
At 23, she set out to modernize the spice trade. Now she's navigating Trump's tariffs
A former line cook who was doing marketing for a Bay Area grocer, Javeri Kadri 'knew [her] way around spices', but was new to the industry. Still, she booked a ticket home to Mumbai, hoping that she could get richer flavors into US pantries.
After reaching out to a number of growers, she met an organic turmeric farmer and, using her tax refund and a loan from her parents, bought a batch of the crop. It became the foundation of Diaspora Co, which Javeri Kadri launched the following year at just 23.
From the outset, Javeri Kadri aimed to bypass industrial spice farms, whose products she found bland, and instead source from farmers using regenerative practices. This meant working directly with the producers and paying them a living wage.
'By rough math, I probably reached out to around 2,500 farmers,' she said.
After two years of growing a US market for her turmeric, Javeri Kadri added black pepper to the mix. For a while after that, it was an 'exponential growth curve', she said.
Today Diaspora Co has 24 employees and sells around 40 different spices and blends, sourced from 140 different farms in India and Sri Lanka.
Diaspora Co is part of a wave of new spice companies, including Burlap & Barrel and Spicewalla, that center sourcing from sustainable farms, paying producers a living wage, building a more transparent (and streamlined) supply chain – steps they say allow them to put noticeably fresher spices on the market.
Javeri Kadri said it was common knowledge in the industry that because of the long supply chains, it can take years for spices to reach consumers, meaning they are 'expired before they even get to you'.
She said Diaspora Co farmers rotate their crops, maintain plant diversity and use water-retention systems – regenerative practices that not only minimize the farms' carbon footprint, but also make them more resilient to climate shocks.
That meant when extreme flooding struck Tamil Nadu, India, last year, Diaspora's cardamom farm 'had such great aerated soil and such good irrigation, they were only in standing water for a few hours before the soil and the property was able to flush itself clean', minimizing losses, she said.
Javeri Kadri stressed that her partners were already practicing sustainable agriculture before she arrived on the scene, but she connects them with each other. 'If you get them talking, they problem-solve themselves,' she said. 'They're all experts.'
Diaspora Co enjoys low worker turnover and lasting partnerships, something Javeri Kadri attributes to the company's commitment to fair wages. 'Once we build a relationship with them, it never goes anywhere,' she said.
In 2022, Diaspora Co launched a fund for farm workers, offering financial literacy workshops and providing seed money to open bank accounts, among other things. At a cardamom farm, workers asked for a community room and kitchen, which Javeri Kadri admitted wasn't what she expected. But 'it's what they need, not what we think sitting in America that they need,' she said. 'Really the point of it is that we listen to the workers directly.'
Franco Fubini, a Diaspora Co board member and founder and CEO of sustainable food sourcing platform Natoora, said Javeri Kadri wasn't just 'trading spices', she was building a unique supply chain and helping to catalyze demand for products that 'are created in harmony with nature'.
He added: 'Whenever you have a company that is creating a market by stimulating demand, buying the right product, paying the right price for it, and creating a healthy farming ecosystem – that is what revolutionizing the food system is all about.'
Diaspora's efforts to, as Javeri Kadri puts it, 'decolonize the spice trade' have also proven profitable. She's raised about $2.5m from angel investors in the last few years, and though she declined to share revenue numbers, she said the company had grown twentyfold over the past five years. Its spices are now sold in 400 US stores, and last year, with help from Natoora, Diaspora Co expanded into the UK.
Rather than pressuring existing partners to produce more and more, which could tax the land (and workers), Javeri Kadri said she plans to keep adding new farm partners in order to continue to boost production.
Javeri Kadri has other projects on the horizon, including a new Masala Chai tea blend, another blend developed with the former Top Chef host Padma Lakshmi, and a cookbook featuring recipes from partner farms. 'A lot of people tell me, 'Oh, Indian food is intimidating or heavy or complicated,' and the whole premise of the book is, how do we make it as bright and fresh and accessible as possible?' Javeri Kadri said.
She plans to roll out these projects while managing an altogether new challenge: This month, Donald Trump said he would raise tariffs on Indian products to 50%, a move that Javeri Kadri predicts will cost her company between $100,000 and $200,000 by the end of the year, leaving her no choice but to eventually raise prices. (She said they had already paid about $20,000 in tariffs since April, when the US imposed its initial levies.)
Javeri Kadri's entire business model is built on sourcing spices from the areas they are indigenous to in south Asia, which means she couldn't pivot her supply chain even if she wanted to.
'People will say, 'Well, we don't need those exotic ingredients anyway,'' she said. But, she added, 'there's nothing as American as apple pie. And apple pie relies on cinnamon. An American classic is vanilla ice cream; we don't grow vanilla. A lot of these ingredients are inherently not exotic, but they come from elsewhere.'
Tariffs could have an especially devastating effect on mission-driven companies like Diaspora, which operate on small margins even as they prioritize single-source farms and fair labor, said David Ortega, the Noel W Stuckman chair in food economics and policy at Michigan State University. 'These tariff price increases can really jeopardize those priorities.'
With the higher tariffs – and the economic uncertainty surrounding trade policy – Javeri Kadri acknowledges that it may be hard to grow in the US market over the coming years. Her approach?
'We grow elsewhere. We go where we're not penalized for doing business,' she said. 'It's very simple.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Modi's tax overhaul to strain finances but boost image amid US trade tensions
NEW DELHI, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's deepest tax cuts in eight years will strain government revenues but are winning praise from businesses and political pundits who say they will bolster his image in an ongoing trade fight with Washington. In the biggest tax overhaul since 2017, Modi's government on Saturday announced sweeping changes to the complex goods and services tax (GST) regime which will make daily essentials and electronics cheaper from October, helping consumers and also companies like Nestle, Samsung and LG Electronics. At the same time, in his Independence Day speech on Friday, Modi urged Indians to use more goods made domestically, echoing calls from many of his supporters to boycott U.S. products after Donald Trump hiked tariffs on imports from India to 50% as of August 27. The tax cut plan comes with costs given GST is a major revenue generator. IDFC First Bank says the cuts will boost India's GDP by 0.6 percentage points over 12 months but will cost the state and federal government $20 billion annually. But it will improve weak stock market sentiment and bring political dividends for Modi ahead of a critical state election in the eastern state of Bihar, said Rasheed Kidwai, a fellow at New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation. "GST reduction will impact everyone, unlike cuts to income tax, which is paid by only 3%-4% of the population. Modi is doing this as he is under a lot of pressure due to U.S. policies," said Kidwai. "The move will also help the stock market, which is now politically important as it has a lot of retail investors." India launched the major tax system in 2017 that subsumed local state taxes into the new, nationwide GST to unify its economy for the first time. But the biggest tax reform since India's independence faced criticism for its complex design that taxes products and services under four slabs - 5%, 12%, 18% and 28%. Last year, India said caramel popcorn would be taxed at 18% but the salted category at 5%, triggering criticism about a glaring example of GST's complexities. Under the new system, India will abolish the 28% slab - which includes cars and electronics - and move nearly all of the items under the 12% category to the lower 5% slab, benefitting many more consumer items and packaged foods. Government data shows the 28% and 12% tax slabs together garner 16% of India's annual GST revenue of roughly $250 billion last fiscal year. Bihar is a key state politically and goes to the polls by November. A recent survey by the VoteVibe agency showed Modi's opposition has an edge largely because of a lack of jobs. "Any tax cut has wide public appreciation. But of course, the timing is purely determined by political exigencies," said Dilip Cherian, a communications consultant and co-founder of Indian public relations firm Perfect Relations. "It seems to be an indication of some mixture of frustration as well as recognition that there is a broad public pushback against high and crippling rates of taxation." Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has seized on his tax announcement, posting on X that on the Hindu festival of lights, Diwali, "a brighter gift of simpler taxes and more savings is waiting for every Indian." Modi has vowed to protect farmers, fishermen and cattlemen, following Trump's surprise tariff announcement on India, after trade talks between New Delhi and Washington collapsed over disagreement on opening India's vast farm and dairy sectors and stopping Russian oil purchases. The latest round of trade talks between the two nations set for August 25-29 has also been called off. ($1 = 87.5080 Indian rupees)


The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump hiked tariffs on US imports. Now he's looking at exports – sparking fears of ‘dangerous precedent'
Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the White House bearing an unusual gift. 'This box was made in California,' Cook reassured his audience in the Oval Office this month, as he took off the lid. Inside was a glass plaque, engraved for its recipient, and a slab for the plaque to sit on. 'The base was made in Utah, and is 24-karat gold,' said Cook. Donald Trump appeared genuinely touched by the gift. But the plaque wasn't Cook's only offering: Apple announced that day it would invest another $100bn in US manufacturing. The timing appeared to work well for Apple. That day, Trump said Apple would be among the companies that would be exempt from a new US tariff on imported computer chips. The Art of the Deal looms large in the White House, where Trump is brokering agreements with powerful tech companies – in the midst of his trade war – that are reminiscent of the real estate transactions that launched him into fame. But in recent days, this dealmaking has entered uncharted waters. Two days after Cook and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang had a closed-door meeting with Trump at the White House. The president later announced Nvidia, along with its rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), will be allowed to sell certain artificial intelligence chips to Chinese companies – so long as they share 15% of their revenue with the US government. It was a dramatic about-face from Trump, who initially blocked the chips' exports in April. And it swiftly prompted suggestions that Nvidia was buying its way out of simmering tensions between Washington and Beijing. Trade experts say such a deal, where a company essentially pays the US government to export a good, could destabilize trading relations. Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that it creates 'the perception that export controls are up for sale'. 'If you create the perception that licenses, which are supposed to be determined on pure national security grounds, are up for sale, you potentially open up room for there to be this wave of lobbying for all sorts of really, dangerous, sensitive technologies,' Chorzempa said. 'I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set.' Though the White House announced the deal, it technically hasn't been rolled out yet, likely because of legal complications. The White House is calling the deal a 'revenue-sharing' agreement, but critics point out that it could also be considered a tax on exports, which may not be legal under US laws or the constitution. The 'legality' of the deal was 'still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce', White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week. Nvidia and AMD's AI chips are at the heart of the technological arms race between the US and China. Nvidia, which became the first publicly traded company to reach a $4tn valuation last month, creates the essential processing chips that are used to run and develop AI. The US government has played a role in this arms race over the last several years, setting regulations on what AI chips and manufacturing equipment can be sent to China. If China has less computing power, the country will be slower to develop AI, giving a clear advantage to the US. But despite the restrictions, China has been catching up, raising questions on how US policy should move forward. 'They haven't held them back as far as the advocates had hoped. The US has an enormous computing advantage over China, but their best models are only a few months behind our best models,' Chorzempa said. For US policymakers, 'the question they've had to grapple with is: Where do you draw the line?' The AI chips Nvidia and AMD can now sell to China aren't considered high-end. While they can be used for inference on trained models, they aren't powerful enough to train new AI models. When announcing the deal with Nvidia and AMD, Trump said the chip is 'an old chip that China already possesses … under a different label'. This is where a major debate on AI policy comes in. Those who take a hardline stance on the US's relationship with China say that allowing Chinese companies to purchase even an 'old chip' could still help the country get an advantage over the US. Others would say a restriction on such chips wouldn't be meaningful, and could even be counterproductive. To balance these two sides, the Trump administration is asking companies to pay up in order to export to China – a solution that people on both sides of the AI debate say is a precarious one. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance AI capabilities,' said John Moolenaar, a Republican US representative from Michigan, in a statement. But Trump's gut-reaction to dealmaking seems focused on the wallet. On Wednesday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent praised the arrangement and suggested it could be extended to other industries over time. 'I think that right now this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it?' he told Bloomberg. Julia Powles, executive director of the Institute for Technology, Law and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the deal opens up questions of whether similar pressure can be applied to other tech companies. 'What other quid pro quo might be asked in the future? The quid pro quo that would be of great concern to the [tech] sector is anything that reduces their reputation for privacy and security,' Powles said. 'That's thinking of government like a transactional operator, not like an institution with rules about when, how and for what it can extract taxes, levies and subsidies.' But that seems to be how the White House runs now. When explaining to the press how he made the deal, Trump said he told Huang: 'I want 20% if I'm going to approve this for you'. 'For the country, for our country. I don't want it myself,' the president added. 'And he said, 'Would you make it 15?' So we negotiated a little deal.'


The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump hiked tariffs on US imports. Now he's looking at exports – sparking fears of ‘dangerous precedent'
Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the White House bearing an unusual gift. 'This box was made in California,' Cook reassured his audience in the Oval Office this month, as he took off the lid. Inside was a glass plaque, engraved for its recipient, and a slab for the plaque to sit on. 'The base was made in Utah, and is 24-karat gold,' said Cook. Donald Trump appeared genuinely touched by the gift. But the plaque wasn't Cook's only offering: Apple announced that day it would invest another $100bn in US manufacturing. The timing appeared to work well for Apple. That day, Trump said Apple would be among the companies that would be exempt from a new US tariff on imported computer chips. The Art of the Deal looms large in the White House, where Trump is brokering agreements with powerful tech companies – in the midst of his trade war – that are reminiscent of the real estate transactions that launched him into fame. But in recent days, this dealmaking has entered uncharted waters. Two days after Cook and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang had a closed-door meeting with Trump at the White House. The president later announced Nvidia, along with its rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), will be allowed to sell certain artificial intelligence chips to Chinese companies – so long as they share 15% of their revenue with the US government. It was a dramatic about-face from Trump, who initially blocked the chips' exports in April. And it swiftly prompted suggestions that Nvidia was buying its way out of simmering tensions between Washington and Beijing. Trade experts say such a deal, where a company essentially pays the US government to export a good, could destabilize trading relations. Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that it creates 'the perception that export controls are up for sale'. 'If you create the perception that licenses, which are supposed to be determined on pure national security grounds, are up for sale, you potentially open up room for there to be this wave of lobbying for all sorts of really, dangerous, sensitive technologies,' Chorzempa said. 'I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set.' Though the White House announced the deal, it technically hasn't been rolled out yet, likely because of legal complications. The White House is calling the deal a 'revenue-sharing' agreement, but critics point out that it could also be considered a tax on exports, which may not be legal under US laws or the constitution. The 'legality' of the deal was 'still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce', White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week. Nvidia and AMD's AI chips are at the heart of the technological arms race between the US and China. Nvidia, which became the first publicly traded company to reach a $4tn valuation last month, creates the essential processing chips that are used to run and develop AI. The US government has played a role in this arms race over the last several years, setting regulations on what AI chips and manufacturing equipment can be sent to China. If China has less computing power, the country will be slower to develop AI, giving a clear advantage to the US. But despite the restrictions, China has been catching up, raising questions on how US policy should move forward. 'They haven't held them back as far as the advocates had hoped. The US has an enormous computing advantage over China, but their best models are only a few months behind our best models,' Chorzempa said. For US policymakers, 'the question they've had to grapple with is: Where do you draw the line?' The AI chips Nvidia and AMD can now sell to China aren't considered high-end. While they can be used for inference on trained models, they aren't powerful enough to train new AI models. When announcing the deal with Nvidia and AMD, Trump said the chip is 'an old chip that China already possesses … under a different label'. This is where a major debate on AI policy comes in. Those who take a hardline stance on the US's relationship with China say that allowing Chinese companies to purchase even an 'old chip' could still help the country get an advantage over the US. Others would say a restriction on such chips wouldn't be meaningful, and could even be counterproductive. To balance these two sides, the Trump administration is asking companies to pay up in order to export to China – a solution that people on both sides of the AI debate say is a precarious one. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance AI capabilities,' said John Moolenaar, a Republican US representative from Michigan, in a statement. But Trump's gut-reaction to dealmaking seems focused on the wallet. On Wednesday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent praised the arrangement and suggested it could be extended to other industries over time. 'I think that right now this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it?' he told Bloomberg. Julia Powles, executive director of the Institute for Technology, Law and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the deal opens up questions of whether similar pressure can be applied to other tech companies. 'What other quid pro quo might be asked in the future? The quid pro quo that would be of great concern to the [tech] sector is anything that reduces their reputation for privacy and security,' Powles said. 'That's thinking of government like a transactional operator, not like an institution with rules about when, how and for what it can extract taxes, levies and subsidies.' But that seems to be how the White House runs now. When explaining to the press how he made the deal, Trump said he told Huang: 'I want 20% if I'm going to approve this for you'. 'For the country, for our country. I don't want it myself,' the president added. 'And he said, 'Would you make it 15?' So we negotiated a little deal.'