Chilean salmon sector states its case against new US tariffs

Chilean salmon farming spokesman Patricio Melero has attempted to head off new tariffs being imposed on salmon imports into the United States by presenting the sector’s case in Washington.

The US is considering imposing so-called “Section 301 tariffs” of up to 12.5% of 60 countries – including other salmon producing countries such as Norway, Australia, and the UK – which it accuses of failing to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

Section 301 tariffs are designed to address unfair foreign acts, policies, or practices that affect the US. They can be used to respond to “unjustifiable, unreasonable, discriminatory foreign government acts, policies, or practices that burden or restrict US commerce”, says import and export services provider Strong & Herd.

Melero, president of SalmonChile, appeared this week before the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to defend the position of the Chilean salmon farming industry.

No threat to US salmon

At the hearing, the union leader formally raised the need to include Chilean salmon in “Annex A”, a tariff category that protects imported products that do not have an equivalent substitute in the US market.

He explained that Section 301 tariffs do not protect the US salmon industry, but rather are a direct cost for consumers. This is because the local US supply of salmon comes primarily from wild-caught salmon in Alaska, a seasonal niche product that does not compete with Chilean farmed salmon, which guarantees a massive, stable, and affordable year-round supply.

“We made progress in demonstrating more effectively, in person here in Washington, before the highest authorities at the USTR, why Chilean salmon is so important to the United States, why it shouldn't face tariff increases, given that it doesn't compete with US production, which doesn't have any, and why it also contributes significantly to US nutritional programs and guidelines for healthy food,” Melero said after his presentation.

“I believe that today the USTR authorities have a better understanding of our situation and also better understand the benefits it offers to the American consumer.”

Provides 1,200 jobs in US

Chile’s arguments before the USTR also highlighted the value of economic complementarity between the two countries. Salmon is the main driver of Chile’s non-mining exports, with shipments to the US projected to reach almost US $2.6 billion in 2025. However, the benefit is mutual: the distribution and secondary processing of salmon generates more than 1,200 direct jobs in key states such as Florida, Texas, and New York.

Likewise, aquaculture development in the regions of La Araucanía, Los Lagos, Aysén, and Magallanes represents an important demand hub for US suppliers of biotechnology, pharmaceutical services, and specialised inputs.

SalmonChile also reiterated salmon’s benefits to US public health, as it is one of the most accessible sources of omega-3 and nutrient-dense protein on the market.

Economic muscle flexing

The Section 301 investigation and proposed tariffs are just one example of the US using access to its markets to exert leverage over countries to align some of their legislation with its own.

On January 1, 2026, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) banned imports of Irish salmon because Ireland’s Wildlife Act 1976 did not meet equivalent standards to the US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which prohibits the import of products if marine mammals may have been harmed in their production.

The issue was resolved in March, with Ireland’s Agriculture, Food and the Marine Minister Timmy Dooley announcing that NOAA had published a comparability finding determination which granted positive findings for Irish farmed salmon exports to the US.

Previously, the possibility that Scottish salmon exports to the US could be banned under MMPA rules was a factor in the Scottish Government banning the shooting of problem seals at salmon farms.

A moral and economic imperative

In a document related to the current Section 301 investigation, Jennifer Thornton, general counsel for the Office of the USTR, writes: “There is universal international consensus that forced labour is a practice that should not be tolerated.”

She adds that the US has long recognised that eliminating forced labour is a moral and economic imperative and that trade is a critical means to assist in that goal.

“The existence of forced labour imports in markets across the globe has nurtured an economic system that permits the use of forced labour or forced labour inputs, penalising firms and economies that do not. By prohibiting forced labour domestically and effectively enforcing its forced labour import prohibition, the United States aims to ensure that neither domestically produced products nor imports can gain a competitive advantage in the US market through the use of forced labour,” writes Thornton.

Legitimate competition

“This helps ensure that competition in the US market is based on legitimate factors, such as quality and innovation, rather than an artificial cost advantage from the illicit use of forced labour.”

She argues that economies that fail to impose and effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition fail to ensure that market competition in their jurisdiction occurs on a level basis with respect to labour costs.

While the vast majority of economies prohibit forced labour domestically, such measures, if effectively enforced, only discipline domestic producers, says Thornton. Such measures fail to discipline the influx of imported forced labour goods or to prevent domestic producers from using forced labour inputs.