Tomato plan unreasonable, FPAA says - The Packer

Tomato plan unreasonable, FPAA says

02/02/2013 08:47:00 PM
Tom Karst

The agreement defines controlled environment tomatoes "as tomatoes grown in a fully-enclosed permanent aluminum or fixed steel structure clad in glass, impermeable plastic, or polycarbonate using automated irrigation and climate control, including heating and ventilation capabilities, in an artificial medium using hydroponic methods."

Specialty  loose tomatoes have a reference price of 45 cents per pound for the winter and 35.68 cents per pound in the summer. Specialty packed tomatoes have a reference price of 59 cents per pound in the winter and 46.79 cents per pound in the summer. The agreement defines specialty tomatoes as grape, cherry, heirloom and cocktail tomatoes.

Under the current suspension agreement, minimum prices for all imported Mexican tomatoes, whether field-, shadehouse- or greenhouse grown, are 21.6 cents per pound in the winter and 17.2 cents per pound in the summer, according to the Commerce Department.

In a Feb. 4 news release, Jungmeyer said the new floor prices would serve only what he called the “inefficient” Florida tomato industry.

“It will also be a thorn in the side of U.S.-Mexican relations for years to come,” Jungmeyer said in the release.

The FPAA was not involved with the negotiations between the Commerce Department and Mexican growers. Mexican officials who signed the draft agreement include representatives of grower groups Confederation of Agriculture Associations of the State of Sinaloa, the Agricultural Council of Baja California, the Mexican Association of Protected Horticulture, the Sonora Regional Agricultural Union, and the National Confederation of Vegetable Producers.


Prev 1 2 3 Next All


Comments (29) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

J. Oliver    
Nogales AZ.  |  February, 03, 2013 at 07:35 AM

This comment has been deleted.

Jeff Genitempo    
Daalas,TX  |  February, 04, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Second that!

Gary    
Cincinnati  |  February, 04, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Open-field; adapted-environment; controlled-environment (greenhouse); winter tomatoes; summer tomatoes; specialty loose tomatoes; specialty packed tomatoes; shade house; hothouse or vine ripe; good arrival; fails to minimum standards. It's more than a reference price (since the minimum is a reference price, that in itself is a loophole.) Suggestion - include customers (receivers) in writing the policies or, as J. Oliver stated "memory lane one more time."

Max    
Immokalee  |  February, 04, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Well, the Florida Dept. of AG should be auditing import (Mexican) dealers to make sure that they are "selling" above "floor" pricing!

Jacob    
California  |  February, 04, 2013 at 11:18 AM

How about we all( Mexican And US growers) stop growing so many tomatoes. Let a market be a real market and we wont have to worry minimums

Juan    
February, 04, 2013 at 12:00 PM

At the end it seems to be a struggle between Cuban and Mexican immigrants into the US At the end the NAFTA, as well as the UNO, means nothing. The law is meaningless when it goes against one´s pocket.

Daniel Torres    
Gonzales Ca.  |  February, 04, 2013 at 03:38 PM

Do not forget about the "phantom" sales to a Canadian Invoicing address and the tomatoes are delivered to Dallas-Los Angeles-Philadelphia or any where you want them delivered!

Lanny White    
Firebaugh Ca.  |  February, 04, 2013 at 08:38 PM

Is that the way you conduct business Daniel? Sounds about right for all of you from Nogales!

Tom K    
Lenexa  |  February, 04, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Both sides seem a little/a lot disappointed in the deal. Reminds me of the proverb: "Bad, bad," says the buyer, But when he goes his way, then he boasts." Should be interesting to get some buying side reaction and see how this sorts out... Tom K

Jeff Genitempo    
Dallas, TX  |  February, 04, 2013 at 10:19 PM

In such a perfect world!

Jeff Genitempo    
Dallas, TX  |  February, 04, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Juan, no such as a free lunch.

Jack    
Naples  |  February, 05, 2013 at 09:05 AM

The Mexicans grow items cheaper and better than American farmers do. On the other hand we are talking about the supply of food to our country and I think a country should always protect its domestic food supply.

Andrew    
Phoenix Az  |  February, 05, 2013 at 09:07 AM

Now there's a concept! Let the market sort it out!

KC    
Florida  |  February, 05, 2013 at 09:20 AM

A floor price means nothing when they bill 500 @ 42.00 and then ship 1000 - now you're back to 21.00

Nick    
Nogales, AZ  |  February, 05, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Free markets should not be coerced into a direction by corporations-it does not make them efficient. The issue with this agreement is that it involves too many private interests. As with most political negotiations-there will always be private interests that take focus away from the real issues (market equilibrium) for their own personal gain. Raising the floor price does not provide market equilibrium, but an incentive for market manipulation. Anti-dumping regulations/measures have been long been argued to serve domestic firms and special interests. It provides incentive for predatory pricing in which large production firms can injure its foreign competitors by undercutting its prices, driving the competitor out of business, then later raising prices to capitalize on market share. Where is the regulation? Let’s not just make “plans” to make things better, but enforce those plans that should make this a better marketplace for everyone in the supply chain. The domestic industry that is arguing foul play should be part of the investigation as much as the foreign industry. Monopolies are made by political incentives and industry ignorance by those politicians implementing the policy. Until examples are made on those who are trying to ‘fix’ the market in their favor-this show will always be rigged for volatility and inefficiency.

Robert Korstanje    
Richland,Mi.  |  February, 05, 2013 at 11:10 AM

This type of agreement is very disturbing. It reconfirms the arm twisting by a regional commodity industry. Ultimately the consumer is held hostage on quality but also on price. It is a shame that the Chamber of Commerce is playing contradictory policies when it comes to free trade. Why not focus on food safety, nutrition and health through the consumption of tomatoes, regardless how we produce them. Soon we will need price special protection for greenhouse tomatoes, and other specialty pack. Florida will have to grow up and find ways to entice the food service and consumer to buy products at a premium price.

Robert    
Richland, Mi. 49083  |  February, 05, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Well articulated and should be embraced by all parties! Thanks, Robert

FP    
AZ  |  February, 05, 2013 at 12:33 PM

No one is talking about the consumer who will have to pay for this agreement. I am sure if this was left up to the consumer they would not ratify this. Though what do they know-right. It just comes out of their pocket.

Jay M.    
Chicago, IL  |  February, 05, 2013 at 01:36 PM

Yes, TK, it WILL be interesting to get the sentiment of receivers in general. Fact is, most folks at destination WANT a better market, but legitimately. Higher prices (in theory) improve margins and frankly keep smaller wholesalers from becoming FOB buyers, which keeps the produce chain in line, so to speak. At the same time, I think they want the small and large growers alilke to be profitable so there is a wider palette of product to choose from.

Max    
Immokalee  |  February, 05, 2013 at 03:29 PM

Maybe, but their soil is contaminated and the produce is probably NOT Safe to EAT!

John    
Calif.  |  February, 05, 2013 at 04:03 PM

yeah, the guys who counted the hanging chads can audit the importers. Strange a dealer is sanctioned for selling below the reference price but there is no sanction on the buy side.

dhinds    
Guadalajara  |  February, 05, 2013 at 06:03 PM

Fear-Mongering from Florida (Max's unsubstantiated claims)

FdS    
Culiacan Mexico  |  February, 05, 2013 at 07:03 PM

Evolution; The end of an era. You don't need so much labor, and you have better control of the environment. The unpredictable freezes will still get the fish. You would still need to place a some sort of plastic tarp on top of that sandy acid soil in Imokalee to keep drainage to a minimum, although evaporation will be at a maximum during the summer. That would be Aquaculture, as an option for Florida tomato farmers. PS- You would still need some sort of food safety guidelines tho.

JHR    
Arizona  |  February, 06, 2013 at 12:37 PM

We no longer have "free markets". Since Obama, now we have "fair markets". Socialism one step at a time.

JHR    
Arizona  |  February, 06, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Hey Max, are you the one who chained your workers to the packing line a couple years ago? Then threw tomatoes at them when they weren't working fast enough? Reported in the press? Abusing immigrants? Shame on the FL hypocrites.

Ed M.    
Salinas Ca.  |  February, 06, 2013 at 04:25 PM

why was this comment deleted? to much heat in the Nogales kitchen?

Dale    
Nogales  |  February, 08, 2013 at 09:26 AM

Lets wake up, the problem is not Florida/California vs Mexico but all of us verse the chains. Tomatoes are sold at the FOB level at 22cents/lb and the chains are selling them for $1.99 to $2.99 per pound. Food service will take their weekly amounts because they are on contracts and the new suspension levels will only increase the price of their contracts which will get passed on to consumers. We have taken tomatoes from a staple to a specialty item. Whats next lettuce?

Jimmy    
Denver  |  February, 08, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Mexico is dumping right now, tomatoes in the stores in Mexico are sky high in price but the laundering of money has to continue what ever it cost.

Bradley    
DFW  |  February, 08, 2013 at 03:56 PM

Your right on the money Dale.

JP    
February, 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Elaborate on your argument please. Have you even been to México, have you tested soil samples for what you called contamination? Have you tested produce samples to determine it´s not safe to eat? I am sure you are capable of building better arguments, make an effort.

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight