Following news of the U.S. State Department halting operations in Michoacán, a report in the Mexican newspaper La Universal titled, The criminal plot behind the Mexican avocado, revealed that organized crime networks compromised the Mexican avocado export supply chain by manipulating the Comprehensive Avocado Harvesting System (SICOA) to introduce ineligible fruit into the U.S. market.
According to the report, investigations have implicated officials from the Association of Avocado Producers and Packers-Exporters of Mexico (APEAM) and local plant health boards in altering certification records. Unlike past suspensions caused by direct physical threats to inspectors, U.S. officials withdrew after detecting compromised product traceability, a distinction that mandates extensive audits and systemic program reviews.
In response to the disruption and ongoing security issues surrounding Mexican imports, the California Avocado Commission renewed its call for a seasonal tariff-rate quota to safeguard market integrity. As Mexican leaders and industry representatives move to bolster security presence and meet with USDA officials, domestic producers are closely monitoring the operational and regulatory fallout.
To learn more about the implications of these certification breaches and the changes the commission hopes to see in U.S.-Mexico avocado trade, The Packer connected with Ken Melban, president of the California Avocado Commission.
La Universal reports that organized crime compromised Mexico’s harvest system (SICOA) and manipulated product traceability, rather than issuing physical threats. What does this mean for the quality and phytosanitary standards for Mexican avocados imported to the U.S. in recent months? Do you see a Seasonal Tariff Rate Quota solving underlying fraud and compromised supply chains, rather than just curbing total import volume?
Melban: The most troubling aspect of these reports is that we simply cannot assume a certification system is protecting the U.S. market if the integrity of that system itself has been compromised. We are not saying that Mexican avocados already sold in the United States were unsafe or infested. What we are saying is that if fruit from ineligible orchards was able to enter the export stream through manipulated records, USDA needs to determine the scope of that breach before business-as-usual resumes. That means auditing the system, purging compromised registry information where necessary, and reestablishing reliable traceability from the orchard through export.
A seasonal TRQ is not a substitute for phytosanitary enforcement, and we have never presented it as one. These are complementary measures addressing two different problems. USDA oversight and rigorous inspections protect the integrity of the supply chain and U.S. agriculture.
A seasonal TRQ addresses the extraordinary volume pressure Mexican imports are putting on California growers during our harvest season. We need both: a trustworthy import program and a trade framework that does not allow domestic production to be overwhelmed during its primary marketing window. [CAC’s] Aug. 6 press release describes its proposed structure as a defined March-through-September volume entering at a zero tariff, with shipments above that level subject to a substantial tariff rate.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum suggested replacing withdrawn U.S. inspectors with domestic Senasica personnel. How does CAC view the phytosanitary and biosecurity risks if Washington allows foreign agency oversight, particularly regarding potential pest introductions or uncertified orchards feeding into U.S. markets?
The United States should not outsource responsibility for protecting American agriculture, particularly when the issue under investigation is whether the existing Mexican control and traceability systems have been compromised. Mexican avocados enter this country pursuant to an Operational Work Plan involving USDA-APHIS, Senasica and APEAM, which establishes the requirements governing the export program. Replacing U.S. oversight with Senasica personnel is not something Mexico can simply decide to do unilaterally.
The potential consequences are serious. If an uncertified orchard can be represented as eligible for export, USDA has to know whether the phytosanitary safeguards associated with orchard certification can still be relied upon.
That concern is heightened by the recent report of a larva at a Mexican packinghouse suspected of being a regulated pest. We believe rigorous USDA oversight, monitoring and pre-shipment controls must be fully restored, and confidence in the traceability system must be reestablished, before the U.S. should accept a return to standard operations.
The investigation implicates Mexican industry bodies like APEAM and local plant health boards in misrepresenting security data to their own government. What specific operational mechanisms or third-party audit requirements is CAC urging the USDA to mandate before Mexican avocado shipments are permitted to resume standard entry?
At a minimum, the allegations warrant a comprehensive USDA-led review of the export program before standard operations resume. That should include an audit of SICOA and its records, validation of the orchard registry, verification that every orchard participating in the export program is legitimately eligible, and a review of the roles played by packinghouses, exporters, certifying organizations and the local Plant Health Boards. If records have been compromised, the affected registries need to be purged and rebuilt from independently verified information.
CAC’s Aug. 7 press release specifically says manipulation of the certification system necessitates audits, purging registry lists and a comprehensive review, and notes that the investigation concerns how fruit from ineligible orchards entered the export market and who altered the records.
We also believe USDA must retain meaningful, independent oversight of certification and inspections. Any revised system should include USDA-approved controls capable of independently validating orchard eligibility and shipment traceability rather than simply accepting assurances from entities whose processes are under scrutiny.
The standard has to be straightforward: USDA must be able to independently trust and verify where the fruit came from and that every phytosanitary requirement was satisfied before it reaches the U.S. market. The release notes that replacing U.S. inspectors would require bilateral changes, reaccreditation of processes and a USDA-approved oversight framework.
California avocados currently account for roughly 10% of total domestic U.S. demand. If Washington imposes a strict seasonal TRQ between March and September, do you see any issues in meeting market demand without triggering sharp price spikes during peak consumption months?
A seasonal TRQ is not an embargo, and that distinction is important. CAC’s proposal would allow a defined volume of Mexican avocados to continue entering at a zero tariff during California’s March-through-September season. Imports above that level could still enter the market, but at a higher tariff rate. The objective is not to eliminate Mexican supply or create artificial scarcity. It is to restore some discipline to a market in which Mexican exports surged 35% in the first four months of 2026 alone.
The U.S. is a large avocado market supplied from multiple origins, including California. A properly designed TRQ should take market requirements into account while giving American growers a reasonable opportunity to compete during their own harvest. We are asking for a calibrated seasonal trade mechanism—not a closed border. Preserving domestic production is also important to long-term supply resilience. Driving California growers out of business would make U.S. consumers more dependent on foreign supply, not less.
Demanding seasonal quotas requires reopening or amending terms under the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement. How does CAC plan to address potential legal hurdles and do you see a potential for retaliatory tariffs from Mexico on other American agricultural exports if seasonal trade restrictions are implemented?
CAC is advocating for the seasonal TRQ through the USMCA review process precisely because trade policy has established processes for governments to address serious problems. We recognize that any measure ultimately adopted must be structured lawfully and implemented by the appropriate U.S. authorities. USTR and USDA have the expertise to determine the appropriate legal mechanism, and CAC’s role is to make the case for why California growers need an effective seasonal safeguard.
CAC’s Aug. 6 statement specifically calls for the TRQ to be addressed in the USMCA review.
As for retaliation, we are not going to speculate about what the Mexican government might do in response to a policy that has not yet been adopted. The U.S. should not refrain from addressing legitimate trade, phytosanitary and supply-chain-integrity concerns because of hypothetical retaliation. Our focus is on ensuring that trade with Mexico is fair, transparent and secure, while preserving a viable domestic avocado industry.
Your next read: California Avocado Growers Demand Seasonal Tariffs on Mexican Imports
