A new comparative analysis released by the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) reveals that American farmers face a heavier cost burden for essential agricultural inputs like seeds and pesticides compared to their main competitor, Brazil, as both compete in the same global commodity markets. The report indicates that even after comprehensive adjustments for taxes, exchange rate differences, and purchasing power, U.S. growers' purchase prices for the vast majority of seed and crop protection product categories remain significantly higher than in Brazil. This structural cost disadvantage is eroding the long-term international competitiveness of American agriculture.
The report, prepared for the NCGA by consultancy Kynetec, provides a systematic quantitative analysis of end-user purchase prices for agricultural inputs in the U.S. and Brazil from 2023 to 2025. The data shows that the average purchase price for corn seed in the U.S. is 68% higher than in Brazil. The average price for insecticides is 87% higher. Some fungicide prices are even more than double those in the Brazilian market. Price comparisons for many herbicides, including widely-used glyphosate, also approach double the Brazilian cost.
NCGA Chief Economist Krista Swanson pointed out that farmers in both countries produce the same global commodities and receive essentially the same international market prices. When U.S. agriculture is at a clear disadvantage on the cost of core inputs that must be purchased annually, it becomes very difficult for American farmers to maintain a long-term competitive edge in the global marketplace.
The report's analysis suggests the core factors driving this significant price gap lie in differences in market structure and product access mechanisms between the two countries. The Brazilian agricultural market allows broader access to generic and single-active-ingredient products. This enables Brazilian growers to purchase large volumes of low-cost, off-patent agricultural inputs, with supply channels often coming from manufacturers outside the global R&D giants. In contrast, U.S. farmers are highly dependent on high-priced composite formulations sold by large multinational agrochemical corporations. Swanson emphasized that while high-priced formulations offer value in performance, innovation, and service, such a large price disparity for similar products exposes deep-seated flaws in the U.S. agricultural input market regarding transparency, market competition, and product choice diversity.
Currently, U.S. agriculture is under significant pressure from declining overall profitability. NCGA President Jed Bower stated that the data proves the U.S. is no longer a low-cost global agricultural producer, and the current pricing structure is unsustainable against a backdrop of narrowing industry profits. He criticized the current market situation, arguing it effectively forces American farmers to bear the full financial cost of global agricultural innovation and R&D, while other countries reap the benefits of lower prices, a dynamic that is harming the viability of family farms in the U.S.
Adding to industry anxiety is pressure from ongoing trade policy actions. Agrochemical giant Monsanto has formally petitioned the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Department of Commerce to impose countervailing duties on imported glyphosate. The NCGA warns that if such duties are approved, they would further increase the cost of procuring agricultural inputs in the U.S. NCGA First Vice President Matt Frostic stated that the next steps involve using this report to pressure input suppliers for greater price transparency. Simultaneously, the association will advocate for changes to the U.S. countervailing duty review process to ensure public and farmer interests are factored into decision-making in future trade dispute cases, aiming to improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture relative to Brazil through policy adjustments.
Comments