brands entirely. A letter-writing effort to U.S. trade officials by some specialty food importers has quietly highlighted that tariffs will hurt small businesses and consumers more than they help domestic pasta makers (since many Italian pasta products don’t directly compete with mass-market U.S. brands). Their position is that the tariffs are a blunt instrument that will act as a tax on consumers and reduce choice.

• American Consumers (esp. Italian-American community and foodies): Caught in the middle. While average shoppers might not follow trade policy, they will notice if Barilla or De Cecco pasta goes up in price. Consumer advocacy groups haven’t taken a strong stance publicly (pasta price hikes, while unwelcome, are not as headline-grabbing as, say, gasoline prices). Still, one can surmise that consumers would prefer to avoid paying more for the same box of pasta. There is also a cultural element: Italian-Americans and food enthusiasts have an emotional attachment to authentic products from Italy. Some have expressed dismay on social media and forums (for example, a Reddit thread on r/europe saw Americans lamenting the potential loss of affordable De Cecco and joking about stockpiling their favorite noodles. The general consumer position: they would rather not see this tariff battle make their dinners more expensive.

Outlook: Boiling Point or Resolution?

As the clock ticks toward the January 2026 implementation date, all sides are weighing their options. The outcome is still uncertain. There are a few potential scenarios to monitor:

• Negotiated Settlement: The U.S. Commerce Department could revise the final anti-dumping duty in its final determination (expected before year-end 2025) to a much lower rate if presented with compelling evidence or diplomatic pressure. It’s not unheard of for preliminary duties to be reduced – for instance, Italian officials might succeed in showing that using AFA was too harsh, resulting in a more moderate duty (say 10% or 15%). Such an outcome, combined with the existing 15% base tariff, might be something Italian companies could swallow, and it would avoid a full-blown trade war. A token reduction or suspension of the duty could be part of a transatlantic deal, perhaps in exchange for some Italian/European concessions (e.g. on agricultural quotas or digital trade). Both Washington and Brussels have incentive to resolve this amicably, given larger trade interests at stake.

• All-Out Tariffs and Trade Diversion: If the full ~107% tariff comes into force, expect immediate upheaval in pasta trade flows. Italian exports to the U.S. would likely plummet, given that doubling the price will kill demand for most products. Some high-end artisanal pasta might still find a niche among wealthy buyers, but volume will drop. U.S. importers will pivot to other countries: Canada and Mexico (duty-free) could increase shipments if they have capacity; Turkey, already a major global exporter, could aggressively market its pasta (though it tends to use lower-cost wheat, it might not match Italian quality, but the price could be unbeatable). Asian noodle exporters (South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam) could also expand in Western pasta categories – for example, some are capable of producing Italian-style pasta for export. American producers will ramp up production, but given that U.S. pasta industry revenue was about $3.1 billion in 2025, replacing an $800 million import market is a tall order in the near term. Consumers would gradually see more non-Italian brands on shelves. Over time, Italy’s lost market share might prove hard to regain, even if tariffs are later removed. This scenario would likely prompt Italy/EU to file a WTO case, but that could take years to resolve, during which trade patterns may permanently shift.

• Retaliation and Spillover: If talks fail, the EU could retaliate by slapping tariffs on iconic American exports (for example, Italian authorities have hinted at targeting U.S. agricultural goods or tech products). This tit-for-tat would widen the conflict beyond pasta. Both sides have tried to avoid reopening trade hostilities after the truce on the Boeing/Airbus and steel tariffs, but domestic politics (especially with U.S. elections on the horizon) could harden stances. A spiraling trade war would hurt broader EU-U.S. economic relations and could even involve the WTO authorizing penalties. This is a worst-case scenario that analysts believe all parties have interest in avoiding – a pasta fight should not be allowed to derail trillion-dollar trade flows in other sectors.

• Italian Industry Adaptation: We may also see Italian companies taking strategic action. Barilla has already localized a lot of production in the U.S., insulating itself. Others might accelerate joint ventures or acquisitions of U.S. pasta plants to circumvent tariffs by “made in USA” production. For instance, if a premium brand like De Cecco fears losing the market, it could conceivably partner with an American contract manufacturer to produce a line domestically (though purists would object). Alternatively, Italian firms might redirect exports to other markets (Asia, Latin America, etc.) to compensate for lost U.S. sales. Italy could also bolster its promotion of authentic pasta in markets like Europe or Africa to make up the shortfall. In short, Italian industry will try to mitigate damage, but the U.S. is not easily replaced as a market of nearly $800 million.

All said, this dispute underscores how even a humble kitchen staple can become entangled in geopolitics and protectionism. The phrase “tariffs on pasta” may have once sounded absurd – as if out of a satire – but it is now a pressing reality for trade policymakers. Pasta joins the likes of steel, aluminum, and microchips as a subject of tariff battles. The stakes, however, are not just economic; they are cultural. Italy sees its pasta as a gift to the world, an ambassador of Italian culture on every plate abroad. The U.S., while appreciating Italian pasta, is also home to an industry that wants to compete fairly.

In conclusion, the proposed U.S. tariffs on pasta imports from Italy have opened up a multifaceted conflict: one that involves economics (prices, trade balances, market share), law (anti-dumping duties and WTO rules), diplomacy (allied nations wrangling over trade fairness), and culture (the authenticity of Italian cuisine). The coming months will reveal whether cooler heads can craft a solution or whether this boils over into a full-fledged trade war. One thing is certain – policy analysts, industry stakeholders, and pasta lovers alike will be closely watching this “pasta feud”, hoping it can be resolved before it leaves a bad taste on both sides of the Atlantic.

October 9 by Michal Mohelsky, J.D., principal of MMCG Invest, USDA feasibility study provider.

Sources:

Key references include Reuters, The Guardian, Italian government releases, Food industry reports, and trade databases (MMCG/IBISWorld, U.S. ITC, etc.), which provide up-to-date figures on pasta trade and the specifics of the tariff , among others. These illustrate the scope and impact of the U.S.–Italy pasta tariff dispute as of late 2025.