Food trade is increasingly being shaped by geopolitical rivalries rather than market fundamentals, with serious consequences for food prices, availability and long-term food security, especially in import-dependent countries, new research has warned.
As global food systems grow more interconnected, sanctions, tariffs and trade disruptions are no longer just diplomatic tools. They are directly influencing what people can afford to eat, how much they eat, and how vulnerable countries absorb economic shocks. Unlike industrial goods, food cannot be easily substituted or postponed, making disruptions uniquely destabilising for consumers and low-income populations.
Global Conflicts Have Exposed Fragile Food Trade Links
Recent geopolitical crises have highlighted how quickly food markets react to trade disruptions. The Russia–Ukraine war disrupted Black Sea shipping routes, triggering sharp price spikes in wheat, maize and sunflower oil across global markets. Similar volatility was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2007–08 food crisis, when export bans and trade restrictions amplified global food inflation instead of stabilising supplies.
Studies by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank show that such disruptions transmit rapidly into domestic food inflation, dietary stress and rising nutrition insecurity, particularly in countries that depend heavily on imports for staple foods. Even short-term blockages can have long-lasting effects on household food access, persisting well after political tensions ease.
Iran’s Food Prices Show How Import Dependence Increases Risk
Iran offers a clear example of how geopolitics translates into food insecurity. Although food items are formally exempt from sanctions, restrictions on banking, shipping, insurance and currency access have repeatedly disrupted imports, increasing transaction costs and price volatility.
The contrast between rice and wheat prices in Iran illustrates this vulnerability. Rice, which is heavily import-dependent, saw prices in Tehran more than double between 2022 and 2024 before surging sharply in 2025. In comparison, wheat prices rose more gradually over the same period. Researchers attribute this stability to Iran’s near self-sufficiency in wheat production, supported by government procurement and subsidies.
The comparison underscores a critical food security lesson: import dependence magnifies exposure to geopolitical shocks, while domestic production capacity can partially shield essential commodities from global volatility.
Trade Shocks Do Not Stop at National Borders
Food trade disruptions rarely remain confined to one country. Constraints on imports in one market can redirect supply chains, tighten regional availability and influence prices in neighbouring countries. This interconnectedness creates ripple effects that impact both exporters and importers.
India’s agricultural trade relationship with Iran highlights this dynamic. Nearly 85% of India’s exports to Iran consist of agricultural commodities, including rice, tea, fruits and oilcakes. Iran sources a significant share of its rice and tea imports from India, making both countries vulnerable to payment delays, currency risks and sanction-related uncertainties.
Any disruption in bilateral trade could worsen food shortages and price pressures in Iran while simultaneously affecting export earnings and farm incomes in India.
Humanitarian Exemptions Fall Short of Market Reality
While food and agricultural inputs are generally exempt from sanctions on humanitarian grounds, researchers argue that these exemptions often fail in practice. Banking restrictions, compliance burdens, insurance risks and reputational concerns discourage private traders and financiers from participating, even when trade is legally permitted.
As a result, market behaviour frequently mirrors the effects of trade bans without any formal policy change. Humanitarian aid may address short-term hunger but cannot replace routine commercial imports that sustain national food systems. Over time, this gap leads to rising prices, reduced dietary diversity and weakened resilience.
Experts warn that repeated trade disruptions also undermine long-term investments in climate-resilient agriculture, water management and rural infrastructure, further eroding food security.
The study concludes that food trade is not geopolitically neutral, but it is socially non-substitutable. Allowing food flows to become collateral damage in geopolitical rivalries imposes lasting costs on consumers and destabilises economies long before policymakers or exporters feel the impact.