At an International Grains Council webinar on non-tariff barriers in wheat and maize trade, speakers warned that sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), maximum residue limits, biotech restrictions, tighter import controls and logistics bottlenecks are placing growing pressure on global grain flows by raising hidden costs, complicating market access, weakening predictability and amplifying food security risks.

Non-tariff barriers are becoming one of the biggest sources of cost and uncertainty in global wheat and maize trade, with exporters and industry groups warning that regulatory friction is increasingly undermining market access even where formal tariffs remain low. That was the central message from an International Grains Council webinar held on March 26 and moderated by IGC Executive Director Arnaud Petit. Speakers from Australia, Canada, Argentina, Europe, Eastern Africa, Ukraine and the United States described a trading environment in which the main pressures increasingly stem not from customs duties, but from sanitary and phytosanitary rules, diverging residue limits, biotech approvals, import controls, duplicated testing, administrative delays and transport disruptions.

SPS RULES NOW DOMINATE THE NON-TARIFF LANDSCAPE

Craig Fedchock, Digitalization and Multilateral Engagement Lead for Europe at the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA), framed the issue in broad terms, saying SPS measures now account for 69% of all non-tariff measures applied to agri-food trade, while more than 80% of global agri-food trade is subject to at least one SPS measure. He argued that as tariff barriers have fallen under WTO commitments, importing countries have shifted attention toward SPS regulation, which for bulk commodities such as wheat and corn has become the most consequential category of hidden trade barrier. 

AUSTRALIA: WHEAT CARRYING A HEAVY REGULATORY BURDEN

For wheat exporters, one of the strongest warnings came from Lachlan Evans, Trade & Market Access Manager at Grains Australia. He said the regulatory burden on Australian wheat exports is equivalent to 22.3%, around four times the actual border tariff, costing the sector an estimated A$4.6 billion a year in forgone revenue. Evans said differing residue limits alone carried a 71.5% tariff equivalent, while technical standards added a further 20.3% tariff equivalent across grains. At the same time, he said some assurance systems created value, with practical and trusted standards linked to a 19% quality premium.

Evans argued that the biggest issue is no longer whether a market is open on paper, but how difficult it has become to operate in practice. He pointed to fumigation requirements imposed before inspection, repeat testing in destination countries despite internationally accredited origin tests, discretionary import licensing, and diverging MRL regimes that force exporters to build separate compliance pathways for different destinations. His conclusion was that the best gains now lie in improving proportionality, technical engagement and operational predictability rather than simply adding more regulation.

SENSITIVE TESTING AND ABRUPT RULE CHANGES ADD TO TRADE RISK

Krista Zuzak, Director of Crop Protection and Production at Cereals Canada, described similar challenges from the perspective of a major high-quality wheat exporter. Canada produced 40 million tonnes of wheat in 2025, while its cereal exports, worth about $11.5 billion, reached more than 80 countries, according to Cereals Canada. Zuzak warned of “the zero-tolerance reality,” “the moving target of compliance,” increased testing along the supply chain, and volatility caused by enforcement.

In the discussion, Zuzak said more sensitive testing technologies are now detecting residues at levels that can outpace the evolution of regulatory standards. That means a cargo that was effectively compliant under one system can face rejection risk under another, even when the underlying production practices have not changed. She also stressed the commercial damage caused by sudden rule changes with little transition time, especially for grain cargoes already in transit. Her message was that early engagement, timely notification and workable implementation periods are becoming essential to keep trade flowing. 

ARGENTINA FLAGS FRAGMENTED RULES AND BIOTECH TRADE RISKS

Gustavo Idígoras, President of the Argentine Chamber of the Vegetable Oil Industry and the Center of Grain Exporters (CIARA-CEC), said wheat exporters are increasingly dealing with a combination of fragmented MRLs, mycotoxin thresholds, quarantine pest lists, licensing rules and information delays. Argentina exported 14.32 million tonnes of wheat to 47 countries in the last campaign, underscoring both the breadth of its market reach and its exposure to mounting non-tariff pressures across a wide range of destinations.

Idígoras was especially critical of MRL divergence from international norms, arguing that such fragmentation forces farmers into an impractical patchwork of compliance obligations. He also pointed to excessive pest and pathogen requirements, import controls and delays in obtaining official sanitary conditions for new markets. On biotechnology, he highlighted the case of HB4 wheat, saying trade remains constrained by 100% GM-free contracts, the lack of minimum low-level presence thresholds, costly segregation requirements and the absence of harmonized GMO detection methods between exporting and importing countries. 

EUROPE: MORE AUDITS, TOUGHER IMPORT OVERSIGHT, LOWER MRLs

Europe, meanwhile, signaled tighter oversight rather than simplification. Flora Dewar, Director of Sustainability and Trade Policy, and Stephanie Pellet-Serra, Director of Agri-Policies, both at COCERAL, pointed to a European Commission plan for a 50% increase in audits carried out in non-EU countries over the next two years and a 33% increase in audits of EU Border Control Posts. Under the 2026 programme, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) plans 159 controls, including 150 audits, with the share of controls focused on non-EU countries rising to 51%, up from 33% in 2025. A new task force launched in January 2026 is also working on further harmonization and possible strengthening of import controls. 

COCERAL also flagged rising complexity around contaminants and pesticide residues. The group pointed to ongoing EU discussion around lowering some MRLs to the limit of quantification, effectively technical zero, for certain active substances no longer authorized in the bloc. It also referred to a draft measure that would lower MRLs for benomyl, carbendazim and thiophanate-methyl to 0.01 for certain products. For exporters, that raises the risk that compliance will increasingly depend not only on agronomy and food safety, but on testing sensitivity and methodological alignment between jurisdictions. 

EASTERN AFRICA LINKS NON-TARIFF BARRIERS TO FOOD SECURITY RISKS

One of the most market-sensitive interventions came from Gerard Masila, Executive Director of the Eastern Africa Grain Council (EAGC), who linked non-tariff barriers directly to food security. He described maize as the backbone of food security in Eastern Africa, feeding more than 300 million people. In Kenya, maize accounts for 36% of calorie intake, while more than 70% of households in the region consume maize daily. Wheat, by contrast, is a structurally deficit market, with local production covering only 20% to 30% of demand, leaving the region heavily dependent on imports through ports such as Mombasa and Dar es Salaam. 

Masila said non-tariff barriers add a cost equivalent of around 40% to wheat trade in Eastern Africa, effectively operating as a hidden tax on a region that already depends on imports for food stability. He cited expensive testing, certification fee hikes, duplicated border checks and administrative delays as key cost drivers. One example showed pesticide residue analysis costing around $140 per sample, while private inspections could reach $250 per day. 

He also highlighted a practical trading problem familiar to many importers: voyage times can outlast permit validity. A cargo sailing from Russia to Mombasa may take 25 to 30 days, while some permits remain valid for only 14 to 21 days. If the vessel is delayed, the importer may face re-clearance costs and demurrage charges of more than $20,000 per day. Masila’s broader argument was that in highly import-dependent regions, these are not abstract regulatory issues. They directly affect milling costs, supply reliability and consumer prices.