Is Canada's U.S. food boycott all talk?

Where is the U.S. food boycott? And where is Canada’s agri-food trade diversification?

The latest Statistics Canada figures, which came out this week, suggest that both ambitions have yet to meaningfully change our dependence on the United States. Between January and August 2026, Canadian agri-food imports from the U.S. declined by 0.7%, compared with the same period in 2025. That might sound like evidence that Canadians’ determination to avoid American products is having an impact. But, Canada’s total agri-food imports declined by 1.2%.

Consequently, the U.S. share of our agri-food imports increased from 47.09% to 47.33%, a gain of 0.24 percentage points.

The export picture is equally revealing. Between January and August 2025, the U.S. received 61.92% of Canada’s agri-food exports. During the same period in 2026, that share reached 61.98%. 

Despite the boycott rhetoric and repeated calls to find new markets, our agri-food trade remains anchored to the same customer and supplier.

READ: Buy Canadian sentiment still strong amid trade war, but grocery prices test consumer loyalty

There are also limits to what these figures tell us. Import values do not directly measure consumers’ purchasing decisions. Prices, exchange rates and product composition can influence trade totals. An aggregate result can conceal substantial changes in individual categories.

For Canadian farmers and food processors, the data is telling us the U.S. remains an extraordinarily important customer. Approximately $62 of every $100 in agri-food export value goes there. That concentration creates exposure to U.S. policy decisions, border disruptions and changes in market access.

It also reflects commercial advantages. The U.S. is nearby, offers a large customer base and supports established business relationships. Canadian exporters have developed products, transportation arrangements and sales strategies around that market.

Replacing those relationships takes more than a trade mission and a photograph.

An exporter entering a new market must find reliable buyers, meet regulatory requirements, adapt products where necessary and establish commercially viable distribution. For perishable food, transportation time and cold-chain reliability can determine whether an opportunity is profitable at all.

Diversification is possible. It requires patient commercial work, investment and a willingness to address the costs that make Canadian suppliers less competitive.

The import side presents a similar challenge. A shopper can leave an American product on the shelf immediately. A food manufacturer replacing an American ingredient supplier must consider specifications, food safety, price, available quantities and delivery schedules.

READ: Price trumps patriotism for Canadians at the grocery store: report

A retailer sourcing elsewhere must ensure that products arrive consistently and remain affordable. Finding an alternative supplier is only the first step. This is why the discussion needs to move beyond consumer patriotism.

Canadians should be free to support domestic producers and avoid American products if they wish. But grocery shopping should not become a national loyalty test. A household choosing the least expensive food is managing its budget.

If buying Canadian requires families to pay more indefinitely, the strategy will struggle to endure. Consumers need competitive alternatives, and Canadian businesses need the capacity to supply them.

READ: Are shoppers still buying Canadian?

That brings us to the common problem behind our import and export dependence: competitiveness.

We want Canadian companies to replace imported products at home while winning customers overseas. Both objectives require productive farms, efficient processing facilities, reliable transportation and an environment that encourages investment.

A maple leaf on a shelf cannot deliver those conditions. Neither can a government declaration that Canada is diversifying.

Policy should focus on improving the economics of producing and processing food here. Energy costs, infrastructure, regulatory predictability and barriers to interprovincial trade deserve sustained attention. So does the ability of businesses to expand, modernize and bring new products to market.

Export development should be measured by durable commercial results: repeat customers, profitable shipments and a broader distribution of sales. Import diversification should be assessed through reliable alternative supplies, alongside opportunities to expand competitive Canadian production.

Reducing dependence does not require abandoning the U.S. market. Canada should continue selling to a valuable customer while building enough alternatives to withstand disruptions. The objective is greater resilience and bargaining power.

The latest figures offer a useful reality check. The U.S. supplies roughly 47% of our agri-food imports and receives approximately 62% of our agri-food exports. Neither share has fallen over the comparison period.

Our frustration with Washington may have changed. The structure of our food economy has barely moved.