China’s beef tariffs reveal the limits of trade diplomacy

On 1 October, three days before Brazil’s first-round presidential vote, China imposed an additional 55% tariff on Brazilian beef after Brazil exhausted its annual import quota. Just days earlier, Beijing had announced tariff cuts on some US farm goods, including beef. Australia, despite its free trade agreement with China, has faced the same surcharge since 20 June.

The contrast suggests Beijing is imposing costs on trade partners while offering relief to a strategic rival. But the higher duty on Brazilian beef is not a new measure targeting Brazil. It stems from a safeguard announced on 31 December 2025, which imposes additional duties once a country’s import quota is exhausted. The commerce ministry recorded Brazil’s quota as filled on 29 September, triggering the extra duty. As a result, Brazilian beef imports exceeding the quota now face a combined tariff of 67%, including the additional 55% duty and the existing 12% import tariff. 

The timing is nonetheless politically significant. China is Brazil’s largest beef market, buying 1.68 million tonnes in 2025, or 48% of its beef exports, so the surcharge falls on an export sector of major importance to Brazil just as voters choose a president. Right-wing senator Flávio Bolsonaro finished ahead of incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the first round, and a Datafolha poll put Bolsonaro at 49% against Lula’s 45% before the 25 October runoff. Whoever wins will inherit a trade relationship with China worth a record US$171 billion in 2025.

China’s safeguard reflects domestic pressure to protect its cattle producers, but its country-specific quotas distribute the costs unevenly. As allocations are based on historical trade, exporters whose shipments have grown rapidly can exhaust their quotas while competitors retain unused capacity.

Why Beijing acted — and how the safeguard works

China is the world’s largest beef importer, although domestic production remains its main source of supply. Beef output reached 8.01 million tonnes in 2025, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, while imports totalled 2.80 million tonnes, according to the agriculture ministry’s National Animal Husbandry Station. Five countries supplied more than 90% of imports, led by Brazil with 52.1%.

The industry petition behind the safeguard investigation reported that beef consumption rose 22% between 2019 and 2023, while domestic production increased 13% and imports 65%. Price was a key factor: a May 2026 agriculture ministry report put Brazilian beef at around 32,000 RMB (US$4,790) per tonne on international markets, against a domestic wholesale price of about 66,400 RMB.

In December 2024, the China Animal Agriculture Association and nine regional associations petitioned for relief, reporting that about 70% of beef cattle farmers were losing money. The commerce ministry found that imports had risen 73.2% between 2019 and 2024, lifting their market share from about 20% to roughly 30%. 

The three-year safeguard, running from January 2026 to December 2028, assigns each covered supplier an annual quota. Under the commerce ministry’s announcement, imports within quota pay the ordinary tariff; shipments exceeding it face an additional 55% from the third day after the quota is reached. Unused quota cannot be carried forward. Imports are not banned once a quota is exhausted but become more expensive.

The 2026 quota totals 2.688 million tonnes, below the record volume imported in 2024. Each supplier’s allocation is based on its average share of China’s imports from July 2021 to June 2024, according to the US Department of Agriculture. The formula preserves historical trading patterns rather than responding to recent export growth.

China has defended the safeguard as temporary support for producers, not a curb on normal trade. And World Trade Organization (WTO) rules permit it when rising imports threaten serious injury. Yet it is not commercially neutral: its formula decides which exporters keep ordinary tariffs and which pay more.

Who gains and who pays?

Chinese cattle producers are the safeguard’s intended beneficiaries. After roughly three years of losses, profits have reached about 1,600 RMB per fattened animal, roughly double the level a year earlier. The recovery owes most to the cattle cycle: after years of losses, farmers culled breeding cows and the herd shrank to its lowest level in six years. By slowing import growth, the safeguard reinforces this tightening, though its exact contribution cannot be isolated.

Consumers, however, are paying part of the price. The agriculture ministry’s national average beef price at wholesale markets reached 71.59 RMB per kilogram on 21 September, nearly 9% above a year earlier and a more than two-year high. The figure is an average across wholesale markets rather than a price set by domestic producers alone, and tighter domestic supply and costlier over-quota imports both push it upwards.

This reverses some of the affordability gains of recent years: before the safeguard, rising imports coincided with falling prices, and retail beef hit a near six-year low in March 2025, according to the National Development and Reform Commission’s price monitoring centre. By making over-quota imports more expensive, the safeguard removes part of that downward pressure. Restaurants that relied on Australian beef, now subject to the surcharge, are turning to Uruguayan and New Zealand supplies, whose quotas have room to spare, and may switch to cheaper cuts.

For exporters, the impact depends on how quotas compare with recent shipments. From January to November 2025, imports from Australia rose 41% and those from Brazil 12%, while imports from Argentina, Uruguay and New Zealand fell by 16-22%, according to agriculture ministry data. Brazil’s allocation is roughly a third below the 1.68 million tonnes it shipped to China in 2025, while Australia’s is well below the 295,000 tonnes China imported from it in the first 11 months of that year. An Australia-China Relations Institute analysis estimates that Australia could ship 100,000 fewer tonnes than in 2025, with Brazil losing around 400,000 tonnes.

Other exporters have more room to expand. Argentina’s quota exceeds its 2025 shipments, while Uruguay and New Zealand have unused capacity. The US allocation of 164,000 tonnes is unlikely to be filled, the institute judged.

Can the safeguard achieve its aims?

Four challenges will shape the safeguard’s effectiveness: rebuilding domestic supply, addressing production costs, managing import timing and allocating unused quotas.

First, restricting imports will not quickly rebuild domestic supply. The herd fell 4.3% year-on-year to 95.57 million head at the end of June, while first-half beef output declined 1%, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. If imports become more expensive while domestic production continues to fall, prices could rise before farmers can respond, leaving consumers to bear the cost.

Second, tariffs cannot eliminate the industry’s cost disadvantage. At an illustrative international price of 32,000 RMB per tonne, a 67% tariff raises the price to about 53,400 RMB before freight and distribution, narrowing the gap with domestic beef without reducing production costs. Xinhua describes the safeguard as a temporary expedient. A 2024 notice from seven government departments likewise targets breeding herds, feed costs and credit. Yet the safeguard lasts three years, while rebuilding cattle herds takes four to five years, according to the China Animal Agriculture Association.

Third, quotas may shift the timing of imports as much as their volume. Imports rose 27.5% year-on-year to 870,000 tonnes in the first quarter and 21% to 1.08 million tonnes in the first four months, as buyers brought shipments forward, leaving port inventories high. Australia’s quota was exhausted in June, followed by Brazil’s in September. These two countries supplied 63% of China’s beef imports in 2025, leaving major suppliers subject to the surcharge for the remainder of the year. The safeguard may therefore be redistributing purchases across the calendar rather than substantially reducing import dependence.

Fourth, unused quotas expose a tension between protecting domestic producers and maintaining supply. President Lula said Uruguay had authorised Brazil to use its surplus allocation, but Uruguay’s consent cannot override China’s country-specific quotas. Allowing transfers could ease supply constraints, but would weaken the safeguard’s protective effect and invite similar requests from other exporters.

What does this mean for China’s trading partners?

For exporters, the annual quota reset matters as much as the tariff. Quotas restart each January, and Brazilian exporters are already planning shipments around the next allocation period. Yet increases remain modest: Brazil’s quota rises from about 1.1 million tonnes to 1.15 million by 2028, S&P Global reports, while Australia’s grows from 205,000 to 213,000 tonnes, according to Queensland’s trade agency. Neither restores pre-safeguard volumes.

Exporters are adapting differently. Brazil has fewer alternatives, and its industry association expects total beef exports to fall by around 10% in 2026. Australia has redirected some product: beef exports reached a record 1.21 million tonnes in the first nine months of 2026, even as shipments to China fell from 203,000 to 163,000 tonnes. Australian exporters are pursuing growing Southeast Asian markets, according to the Australia-China Relations Institute, where they may face increased competition from Brazilian beef diverted from China.

For governments, the safeguard highlights the limits of lobbying. Australian representations did not secure a larger quota, the institute notes. Meanwhile, WTO rules generally restrict retaliation during a safeguard’s first three years when it responds to an absolute increase in imports and complies with the relevant agreement. Exporters therefore have stronger incentives to diversify markets and negotiate practical adjustments than to expect a trade challenge to restore access quickly.

China’s approach also contrasts with Washington’s. In August, the White House temporarily expanded low-tariff imports of lean beef to improve affordability, despite opposition from farmers and ranchers. Beijing has instead prioritised producer protection while accepting the risk of higher consumer prices. Both governments have responded to domestic pressures, but their policies distribute the costs differently.

Not all about diplomacy

Diplomacy still matters, particularly for regulatory access. China restored registrations for some US beef plants after the Trump-Xi summit in May, Canada regained beef access after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s January visit and China approved two Brazilian beef plants and two poultry plants on 29 September, the day Brazil’s quota was filled. Tariff quotas, plant registrations and quarantine approvals are distinct but overlapping channels of market access: diplomatic engagement can secure regulatory approvals without changing quota allocations.

That is the position Brazil’s next president inherits. China bought around US$100 billion in Brazilian goods in 2025, roughly 29% of Brazil’s exports, according to the Brazil-China Business Council. From January to July 2026, Brazilian exports to China rose 19.7%, while sales to the US fell 12.2%, according to Brazilian trade ministry data.

China’s beef safeguard is intended to give domestic cattle producers time to recover, not to close the market. In June, commerce ministry spokesperson He Yongqian said that the Chinese market “has always been open”. Whether the measure succeeds will depend on herd recovery, production costs and how quotas are used.

For trading partners, the lesson is that access to China’s market cannot be assessed through diplomacy alone. Historical quotas produce unequal commercial effects, while engagement can still influence plant approvals, regulatory decisions and negotiations over unused allocations. A strong bilateral relationship does not guarantee a larger quota, just as strained relations do not necessarily mean a smaller one. Diplomacy matters — but so does China’s agricultural cycle.

Related: What is the worst acceptable outcome for Trump and Xi? | [Big read] Will Canada’s tit-for-tat bet against the US pay off?