Ending a long-standing tomato suspension agreement could harm consumers in the U.S. and encourage retaliation by Mexico, one advocate for the deal says.
Britton Clarke, president of the Border Trade Alliance, wrote an opinion piece for the Rio Grande Guardian that warned U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico could be at “needless risk” because of protection sought by Florida tomato growers.
“The increased protection Florida is pursuing would involve placing high duties on Mexican produce, leading to increased prices, less variety for U.S. consumers, and a distribution monopoly for a few Florida growers, who ironically buy and repack Mexican tomatoes themselves,” she wrote in the column. Clarke said that the move also threatens the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, the successor agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
“More ominously, it invites retaliation from Mexico against successful U.S. agricultural exports such as corn, wheat, soybeans, pears, apples and pork,” Clarke wrote in the column. “In other words, a few companies in Florida will, if successful, turn a ‘win-win’ in trilateral trade into a total loss.”
The U.S. International Trade Commission is hearing arguments from lawyers for Mexican tomato growers who want the commission to preserve the suspension agreement despite the Department of Commerce decision to withdraw from the pact May 7 and then resume its antidumping investigation against Mexican tomatoes.
“Given the importance of reciprocal trade between our countries and the future implementation of the USMCA, the termination of the Tomato Suspension Agreement would not only be unfortunate but harmful,” Clarke wrote in the column.
Florida growers and some of the state’s lawmakers say what they called unfair trade practices by Mexico have cost growers billions every year and are seeking greater protection of domestic growers through legislation.
