For generations, honey from the Saskatchewan prairie has moved from fields of canola and clover into drums, jars and export markets thousands of kilometres away. That established route has suddenly become far less certain for Hannigan Honey near Shellbrook. The United States imposed an additional 50% tariff on Canadian natural honey as part of a much broader tariff package that took effect August 22, creating what owner Murray Hannigan describes as an effective barrier to his American business.
The exposure is substantial. Hannigan has said the company normally sends roughly 20% to 40% of its product to the United States. The problem extends well beyond one family operation: America bought more than half of Canada’s exported honey by volume in 2025, leaving Saskatchewan producers confronting a difficult question — where does that honey go when their largest foreign customer suddenly becomes uneconomic?
A Prairie Honey Business Built Across Generations
Hannigan Honey’s history makes the sudden trade disruption particularly striking. The company’s own records trace its beginnings to 1940, when 16-year-old Albert Hannigan ordered a single beehive after seeing his family cope with wartime sugar rationing. That first hive reportedly produced about 50 pounds of honey. The operation eventually moved to Shellbrook in 1977, partly to take advantage of the area’s canola, and Albert’s son Murray took over as president in 1998. Today, Hannigan says the business operates more than 5,000 hives and normally produces about one million pounds, or roughly 500 tonnes, of honey annually.
There is one important discrepancy in the supplied headline. Global News described Hannigan Honey in its August 25 report as having 84 years of operating history, but the company’s own published history says it has produced honey since 1940. On that timeline, the operation dates back approximately 86 years in 2026. The broader point remains unchanged: this is a multigenerational Saskatchewan producer that has survived enormous changes in agriculture, markets and technology, only to find a major export channel threatened almost overnight.
A Market Worth Up to 40% of Sales Has Effectively Closed
Hannigan told Global News that roughly 20% to 40% of the operation’s product typically goes to the United States. In a separate interview shortly before the tariff deadline, he put the share at about 25%, fitting within that broader range. Once the 50% levy took effect, his expectation became far more definitive: Hannigan said there would essentially be no U.S.-bound shipments while a tariff of that size remained in place. For a producer accustomed to moving large quantities rather than a few specialty jars, losing a market representing even one-quarter of sales is not a small adjustment.
Other Saskatchewan beekeepers have reached similar conclusions. Simon Lalonde, president of the Saskatchewan Beekeepers Development Commission and co-owner of a farm operating close to 4,000 hives, said the U.S. normally accounts for about 15% to 20% of his sales. He expects those exports to stop as well. That illustrates why the tariff can hurt even without physically preventing a shipment from crossing the border: the honey remains legal to import, but adding 50% to its landed cost can make competing suppliers considerably more attractive to American packers.
Honey Was Swept Into a Much Larger Trade Fight
Natural honey may seem far removed from automobiles, but its tariff classification explains how Saskatchewan producers became caught in the dispute. President Donald Trump’s July 20 proclamation invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in response to what the administration described as discriminatory Canadian trade measures affecting U.S. commerce. The proclamation authorized an additional 50% duty on a lengthy list of Canadian products. In its official annex, tariff code 0409.00.00 — natural honey — appears near the very top.
The legal mechanism is unusually powerful. Section 338 authorizes additional duties of as much as 50% when a president determines that another country’s policies discriminate against U.S. commerce. The original measures were scheduled for August 19, but the administration temporarily delayed implementation while negotiations continued. After those talks failed to produce an agreement, the new duties became effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern on August 22. Canada’s Department of Finance says the affected U.S. measures cover approximately C$27.6 billion of Canadian goods. Honey therefore became collateral damage in a trade confrontation whose central political disputes were considerably larger than beekeeping.
Saskatchewan Has Far More at Stake Than a Few Honey Jars
Commercial beekeeping is an important part of Prairie agriculture. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s latest statistical overview shows Saskatchewan had about 1,115 beekeepers and 92,000 honeybee colonies in 2025. Those colonies produced approximately 14.9 million pounds of honey worth an estimated C$34 million. Saskatchewan alone accounted for 17.7% of Canada’s honey production by volume, while Alberta and Manitoba helped push the three Prairie provinces’ combined share to about 80% of national output.
Those figures also reveal an industry that did not enter the tariff dispute from a position of effortless growth. Saskatchewan honey production was about 20 million pounds in 2024 before dropping to 14.9 million pounds in 2025, a decline of roughly one-quarter. Producers then faced another difficult start in 2026, when industry representatives reported that a cool, wet spring delayed colony development and reduced the number of foraging bees available during an important part of the flowering season. A sudden loss of export demand therefore arrives on top of weather and pricing pressures that producers were already managing.
Canada’s Honey Export Market Is Concentrated in Two Countries
Finding another buyer sounds straightforward until Canada’s export numbers are examined. In 2025, Canada exported approximately 9,545 tonnes of honey. The United States bought 5,354 tonnes, or 56.1% of the total. Japan purchased another 3,914 tonnes, representing 41%. Together, those two destinations accounted for more than 97% of Canada’s recorded honey exports by volume. By value, the pattern was nearly as concentrated: the United States represented 52.9% of Canadian honey export revenue and Japan accounted for 44.1%.
Saskatchewan recorded about C$3.67 million in honey exports in 2025, equivalent to approximately 723 tonnes, although federal statistics caution that provincial export data can include honey produced elsewhere. The central problem is still clear. Replacing the American market means either substantially increasing Canadian consumption, persuading Japan or another established buyer to absorb additional volumes, or building new customers elsewhere. Lalonde has noted that only a small share of Canadian exports currently goes beyond the domestic, U.S. and Japanese markets. Developing a commercial relationship capable of taking truckloads or container quantities of honey is very different from finding another store willing to stock a few cases.
A 50% Tariff Changes the Economics Before the Honey Reaches a Store
Tariffs are collected from the importer at the U.S. border, but the economic burden can spread across exporters, importers, distributors and consumers. For Saskatchewan producers, that matters because an American buyer can respond to the new duty in several ways: pay more, pressure the Canadian supplier to lower its price, absorb part of the cost through smaller margins, raise prices downstream, or replace the Canadian honey with product from a country that is not facing the same tariff. Industry representatives expect substitution to be the most immediate threat.
Economic research supports the idea that high tariffs substantially change sourcing decisions. Research published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2026 found that tariff increases imposed by the United States during 2025 were passed through to U.S. import prices at a rate of about 92%. Earlier research on the 2018-19 trade conflict likewise found that tariffs produced large changes in import patterns. That does not mean every dollar of Hannigan’s new tariff will automatically appear on a supermarket price tag. It does show why a 50% border charge can quickly make an established Canadian supplier commercially difficult for an American buyer to retain.
Finding New Markets Will Take More Than Redirecting a Truck
Japan is the obvious alternative because it already buys enormous quantities of Canadian honey, but expanding there is not guaranteed. Existing buyers negotiate around flavour, colour, processing standards, contracts, shipping costs and price. Europe offers another enormous consumer market, yet Saskatchewan industry representatives have pointed to regulatory complications — including rules affecting products connected to genetically modified crops — that can make some Canadian honey more difficult to place. Prairie honey frequently comes from canola-growing regions, making market requirements particularly relevant.
Domestic sales can absorb part of the pressure, but Canada’s own market has limits. Hannigan’s company says it has historically operated as a strongly export-oriented producer, shipping bulk honey in food-grade drums as well as selling packaged products. Increasing Canadian demand enough to replace a major industrial export buyer cannot happen instantly. There is also a price risk if honey formerly destined for the United States remains in Canada: additional supply competing for a finite number of domestic buyers can put downward pressure on what producers receive. For beekeepers, diversification is therefore less like switching destinations on a shipping label and more like rebuilding part of a sales network.
Ottawa Has Announced Billions in Support, but Aid Cannot Recreate a Customer
Canada has responded with countermeasures and new business assistance. The federal government announced on August 25 that it will impose matching tariffs on C$27.6 billion of U.S. goods beginning September 8. At the same time, Ottawa unveiled C$7.5 billion in new and expanded support measures. The package includes another C$1.5 billion for the Regional Tariff Response Initiative, C$500 million in new liquidity through the Business Development Bank of Canada, C$2 billion for a Canada Strong Diversification Fund and C$3.5 billion in worker and employer supports.
Those programs could matter to tariff-exposed companies that need financing, new equipment, market-development money or temporary liquidity. The government has also lowered the minimum revenue requirement for access to certain BDC tariff programs to C$1 million. However, there is no public confirmation that Hannigan Honey has applied for or received assistance under the newly announced measures, and eligibility will depend on individual program rules. More fundamentally, financing can help a producer survive a disruption; it cannot instantly replace a longstanding customer. For Hannigan and other Prairie beekeepers, the strongest form of relief would still be restoration of commercially viable access to the American market.
The Honey Dispute Shows How Quickly a Broad Tariff Can Reach Rural Canada
Honey represents a tiny fraction of the overall Canada-U.S. trading relationship, yet that is precisely what makes the Saskatchewan experience significant. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada calculates that the entire country’s honey exports were worth about C$53.8 million in 2025. That is small beside autos, energy, steel or other major sectors. For an individual beekeeper, however, the relevant number is not Canada’s total trade balance. It is whether a buyer that previously took 20%, 25% or 40% of annual production is still prepared to place an order.
Hannigan Honey began with one hive and 50 pounds of honey during the Second World War and grew into a business capable of producing roughly one million pounds in a typical year. Its current problem was not created by bees, weather or a failed harvest, but by a trade measure written hundreds of kilometres away. The hives around Shellbrook will continue producing. The much harder question is where that honey will be sold if the border that once absorbed a major share of the company’s output remains economically closed.
