Tom Stenzel, executive director of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Alliance (CEA Alliance), sat down with The Packer to refute arguments made in favor of leaving the Tomato Suspension Agreement and the importance to the industry in renegotiating a new agreement.
Q: The Florida Tomato Exchange argues that the suspension agreement has failed five times over nearly 30 years to prevent injury from dumped tomatoes. Why do you believe continuing the agreement will work now, when it hasn’t in the past?
Stenzel: The allegation that the agreement hasn’t worked is not based in fact. The agreements for almost 30 years have maintained a stable tomato market, bringing high-quality, vine-ripe, greenhouse-grown tomatoes to American consumers. Florida field growers competition isn’t Mexico; it’s the “greenhouse revolution” that has won over consumers and retailers in the past 30 years.
Q: The Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission have found that Mexican tomatoes are being dumped and harming U.S. producers. How does the CEA Alliance reconcile its support for the agreement with these legal findings?
Stenzel: This determination is entirely based on 1996 data. The world has changed since then. Remember how long ago that is — we didn’t even have internet. In those 30 years, greenhouse tomatoes have won over consumers due to better taste and quality. The specialty tomatoes consumers enjoy today didn’t even exist in 1996. Florida grows predominantly rounds and Romas; these are an entirely different product from vine-ripe greenhouse grown.
Q: The FTE argues that maintaining the suspension agreement has contributed to the loss of U.S. family farms and production acreage. What is the CEA Alliance’s response to these claims?
Stenzel: It’s not the suspension agreement — it’s greenhouse tomatoes. Today, U.S.-grown greenhouse tomatoes are more than one-third of all domestic tomato production. USDA data shows production of U.S. greenhouse-grown tomatoes has increased by almost 70% from 2010 to 2023, while field-grown tomatoes have decreased by 49%. Why haven’t Florida growers invested in new technologies like greenhouses so they can compete?
Q: Do you think it’s possible to support both year-round availability through imports and a strong domestic field-grown tomato industry?
Stenzel: U.S. greenhouse-grown tomatoes will continue to outpace Florida field-grown due to quality. U.S. greenhouses are the future domestic supply of fresh tomatoes. Today, we’re more than one-third U.S. production; I expect we’ll pass field-grown production in the next couple of years.
Q: The FTE says the warnings about price spikes are based on flawed assumptions and that 2019 price data shows little impact from a temporary suspension. What evidence does the CEA Alliance rely on to argue that terminating the agreement would disrupt the market?
Stenzel: See the Arizona State study.
Q: How do you weigh consumer affordability against long-term concerns about overreliance on a single import source and the erosion of U.S. farm capacity?
Stenzel: We’re growing domestic tomato production — it’s just in high-tech greenhouses, not concentrated in Florida fields.
Q: The Florida Tomato Exchange views continued negotiation as ineffective and believes only strict enforcement of antidumping duties can restore a level playing field. Why does the CEA Alliance believe another negotiated agreement can succeed where the FTE said the five others have failed?
Stenzel: The five others have not failed. FTE agreed to every one, and American consumers benefited.
Q: Many CEA growers also operate in Canada and Mexico to ensure year-round supply. How would duties or termination of the agreement impact these cross-border operations and their ability to serve U.S. consumers consistently?
Stenzel: Companies that have invested in high-tech greenhouses grow in all three countries. Punishing them with a 17% tax on their Mexican product would limit their ability to invest in new U.S. greenhouses.
Q: The CEA Alliance says consumers could face “significant price increases and potential shortages” in specialty and vine-ripe greenhouse tomatoes if the suspension is abandoned. How would renegotiation address these concerns versus outright termination?
Stenzel: Punishing companies that have invested in greenhouse production makes no sense and damages their ability to bring out new varieties like snacking tomatoes on the vine.
Q: Many greenhouse growers fear that punitive tariffs on Mexico could create “massive confusion and uncertainty,” slowing further U.S. greenhouse investment. How do you weigh the risks of escalating trade friction against the need to address global competitiveness?
Stenzel: There is significant concern in the broader food industry about this battle between Florida and Mexico. There are certainly unexpected consequences in any trade dispute like this.
Q: What specific updates would you propose to make the framework fair to both field and greenhouse producers?
Stenzel: The parties need to negotiate that and remember we’re all working for the U.S. consumer.
