Corn may not be a common item on Filipino families’ plates, but it is present on their tables in ways that are not always visible. Corn makes up 50% to 60% of feed formulations and accounts for 60% to 70% of production costs in the poultry and swine sectors.

That means the everyday Filipino diet, which usually includes chicken, pork, eggs, and other sources of protein, is not immune from spikes in corn prices.

The problem is that domestic corn production is not enough to meet demand.

That is not a good situation. Filipinos regularly experience hunger and describe themselves as food poor. In a Stratbase-commissioned survey conducted through Pulse Asia in July, 30% of Filipinos said they were concerned about having more affordable food prices in their local communities, particularly for rice, meat, and fish. The respondents also said they wanted National Government leaders to act on this concern.

Meanwhile, the June Social Weather Survey found Self-Rated Food Poverty declining from 42% in March to 36% in June, with an estimated 10.2 million families still rating themselves as food poor. The survey also found that 20.3% of Filipino families experienced involuntary hunger at least once between April and June, including 15.8% who experienced moderate hunger and 4.5% who experienced severe hunger.

When domestic corn supply is insufficient, the response is to import corn. Imports should be available when there is a genuine supply gap. Government should not wait for a supply shortage to turn into a price crisis. If domestic corn cannot adequately and competitively meet demand, access to imports must be available when needed, particularly during seasonal supply gaps.

Importation, however, is not an absolute solution. While imports can help stabilize supply and input costs when domestic production cannot adequately meet demand, they also bring complications. Tariffs are a clear example. The effects of corn tariffs extend from corn farmers to feed manufacturers, poultry and livestock producers, processors, traders, retailers, and consumers. A tariff may protect one segment while increasing costs for downstream industries that depend on corn as a major input.

How can these competing interests be balanced?

The current tariff structure makes imported corn more expensive when the industry needs additional supply. Corn entering within the Minimum Access Volume is subject to a 5% tariff, while out-quota imports face a 15% tariff. The Foundation for Economic Freedom is proposing to bring the out-quota rate down to 5%, creating a single, uniform tariff. If domestic corn supply is insufficient to meet demand, there is a strong case for allowing the industry to access imported corn at a lower tariff rather than adding another cost to a critical feed input.

Lowering the out-quota tariff from 15% to 5% can help address an immediate cost problem while longer-term agricultural investments continue. The measure can ease the cost of an important feed input today, while the government works on improving the long-term competitiveness of local corn production.

At the same time, farmers should not be left to fend for themselves. Support for farmers should focus on productivity and competitiveness. Rather than relying mainly on protection to make local corn competitive, government support can help farmers reduce production costs and improve productivity. The goal should be to make local corn more productive and competitive, while ensuring that downstream industries have access to reasonably priced inputs.

Competitive inputs are essential to a competitive industry. Higher corn and feed costs can weaken the competitiveness of Philippine poultry and livestock producers. If local producers face significantly higher input costs than producers in other countries, imported meat and poultry products can become relatively more competitive in the Philippine market.

Protecting one segment of agriculture should not unintentionally weaken the competitiveness of the broader agricultural sector. Balancing these issues would ultimately be best for the most important stakeholder: the consuming public.

Food security also means keeping sources of protein affordable. It goes beyond mere availability and asks whether Filipino families can afford nutritious food. If feed costs are high, poultry and livestock producers face higher production costs, and those costs eventually reach consumers through the prices of chicken, pork, and eggs.

The goal should be a more competitive agricultural sector that benefits farmers, producers, and consumers alike. The policy direction should be balanced: import when there is a supply gap, produce locally when competitive, and invest in making domestic corn more competitive. Seasonal importation can serve as a market-stabilization tool, allowing imports when local supply is seasonally constrained while avoiding unnecessary import dependence when domestic supply is sufficient.

So, while the long-term goal is to make farmers more competitive and efficient, there is a practical step that can be taken now: import, yes, but keep tariffs low. That can help reduce current cost pressures and help ensure adequate, healthy meals for the Filipino family.

Victor Andres “Dindo” C. Manhit is the president of the Stratbase ADR Institute.