Ravi Kumar Yellanki is the president of the All India Shrimp Hatcheries Association. He has been closely involved in promoting sustainable hatchery management, disease control, and global trade partnerships in shrimp aquaculture.
When the U.S. government imposed tariffs on imported shrimp, the intention was to protect domestic shrimp farmers. In reality, those tariffs have done little to help U.S. producers – because there is hardly any commercial shrimp farming happening in the United States. Instead, the costs are being passed on through the supply chain, ultimately reaching American consumers in the form of higher prices.
Shrimp is the most consumed seafood in the U.S. It’s a staple for grocery chains, restaurants, and home kitchens alike. Yet, more than 90 percent of the shrimp eaten in America comes from abroad – particularly from India, which supplies a large share of peeled and deveined, ready-to-cook shrimp. These are the forms that foodservice operators, restaurant chains, and retailers depend on to meet consistent demand. No other producer can match India’s combination of scale, quality, and reliability in this segment.
By placing tariffs on Indian shrimp, the U.S. has unintentionally increased costs for every player in the value chain. Importers now pay higher landed prices at the port, and those higher prices flow downstream. Trucking companies, cold storage operators, and seafood processors all charge more because their operating economics depend on shipment volumes and turnover speed.
When tariffs raise costs and reduce import volumes, containers move less frequently, storage dwell times increase, and throughput efficiency drops. That drives up per-unit costs for logistics providers. In effect, everyone – from port handlers to wholesalers – pays more simply to move the same product through the system. Those costs are ultimately reflected in restaurant menus and supermarket shelves.
The shrimp supply chain is globally integrated and finely balanced. When imports are disrupted, there is no domestic production base large enough to fill the gap. The result is predictable: higher prices, tighter availability, and pressure on small businesses that rely on stable supply. Tariffs intended to protect a tiny domestic sector have instead created inflationary effects across the seafood economy.
Restaurants are adjusting menus or raising prices. Retailers are scaling back promotions. Foodservice distributors are struggling with tighter margins. Removing tariffs on Indian shrimp would ease these pressures, restore predictability, and help stabilize prices for consumers and businesses alike.
From an economic standpoint, the logic for a tariff exemption is compelling. Indian shrimp exports are vital to meeting U.S. seafood demand. They support thousands of American jobs across logistics, processing, distribution, and retail. Removing tariffs would not only lower costs for consumers but also strengthen trade relations between two strategic partners – India and the United States – whose cooperation is central to global food security.
India’s shrimp sector operates under strict quality, traceability, and sustainability standards. U.S. buyers rely on Indian suppliers because they consistently deliver high-quality, certified seafood that meets FDA and retailer requirements. A tariff exemption would, therefore, reward responsible producers, support the U.S. seafood value chain, and help maintain steady availability for the country’s most popular seafood.
In short, the U.S. gains little by taxing a product it cannot produce in meaningful quantity. Tariffs on Indian shrimp serve no protective purpose; they only add costs to consumers and constrain a well-functioning global supply chain. A targeted exemption would be a practical, pro-consumer step that protects American businesses, jobs, and families while keeping shrimp affordable and available across the country.
