U.S. Agriculture Tariffs

Canadian Mushroom Growers to Fight ‘Deeply Flawed’ U.S. Subsidy Ruling

Tue, 19 May 2026 12:25:58 GMT

Late last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a preliminary affirmative ruling that Canadian mushroom producers received unfair government subsidies. As part of the ruling, the federal government announced preliminary subsidy rates ranging from 1.62% to 4.97% on fresh mushroom imports from Canada.

U.S. Case for Tariff Enforcement

“This is an important and critical first step through a rigorous investigation the U.S. [Department] of Commerce conducted,” says Mark Currie, CEO of The Giorgi Cos. “Countervailing duty actions involving Canadian industries are relatively uncommon, underscoring the significance and merit of this affirmative determination and the seriousness with which federal investigators viewed the case. And it’s only the first step.”

A separate antidumping ruling is expected later this summer.

Canadian Industry Warns of a ‘Deeply Flawed’ Precedent

However, the Canadian mushroom industry says that the Department of Commerce’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent using a standard tax treatment that both the U.S. and Canadian governments use as the basis of the antidumping claim.

Ryan Koeslag, executive vice president and CEO of Mushrooms Canada, called the preliminary conclusion “deeply flawed” in a news release.

“The overwhelming basis for the preliminary countervailing duty rate appears to be mainstream agricultural tax treatment, including provincial sales tax exemptions available to farmers generally,” Koeslag says in a statement. “Treating broad-based agricultural tax measures as unfair subsidies is contrary to common sense and unfairly penalizes Canadian mushroom growers for participating in programs available across the agricultural sector in any number of countries.”

Lewis Macleod, CEO of South Mill Champs, says the company, which has mushroom farms in both Canada and the U.S., has reached out to other U.S. produce sectors to share the potential implications of this legal precedent on other industries.

“What this ruling essentially says is that if a produce or agricultural grower buys new equipment in the year and gets a sales tax exemption, essentially, they’re opening themselves up to a successful countervailing petition from a U.S. grower,” Macleod says. “And for doing nothing more than receiving the same support which the U.S. producers benefit from.”

Currie says the case is about Canadian growers “selling mushrooms in the U.S. below actual cost of production.”

“The dangerous precedent we should all be concerned about is American farmers being undercut by private equity and unfair business practices that put American mushroom farmers out of business and further shrink a domestic supply,” Currie says.

Beyond Tariffs: The Dispute Over Farm Accounting Practices

Macleod says the Department of Commerce has also opened a new inquiry targeting mushrooms’ cash-basis taxation in Canada, which is another common tax treatment.

“The inquiry flies in the face of the long-held policy positions of U.S. farming interests that do not view cash basis taxation as some form of subsidy, but merely a method of taxation to address conditions unique to farming,” South Mill Champs says in a letter to specialty crop commodity groups. “If farmers are pushed into accrual-based taxation, they could owe taxes on crops or livestock not yet sold, creating serious, potentially existential, liquidity problems.”

Supply Chain Impacts and the Cost of Defense

Koeslag says that the countervailing duties and the pending antidumping duties likely won’t impact Canadian mushroom exports to the U.S. While Canadian growers will likely see these tariffs as frustrating, it’s not enough to disrupt mushroom sales into the U.S.

“We’re still going to see Canadian mushrooms flow south into the United States, not only because of the quality, but I think it will still be price-competitive in comparison to what they have in the states,” he says.

Macleod notes, “At this level of margin, I think the broader issue from our perspective is the frustrations that we’re now being caught in a process that just adds an awful lot of ongoing cost, with zero benefit to product quality, or for the mushroom industry as a whole,” adding, “Regardless, it’s not going to fundamentally change the supply picture as there is a demand for good mushrooms grown in new infrastructure providing better quality to consumers.”

Currie says The Giorgi Cos. has led an industrywide effort to invest dollars into marketing to the next generation of mushroom consumers.

“The future depends in part on a fair playing field in which Canadian producers are not unfairly subsidized or dumping below production costs,” he says.

A common counter-argument from Canadian producers is that this trade dispute isn’t actually about unfair subsidies but rather that the Canadian mushroom industry has aggressively invested in highly automated, modern, climate-controlled facilities, while many domestic U.S. farms have been slow to move away from older, labor-intensive production systems.

“Close if not 100% of the mushrooms exported from Canada are grown on new infrastructure. This compares with approximately only 25% of U.S. mushroom production,” Macleod says. “We have both new and old infrastructure and know firsthand the difference in quality — a difference that U.S. customers also recognize and show through their buying decisions.”

Currie refutes that claim, saying, “The issue isn’t the type of operations. The argument isn’t about infrastructure. The issue is Canada is dumping mushrooms and unfairly disrupting the marketplace.

“The U.S. mushroom industry continues investing in operations, technology, growing practices and people to meet customer demand and strengthen domestic production. Innovation in American mushroom production takes many forms, including advanced infrastructure, operational investment and generations of growing expertise,” Currie continues.

Mushrooms Canada has already invested more than $1 million to defend this suit, and Koeslag says the mandatory respondents in the case will likely pay double or triple that amount to defend the suit; this comes at a time when the industry has already struggled with increasing consumption.

“All of our farmers are having to contribute to that right now,” Koeslag says of the legal fees. “It’s unfortunate. We should be focusing on how to market these healthy mushrooms during an inflationary issue, maybe go back to the blend and extend and other ways to try and make every person’s grocery bill go further.”

Macleod says these countervailing duties will set a harmful precedent, hurt the North American mushroom industry and consumers.

“Our view is that all players in the industry should be coming together to promote the benefits of mushrooms and grow the market, rather than undertaking costly and distracting actions like these, which only serve to add costs and increase prices — neither of which are good for customers,” he says.

Koeslag says the association will continue to fight the claims and can still make arguments about this announced countervailing rate as it applies to agricultural tax exemptions.

Legal Timeline

A preliminary antidumping rate will likely be announced this summer, a timeline that Koeslag says could easily see extensions.

“We’ll still have more arguments,” he says. “There’ll still be more data collected, but it will be preliminarily set as they start collecting the tariffs from the countervail and the antidumping duties likely in August. That’s all in holding until the final determination is made.”

The Department of Commerce officially extended its deadline for the preliminary less-than-fair-value (antidumping) determination to July 13, pushing the broader tariff rollout into late summer.

Then, Koeslag says, following the preliminary rates, there will be additional investigations throughout 2026 by the U.S. International Trade Commission into whether or not Canadian mushroom growers have caused material harm to the U.S. fresh mushroom industry.

“What could happen, like the other tariffs that were placed earlier in 2025, they could be returned after finding all the information that there really has been no material damage caused whatsoever,” he says. “That will be our hope, and that will be what we think that they should find with the data that’s coming out of the mandatory respondents and the general information that we provided. It’s still ongoing, and we’re not going to see the end of this for likely, still some time.”

Macleod agrees, noting, “We know the ITC process needs to play out to where we’re confident that it’ll demonstrate that there’s no harm to the U.S. industry. We’ve done nothing wrong and abide by fair trade practices.”

The $40 Taste of Home: Diaspora Demand Drives Indian Mango Surge

Tue, 12 May 2026 22:49:35 GMT

For the Indian diaspora in the U.S., a box of mangoes isn’t just a produce purchase; it’s a $40 plane ticket home. While Latin American varieties dominate the mainstream market, Kaushal Khakhar, CEO of India’s Kay Bee Exports, says the skyrocketing demand for Indian alphonso and kesar varieties proves that emotional heritage and superior flavor profiles can bypass rational pricing logic.

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported premium varieties of Indian mangoes, such as alphonso and kesar, are retailing in the U.S. for $50 to $60 per box of 10 to 12 mangoes — putting the stone fruit on a price point on par with lobster tails.

“There was a fair bit of exaggeration in those comments,” says Khakhar, who told The Packer that while the true price is closer to $40 per box of 10 to 12 mangoes, what isn’t an exaggeration is the U.S.-based Indian community’s appetite for a taste of home.

“I think the emotion of Indian consumers has been very well captured so that there is no denying the Indian diaspora feels that this is their way to connect to their homeland, and the flavor of the mango is way different and superior to other mangoes,” says Khakhar. “So, I think in that sense, there is a definite craving for Indian mangoes, and that’s why … they are happy to pay $40 a case [of 10 to 12] for the Indian mango.

“Does it mean the flavor is four times superior?” he continues. “No, so it’s not a rational purchase. It is more an emotional purchase. And the Indian diaspora is a very affluent community. They can spend more for good food. And this is one thing that they can proudly claim is their heritage.”

In India, a country that boasts over 1,000 mango varieties, the battle for the U.S. mango market has narrowed down to a tactical race between two titans: the delicate, high-demand alphonso and the sturdier, export-ready kesar, says Khakhar. What’s more, a preference for alphonso mangoes may have slowed market demand for Indian mango imports to the U.S.

“[Kesar and alphonso] are the No. 1 and No. 2 varieties in the U.S. Kesar is the most stable. The most demanded variety is alphonso, but because it is so delicate and it does not yield good commercial outcomes, kesar has overtaken alphonso,” Khakhar says.

The CEO says that inconsistent eating experience with alphonso has led to kesar’s takeover.

“People have actually graduated now to kesar because it’s a rational thing that when you buy kesar, you don’t go wrong. But with alphonso, it’s a hit and a miss in terms of internal issues,” he says. “That’s why the kesar has probably been 50% of all the varieties that India [exports]. It’s by far the most dominant variety that is coming to the U.S.”

Kay Bee Exports CEO Kaushal Khakhar sees major potential for Indian mangoes in the U.S. market.

(Photo courtesy of Kay Bee Exports)

India Dominates in Mangoes

Despite India’s status as a global powerhouse — accounting for roughly 40% to 45% of world production — the country has historically struggled to translate its massive domestic yield into export dominance, says Khakhar, who notes that this trend is shifting.

A key factor in the global mango trade is the complementary timing between regional rivals India and Pakistan. While both nations produce high-quality varieties, their harvest windows rarely overlap; the Indian season peaks in April, May and June, while Pakistani varieties typically arrive in June, July and August, says Khakhar. This sequential availability allows the Asian diaspora and broader consumer base to transition from Indian mangoes to Pakistani varieties as the summer progresses, effectively extending the window for South Asian produce in European and Western markets.

The U.S. market represents a particularly fertile ground for expansion. According to Khakhar, India currently exports approximately 4,000 tons of mangoes to the U.S. annually. Kay Bee Exports has secured a significant foothold in this specific corridor, handling between 1,000 and 1,200 tons, or roughly a quarter to a third of the total Indian market share in the U.S.

While these numbers are currently a small fraction of India’s overall production, they represent a high-growth sector that has been steadily building momentum since market access was first established in 2007.

“It took a very long time for India to really start picking up in mango export numbers,” says Khakhar. “I think the first 10 to 15 years were [defined by] complicated logistics, and people were not able to execute the delivery of good quality mangoes. I [also] think everyone was focusing on alphonso, and that was the reason why the market never really grew, because they were trying the wrong variety.”

While Kay Bee Exports has its own mango farms, to sustain its growth, the company is leveraging India’s network of millions of small-scale farmers to scale its operations to meet skyrocketing international demand.

“And now people realize that they should go slow on alphonso and focus on other things and that has really helped India as we establish consumer confidence, and hence the growth in the market,” he says. “I anticipate India will grow from 4,000 tons right now to touch 10,000 tons in the next five to seven years in the U.S. market.”

Overcoming the Irradiation Knowledge Gap

While Indian mango exporters are now backing the right horse with the switch from alphonso to kesar, the industry faces another hurdle with the U.S. irradiation requirement for all mangoes from India entering the U.S. market.

Irradiation is a necessary treatment for Indian mangoes because it is the only effective method to eliminate the mango stone weevil, says Khakhar. While hot water treatments can address fruit flies, they are ineffective against the stone weevil, a pest of significant concern for U.S. agricultural authorities. Consequently, irradiation is required by U.S. regulations to ensure that these pests are not introduced into the country, making it a critical gateway for Indian mango exports.

The CEO also emphasizes that irradiation is a superior alternative to other common treatments.

“Irradiation is a great process because it is very gentle on the fruit,” he says. “It is definitely not as toxic as methyl bromide fumigation. It is also not as intrusive on the fruit as hot water or any other treatments.”

Despite being FDA-approved and backed by global research confirming its safety, Khakhar expresses disappointment that consumer misconceptions and retailer hesitation — particularly among high-end and organic grocers — continue to hinder the market potential of irradiated fruits.

‘Manageable’ Mango Prices for Consumers

While recent headlines might suggest that Indian mango prices in the U.S. have reached epic heights, the reality on the ground is far more nuanced.

Khakhar says the actual cost increase has been roughly 10% compared to last year — a figure he describes as “manageable” and “normal food inflation.”

What’s currently driving up the cost of mango imports from India is air freight costs, which have jumped by 20% due to the conflict in the Middle East, says Khakhar, who adds the surge has been partially offset by a favorable exchange rate and the removal of import tariffs that previously plagued the trade.

Though Khakhar points out that even when tariffs were in place, they were often a minor factor in the final retail price of mangoes. Because air freight accounts for roughly 70% of a mango’s cost and is not subject to tariffs, a 10% tax only applied to the remaining 30% of the value — effectively a 3% impact.

Ultimately, the 2026 Indian mango season is defined by resilience, says Khakhar, with exporters like Kay Bee maintaining a steady supply of the in-demand fruit.

“If the Middle East conflict does normalize quickly — right now it is in a pause phase — but if everything normalizes and then takes a couple of weeks for air freight prices to come down, we may go even below last year’s prices,” says Khakhar. “But right now, we are higher than that with the current way things stand.

“But the market size is very large, and our aspiration is to take the flavor of Indian mangoes to a wider community,” he says.

Is Global Trade Volatility Putting the U.S. Fresh Produce Industry at Risk?

Mon, 11 May 2026 22:06:26 GMT

Editor’s Note: This is the latest report in a series that explores the shifting economic landscape of the specialty crop industry.

When asked to describe the current state of the global fresh produce industry and trade, some people have used words like “uncertainty,” “volatility” and “complex.”

Whether it’s navigating reciprocal tariffs or rising fuel charges during the unrest in the Middle East, produce industry insiders say those issues put the global fresh produce industry in the hot seat.

Jonathan Coppess, Gardner associate professor of agricultural policy at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, says regardless of the commodity, the current state of growing “is a level of chaos and uncertainty that ... you’re trying to manage in an operation that itself is full of risk.”

“This has been a tough climate to operate your business in,” says Anthony Serafino, president of the Exp Group, a multinational company specializing in the production, importation and distribution of tropical fruits and vegetables from Central and South America. “Geopolitical issues are the biggest headwind you can face in running a business. A lot of things are out of your control.”

Why Export Markets Dictate Domestic Produce Prices

Exports are a critical part of the fresh produce industry. U.S. Apple Association President and CEO Jim Bair says if export markets tighten, more fruit stays in the domestic market; that puts downward pressure on prices, which hurts growers.

“There’s really nothing hidden about the threat of trade volatility for apple growers,” he says. “When markets become unstable, the consequences are immediate and visible: lost sales, lower prices, disrupted customer relationships and even more pressure on already razor-thin margins.”

Washington Apple Commission President Michael Schadler also points out that one state’s exports can impact the country’s other growers who don’t export.

“An economic study from years ago found that if 5 million boxes of fresh apples destined for the export market were instead added to the domestic market, the income loss to growers would be about $55 million,” he says.

Long Road to Market Recovery

Bair says the U.S. apple industry continues to navigate the fallout from 2018 retaliatory tariffs from India, where the country pushed the total duty on U.S. apples to 70%. Before 2018, India was the No. 2 export market for U.S. apples — and growing fast. USApple worked with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to lift these retaliatory tariffs, which reopened the market in 2023.

“By 2025, India had climbed back to the No. 5 export destination for U.S. apples, buying roughly 2.2 million bushels worth nearly $40 million in 2024-25,” he says. “That is a meaningful rebound, but it remains well below the predisruption peak, underscoring how difficult it is to regain market share once competitors establish themselves.”

Schadler highlights just how deep that disruption went for Pacific Northwest growers, as the tariff effectively slashed exports from 8 million boxes to virtually zero overnight.

“The global apple market is very competitive, and once you lose market share, it can be very hard to get it back,” he says.

Riley Bushue, vice president of the Northwest Horticultural Council, estimates a $900 million loss since 2018 due to restricted access to China. The industry now looks to unlock expanded access to other markets to fill that gap.

“You’re trying to offset what has been lost and continues to be lost over and over in China every year,” he says.

Navigating High Tariffs and the Race for Global Market Access

Bushue estimates the U.S. exports its apples, pears and cherries to nearly 50 countries around the world, and he says it’s important for the industry to remove trade barriers and expand access.

“We’re looking at places where, as an industry, we can compete and maintain that competitiveness in the face of trade barriers, removing those trade barriers,” he says. “Because at the end of the day, we’re a high-cost-of-production product. We’re not going to be the low-cost supplier in these markets. So, remaining competitive is the important focus point.”

Bushue says the U.S. often has no tariffs on imported produce, but countries such as Thailand put a 40% tariff on imported cherries without a domestic production and a 40-year struggle to get access to South Korea.

He says growers will ask him, “Why is it that the United States can find a way to sell a nuclear attack submarine to Australia, but we can’t sell them an apple? And why is it China has access to Australia, but we don’t?” And they often express frustration at how long it takes to realize trade deals.

“There is a real concern bordering on frustration with, you know, the need for expanding these markets — just the pace of how things have been for a long time,” he says, noting there has been positive momentum with some of the newly announced trade deals. “It’s a robust trade policy from the U.S. to go after these long-standing and unfair trade barriers.”

Schadler points to promising deals with Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Cambodia. For example, the U.S.-Taiwan Agreement on Reciprocal Trade would eliminate a 20% tariff on U.S. apples.

Bushue agrees, noting, “It’s a direct result of the U.S. trying to increase leverage on these to get these things resolved.”

Protecting the North American Supply Chain

Mexico and Canada remain the U.S. fresh produce industry’s most vital partners. Mexico accounts for approximately 40% of all U.S. apple exports; combined with Canada, it represents more than 50% of the export market. And as Mexico, Canada and the U.S. come together to renegotiate the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, any disruption to that tariff-free framework could harm U.S. exports.

“The biggest risk is any disruption to the stable, tariff-free framework that has allowed Mexico and Canada to become our top two export markets,” Bushue says. “Even the introduction of uncertainty creates a risk. Once buyers begin to question whether the North American market will remain stable and tariff-free, purchasing patterns can shift quickly.”

It was a tough year for the watermelon industry last year, says George Szczepanski, executive director of the National Watermelon Association. Cold weather leading into Memorial Day 2025 meant people weren’t necessarily thinking watermelons. And, he says, the industry also faced pressure from Canadian tariffs.

“If we are pushing Canada to the point where they are saying every watermelon costs 25% more, it’s hurting this domestic industry,” he says.

Watermelon exports to Canada are an important part of trade for U.S. watermelon growers, some of whom import melons from Mexico and Central America. This global watermelon industry means trade dynamics can be high stakes when it comes to fresh produce.

But Szczepanski says he sees the reasoning behind this volatility.

“We all think that what we’re doing now is just really counterintuitive and does not make sense the way that traditional trade economics have been taught and delivered and structured,” Szczepanski says. “This more aggressive setup — really trying to protect the domestic industry — there’s a logic behind it.”

And the aggressive trade strategy might have a different impact on manufacturing or other items traded on the global stage, but the volatility might be a valuable tool in negotiation; it’s not always the best for fresh produce, which has such a short life cycle.

“When changes in trade dynamics happen, and things are already planted and it is harvested and cut, and you have a ticking time bomb — in terms of what revenue you can or you cannot capture from the minute that it’s cut from the vine or plucked from the bush or the tree — the uncertainty is, it’s just one more problem for produce that we just don’t have the bandwidth for,” Szczepanski says.

Rising Costs and the Threat of Imports

Beyond trade policy, growers and importers are facing higher costs. Serafino of Exp Group says fuel expenses are increasing month over month, adding that bunker fuel prices are up, and that also hits imported produce, and large multinational companies are all increasing fuel surcharges.

Serafino says as diesel prices increase, his company now has to calculate weekly freight charges, which it has never had to do. He says fuel expenses have increased month over month by thousands of dollars, and that’s just not something his company can absorb.

“For the first time in our company’s history, we’re adjusting logistics costs weekly — not monthly, not quarterly, weekly — and that’s how we’re operating,” he says. “Our delivery costs are switching on a weekly basis.”

On top of rising fuel charges, the unrest in the Middle East also affects fertilizer prices, plastic packaging and more.

“I guess if there’s any silver lining in this situation, [it] is that if you can operate a business in this type of environment, you’re Teflon,” he says.

Coppess says those rising costs of fuel charges come at a cost.

“You got all the diesel you need to ship,” he says. “You got all the fossil fuels that go into fertilizer and chemical production. Everything is wrapped in plastic, which is made from oil.”

Coppess says he’s also concerned that as the industry struggles to break tough inflationary pressures, chaos will become quid pro quo.

“I also worry that we’ll normalize it,” he says. “We only outrun the pain of that for so long, yeah — and it’s usually not very long.

Balancing Year-Round Availability With Domestic Survival

Coppess notes that even if the U.S. successfully negotiates better trade deals, the domestic grower might still end up as the casualty. He warns that focusing solely on the “balance of trade” can be a deceptive metric if it ignores who is actually growing the food.

“While the balance of trade might improve, it might have more dire consequences for growers and the domestic fresh produce industry,” Coppess says. “If the balance of trade overall is better ... but we’re importing more food, that may not be an ideal situation.”

Schadler says that as production costs continue to rise, it puts the U.S. apple industry in a vulnerable position.

“It’s not that hard to imagine a scenario in the future when the high cost of U.S. production creates an opportunity for imported apples, which could eventually pose a meaningful threat to domestic apple production,” he says. “I’m not forecasting that, but there are certainly other fruit and vegetable crops in the U.S. that have experienced that dynamic over the last few decades.”

And it’s happening in other commodities. Bret Erickson, senior vice president of Business Affairs for Little Bear Produce, points to USDA Economic Research Service data that reveals that domestic specialty crop production has declined from 193 billion pounds in 2012 to 155 billion pounds just 10 years later. He says the data also shows that fruit and vegetable exports from Mexico to the U.S. have increased from $4 billion to $20 billion over roughly the same period.

“That growth has fundamentally reshaped the U.S. produce market,” he says. “That’s not a coincidence; it reflects a policy environment where domestic production is becoming less competitive, and imports are replacing domestically grown.”

Little Bear Produce imports greens, onions and melons from Mexico to complement its domestic programs in Texas and New Jersey. Erickson says these imports help the company serve as a year-round supplier to retailers.

“Having reliable suppliers who deliver on quality, strong food safety and consistency is efficient and good business sense,” he says. “Buyers want a trusted source for their product.”

Erickson says while consumers have high expectations of produce availability year-round, regardless of the crop, this fuels the need for imports to balance out domestic production. But, he says, the cost of production and the regulatory burdens growers face have made it a challenge to profitably grow produce in the U.S. (Future stories in this series will look at both the cost of production and regulatory burdens on growers.)

“I think we should all be worried that we are more reliant than ever on other countries to supply our food, particularly healthy, whole foods like fruits and vegetables,” he says. “Nutritional security and food security is national security. That phrase has almost become something of a cliché, but clichés exist for a reason; there is typically a lot of truth to them.”

Nick Oomen’s family business grows organic cabbage, zucchini, yellow squash and bell peppers, as well as conventional asparagus, butternut and acorn squash, broccoli, green beans, carrots, potatoes and jack-o’-lantern pumpkins.

Oomen, a fourth-generation specialty crop grower with West MI Produce in Hart, Mich., says his family has struggled to compete with Mexican and Peruvian asparagus imports.

“My family owns an IQF freezer for frozen vegetables,” he says. “We just can’t compete with them on the price, because they can deliver it cheaper than we can. … They can pay their labor force 10% of what I have to pay mine. They’re just at a competitive advantage with their cost of labor compared to what we’re doing.

“All we can do is try to put a product in the store as cheaply as we possibly can, and hope that we can hang on,” he adds.

Oomen says he’s not advocating for the banning of imports but rather to have a level playing field for domestic commodities.

“It does get to a point where there’s certain advantages other countries have that we don’t have here,” he says.

Marc Arnusch, a third-generation seed wheat, barley, craft grains, silage corn, alfalfa and former onion grower in Prospect Valley, Colo., says he used to see imported onions at his local grocery store right down the road.

“That was a tough, tough pill to swallow,” he says. “The overwhelming majority of our onions were shipped outside of the state. There were very few that actually stayed in the state. So, to have these low-cost and, in some cases, different kinds of offerings coming from out of the country is tough to compete with.”

Sixth-generation grower Lisa Tate, managing owner of Rancho Filoso, says the market has changed rapidly for lemons, with Argentinian lemons flooding the market and putting extreme pressure on U.S. growers.

Tate, who grows citrus, avocados and pomegranates in Ventura County, Calif., says when the U.S. opened lemon imports from Argentina in early 2018, the market deteriorated rapidly. However, 2019 was when the volume really impacted U.S. growers.

“If the lemons get here and they don’t have a good price for it, they’re not going to turn around and ship them back,” she says. “They’re just going to dump them here in the market. That’s going to lower the price for everybody.”

Tate says it’s time for consumers to understand where their fresh produce truly comes from and decide to support domestic production.

“If the United States is the biggest consumer and everybody wants to import their stuff, then there’s got to be some way that we can help support locally grown stuff,” she says. “We have to look out for our farmers if we as a nation decide that this is valuable.”

Tate says this might mean consumers have to pay more for domestic produce, with the understanding that it benefits U.S. growers. She says something as simple as a few more cents per lemon is all it would take.

“I really do believe people would be willing to pay that amount,” she says. “I think we can do it as a country. It’s a solvable problem.”

Canadian Retailers Lean Into Domestic Produce Amid Lingering Trade Tensions

Sun, 03 May 2026 23:18:34 GMT

TORONTO — As part of the 2026 Canadian Produce Marketing Association Conference and Trade Show, attendees had the opportunity to tour some of Ontario’s leading grocery retailers April 28, where anti-American sentiment continues to linger across the produce aisle and store.

Spurred by the Trump administration’s 2025 implementation of sweeping tariffs and ongoing threats of making Canada the 51^st state, many Canadians have pivoted toward a “buy domestic” movement, replacing American goods with Canadian alternatives as both a personal form of economic retaliation and a statement of national sovereignty.

The CPMA city retail tour first took attendees to a Longo’s grocery store at the Leaside Village shopping complex. Formerly a locomotive maintenance shop for Toronto’s railway system, the site is now a stunning grocery store with soaring ceilings, some of the highest sales among the company’s network of 43 stores and a destination produce department that sells 6,000 to 7,000 fresh-squeezed orange juices from the produce department each week alone.

A Longo’s store in Toronto sells 6,000 to 7,000 fresh-squeezed orange juices from the produce department each week alone.

(Photo: Jennifer Strailey)

“I like to think we’re the best produce department in Toronto,” says Edward Vandergriend, assistant department manager.

On the day of the CPMA tour, Longo’s featured a prominent Foodland Ontario’s “Good Things Grow in Ontario” display of greenhouse-grown produce. The campaign, launched in 1977, is a long-standing initiative by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture to promote local food consumption. Retail stores with the best display of local goods can win a prize.

Vandergriend says while shopper sentiment has softened slightly on U.S.-grown produce, his customers’ first choice is Canadian-grown.

“We have a big push on greenhouse-grown produce and a huge push on Canadian-grown and local produce,” says Vandergriend.

But the realities are that Longo’s also needs to supplement its shelves with U.S.-grown produce that’s more competitively priced than domestically grown.

“My motivation is to sell more product,” says Vandergriend. “The customer shift to ‘Do you have anything other than American’ is ongoing, and we still have customers asking for Canadian product, but we want to offer savings as well. The U.S. is a huge producer. We want to offer good pricing to our customers, and sometimes that means American partnerships.”

The U.S. also grows certain produce items, like citrus, that don’t grow in Canada.

“We need to balance local product with savings and supply that come from U.S. produce,” explains Vandergriend, who says he’s hearing about some U.S. businesses — not just in produce, but across food and beverage — now struggling because they no longer sell to Canada.

Vandergriend breaks down how this plays out in the salad category, for example. He says Longo’s Leaside Village location used to sell Canada’s GoodLeaf Farms vertically grown lettuce in a 4-foot space. As demand has intensified for Canadian-grown greens, the retailer has bumped up the display to 8 feet. However, price and availability can be compelling selling points, and Longo’s store brand of lettuce is a U.S.-grown product.

During the CPMA retail tour, the Longo’s greens were on sale, which “still moves the product,” says Vandergriend.

“Arugula from the U.S. is selling well because there’s only an American option,” he adds. “Shoppers will buy American if there’s no other choice.”

It’s a similar story at Loblaws’ Maple Leaf Gardens 85,000-square-foot flagship store, which uses Canadian maple leaves on store signage to draw attention to domestic produce.

As Loblaws’ shoppers are keen to buy Canadian produce, the retailer uses the maple leaf symbol on signage to indicate domestically grown products.

(Photo: Jennifer Strailey)

“Our shoppers still don’t like to see American products, and while price point and affordability come into play, our customers are not shy about telling us what they want and what they don’t,” says Deneth Kahadawala, store manager. “The anti-American sentiment is still going strong.”

And at Sobeys’ Queensway Flagship store, Dionne McCready, manager of retail operations for Ontario, says there’s a big focus on local.

“In Ontario, and the GTA [Greater Toronto area] especially, shoppers are very vocal about wanting local with the things going on in the world,” she says.

As a result, Sobeys emphasizes locally grown and Ontario greenhouse-grown in POS throughout the produce aisle.

The theme continued on the show floor, where a Produce Trends business session April 29 featured intelligence from Francis Parisien, senior vice president for NielsenIQ Canada, who says 54% of Canadians report trying to eat more domestic products and visit local businesses. Additionally, NIQ finds that 42% of Canadians, while aiming to avoid U.S. products, will buy American-grown if there’s no Canadian alternative.

Can a USMCA Renewal Repair North American Produce Trade, Consumer Sentiment?

Another education session at the 2026 CPMA show explored the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), as it approaches its high-stakes, six-year review on July 1.

The panel, moderated by Jim DiMenna of Red Sun Farms, presented compelling perspectives on the subject. Featured speakers included Richard Lee of Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers; Dave Puglia of Western Growers Association; Richard Schouten of The Netherlands’ Fresh Produce Centre; and Fernando Cruz of Grupo Comercial Terroir del Valle.

During the discussion, Puglia, WGA president and CEO and a co-chair of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, said Canadian consumer backlash on U.S. produce items has impacted U.S. specialty crop growers’ bottom line.

In a follow-up interview with The Packer after the session, Puglia said the extent to which U.S. produce companies are impacted by anti-American sentiment in Canada depends on which commodities you grow.

From left, Jim DiMenna of Red Sun Farms; Dave Puglia of Western Growers Association; Richard Schouten of The Netherlands’ Fresh Produce Centre; Richard Lee of Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers; and Fernando Cruz of Grupo Comercial Terroir del Valle discuss USMCA at the CPMA Show.

(Photo: Jennifer Strailey)

“Canada has well-developed production of certain things that are also produced in California. For Canadian retailers with consumer sentiment running in the direction it is, there is at least an opening to buy more Canadian produce over California-grown produce,” says Puglia. “If it’s the same item and the quality is roughly the same, but there may be a price premium, because California operates at a high level of efficiency. It all depends on which category we’re talking about.”

But Puglia is also quick to point out that a number of fruits, vegetables and tree nuts are not produced commercially at scale in Canada as they are in California and Arizona.

“As Canadian retailers look to source and feel the pressure from their customers to not have American produce on the shelves, it still might be hard to find alternatives — just given the sheer volume that comes out of the Western U.S. at a very high level of consistency and quality.”

Puglia says growers in the West are feeling the pushback on American products.

“I think it’s dangerous to paint with too broad a brush, but certainly we’ve heard the [anti-American] sentiment reflected back to our members from Canadian retailers,” he says. “So, it’s there. I haven’t any doubt about that.

“The commercial tethers between the two countries, all depending on what crop we’re talking about, are stronger in some cases, and in other cases, not as strong. And maybe there are tethers that can be created somewhere else,” he continues. “Some of the OVGA members have an opportunity to jump into an opening. But as Richard [Lee] said, they also export a very large amount [85%] of what they grow in Ontario to the U.S. So, this is really complicated stuff.”

Puglia says USMCA has created commercial networks that have evolved over decades “for all the right reasons.”

“We have a situation that is uncomfortable and unfortunate and unwanted in terms of tone and rhetoric, but that alone doesn’t dismantle a decadeslong constructed commercial network,” he says. “It can break some of the linkages, but they may be re-linked in a different way. I think the salve to this wound is perpetuation of USMCA as it relates to the fresh produce industry, and again, possibly with some changes.”

Puglia advocates for the continuation of the USMCA as the primary framework for the produce industry, though he suggests specific enhancements to strengthen the agreement. His primary concern lies in the disparity between food safety inspection rates for domestic products versus Mexican imports. To protect the industry from categorywide market collapses following illness outbreaks, he proposes that the USMCA mandate greater diligence from the FDA and stricter adherence to the Foreign Supplier Verification Program.

In addition to safety standards, Puglia calls for “more cement” around labor provisions, specifically demanding that Mexico improve its diligence in enforcing agreed-upon labor standards. By tightening these rules, WGA aims to ensure a more level playing field for American growers who operate under different regulatory costs.

Finally, Puglia distinguishes his position from more protectionist groups, such as the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, which has called for tariff-rate quotas. While acknowledging the Trump administration’s protectionist leanings, he remains optimistic that the core merits of the USMCA’s produce provisions are strong enough to stand on their own without resorting to extreme trade barriers.

“I don’t know where all of this is going to land, but I do think at the end of the day — and this could be silly optimism — but I really do think at the end of the day, the success of the fresh produce aspects of USMCA stand on their own,” says Puglia. “I think that is an entirely defensible construct that will be renewed — possibly with some changes — but a tariff-free movement of fresh produce between the three countries fundamentally renewed.”

Red Alert: What’s Behind the Surge in Tomato Prices

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 21:21:58 GMT

A “perfect storm” of freezing Florida temperatures earlier this year, heavy rains and disease in Mexico, dark winter months for Canadian greenhouse growers, rising geopolitical tensions and more has sent tomato prices soaring, leaving grocers and suppliers struggling to fill the void.

Tomato prices were up 15.3% in March and are now up nearly 23% compared to the same time last year, according to Consumer Price Index data.

“It’s been a tough month for tomatoes with low supply,” says Dino DiLaudo, senior vice president of sales and marketing for greenhouse grower Topline Farms in Leamington, Ontario.

DiLaudo says disease in some Mexican tomato fields — coupled with reduced plantings sparked by the termination of the Tomato Suspension Agreement in July 2025 that put a 17% tariff on tomatoes imported from Mexico — has put the squeeze on supplies, as has the freeze in Florida.

Topline Farms’ Dino DiLaudo discussed the “perfect storm” that led to a surge in tomato prices at Viva Fresh 2026 in San Antonio.

(Photo by Jennifer Strailey)

The early 2026 Florida freeze severely impacted tomato production, with estimated losses reaching up to 80% of the crop in that state.

And the ongoing war with Iran has triggered a spike in global energy prices. Specifically, higher diesel costs are making the transportation of tomatoes more expensive, and these logistical costs are being passed down through the supply chain.

“It was a perfect storm,” says DiLaudo. “Shortage drives demand up. And when the whole market is short, it’s hard to fill contracts,” he says. “There’s a lot of demand for greenhouse-grown because of the price of field-grown.”

Paul Murracas, senior account manager with Leamington-based Pure Flavor, which is also feeling the pinch from tomato shortages, says a lack of light this winter has been another factor.

“There was no sun in Canada this winter,” says Murracas. “Even for greenhouses with lights, it’s an issue because you can’t run your lights all the time.”

Pure Flavor’s Paul Murracas and Alaina Wilkins discuss the challenges of greenhouse-grown tomatoes this winter at Viva Fresh 2026.

(Photo by Jennifer Strailey)

In Canada, where greenhouse growers export more than 85% of their produce to the U.S., the significant lack of light this winter has further constrained production levels. But Murracas says Pure Flavor is making every effort to weather the storm and not raise prices.

“We’re doing the best we can to supply our partners,” he says. “We don’t look at our business from a one-to-two-month perspective; we look at our long-term relationships with our customers.”

Retailers Focus on Supplier Partnerships

“Tomatoes have been a very interesting category to say the least,” says Justin Rowe, produce business category manager for Northeastern Shared Services, which operates banners including Tops Friendly Markets, Price Chopper and Market 32. “It seems like it has been a long string of issues, and we just can’t get ahead in the category.”

Rowe says while the termination of the Tomato Suspension Agreement was the start of the disruption, it was still navigable for grocery retailers like Northeastern Shared Services.

“Being that we are in the Northeast, we source a lot of our greenhouse product from Canada and our home state of New York,” he says. “We do source field-grown tomatoes out of Mexico during certain times of the year, but we did not see the need to raise retails in most instances.”

But an unusually cold winter in the Northeast, with a long string of days in single-digit temperatures, impacted greenhouse tomato growers in the region.

“With the rising costs of utilities, greenhouses couldn’t afford to keep the grow lights on, and production took a big hit,” says Rowe. “TOVs [tomatoes on the vine] and beefsteaks specifically bore the brunt of it. This caused us to back off promotions and prorate our stores to spread out what we were getting from our suppliers.”

Rowe says the grocer still managed to get through most of that time frame without raising tomato prices.

“The Florida freeze really turned things upside down,” he says. “While we have remained largely in stock on field-grown tomatoes, we did back off from most promotions due to lack of supply and rising costs.

“Certain varieties, like romas, have gotten so high [that] we did need to raise our retails due to costs,” he continues. “Most of the retails we raised were done more to slow down the category than compete with rising costs. We just don’t have the supply to be promotional.”

While romas, beefsteaks and tomatoes on the vine were impacted, snacking tomatoes are another story.

At Viva Fresh 2026 in San Antonio, Janine Meyer of NatureSweet said snacking tomatoes have been spared from the tomato squeeze.

(Photo by Jennifer Strailey)

Snacking tomatoes have been spared in the tomato shortage, says Janine Meyer, vice president of sales for grocery and club at San Antonio-based NatureSweet.

“We’re fine,” she says. “We’re vertically integrated, and most of our business is in snacking tomatoes. Vertical integration is key. It shields us from the noise.”

Amid the tightening tomato market, snacking tomatoes saved the day at Northeastern Shared Services’ stores.

“The one bright spot within the category has been greenhouse-grown snacking tomatoes,” says Rowe. “We have relied on them heavily to fill the promotional void caused by the disruption on most round tomatoes.

“This is the time when having partnerships is the most important,” he adds. “We understand that costs need to go up when supply takes this much of a hit. However, we still need tomatoes on our shelves. We work together with our partners to make sure we get our fair share of the supply and only pass on the rising costs to consumers if it’s absolutely necessary.”

15% Tariff Lifted on Ecuadorian Fruit, Floral Imports

Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:54:50 GMT

The produce industry is celebrating the U.S.-Ecuador Agreement on Reciprocal Trade , which carries meaningful implications for importers of bananas, pineapples, mangoes and floral from Ecuador into the U.S. market, says the International Fresh Produce Association.

Under the agreement, the U.S. will apply most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff treatment to Ecuadorian cut flowers and agricultural goods such as bananas, pineapples and mangoes.

IFPA says this translates to the removal of the additional 15% tariff that has been in place, bringing effective duty rates back to the base MFN rate which varies by product. Under this agreement, Ecuador will also remove or reduce barriers on over 90% of the U.S. agriculture products exported into the country, which includes U.S. grown produce.

While full duty-free access was not achieved, as the Generalized System of Preferences has not been renewed, this agreement meaningfully reduces the cost burden on floral importers and helps restore more predictable trade flows, said IFPA in a news release.

“We are encouraged by this agreement and what it means for the movement of floral products from Ecuador into the U.S. market,” says Colleen Fagundus, IFPA’s director of floral. “Reducing these tariff barriers is an important step toward ensuring our members can operate with greater certainty and competitiveness. We will continue to advocate for further progress, including GSP renewal and additional reciprocal trade agreements in the region, that would benefit floral importers across the supply chain.”

IFPA says it is committed to monitoring developments as this agreement goes into practice, which is currently targeted for August 2026, and will keep members informed as additional details become available.

IFPA Applauds Supreme Court Decision on Tariffs

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:37:56 GMT

The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) issued the following statement following the Supreme Court of the United States’ 6–3 ruling that President Donald Trump’s tariff policies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unconstitutional.

“IFPA welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision clarifying the limits of IEEPA and reaffirming that broad, country-specific tariffs fall outside its intended scope. The global trade of fresh produce is essential to the health and well-being of people in every nation, and today’s ruling helps restore predictability to a uniquely complex, seasonally driven marketplace.

“While targeted tariffs can be a tool for addressing inequities between trading partners, the broad application of this blunt instrument can disrupt markets, raise consumer costs, and place unnecessary strain on growers and producers across the supply chain. IFPA’s successful advocacy for key exemptions in 2025 underscored the importance of protecting access to fresh fruits and vegetables that cannot be grown domestically at scale or year-round.

“IFPA does not believe tariffs should be used as a default response to every trade concern facing the United States, nor should this ruling simply prompt a shift to other tariff authorities. Instead, IFPA hopes this ruling allows policymakers to move beyond broad tariff actions and continue working toward lower trade barriers that ensure affordable access to fresh produce and floral products.

“While tariffs have been one challenge for the fresh produce and floral sectors, IFPA appreciates the administration’s commitment to easing regulatory burdens and supporting American agriculture and looks forward to working with policymakers on long-term solutions — such as equitable trade agreements, regulatory reform, and workforce stability — that strengthen food security and ensure affordable, accessible produce for all families.”

IFPA also provided the following background on IEEPA tariffs:
There are several categories of IEEPA-related measures imposed by President Trump. First, under the fentanyl and migration justification, tariffs include 35% on most goods from Canada (with a reduced 10% rate for certain energy imports under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement exemption), 25% on most goods from Mexico (with a reduced 10% rate for potash imports under the USMCA exemption) and 10% on most goods from China.

Second, under the reciprocal and trade deficit justification, the president established a baseline 10% tariff on imports from all trading partners through an executive order issued April 2, 2025, with higher, country-specific rates applied in some cases; certain products are exempt, including those listed in Annex II, which has been modified multiple times to exclude additional products from IEEPA-related tariffs.

Finally, other IEEPA tariff announcements include 40% tariffs on select goods from Brazil, 25% tariffs on most goods from India and 25% tariffs related to Venezuelan oil applied to designated countries.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Use of Emergency Powers for Trump's Tariffs

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:32:46 GMT

In a landmark ruling with major implications for U.S. trade and agriculture, the Supreme Court has struck down President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs. The 6-3 decision confirms that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president authority to issue broad import duties.

The Supreme Court case known as “Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump” is an end to a legal battle that started nearly a year ago. The tariffs at issue, which were originally imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were first challenged in court in April 2025 when companies, including educational toy makers Learning Resources and hand2mind, sued in federal court shortly after the duties were announced. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

In the case Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump the court ruled, “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”

“IEEPA gives the president significant authority over transactions involving foreign property, including the importation of goods. But in that generous delegation, one power is conspicuously missing,” said the decision. “Nothing in IEEPA’s text, nor anything in its context, enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs. And needless to say, without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand.”

The Court’s ruling on Friday has major implications.

Initially, grain futures weakened after the ruling. Soybeans turned lower on fears the decision takes away a key bargaining chip ahead of Trump’s April meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, raising questions about whether Beijing will follow through on additional soybean purchases. The ruling, however, could be supportive in the event it prompts China to drop its tariff on U.S. soybean imports.

Stocks rallied, with major U.S. indexes extending gains after the ruling, while Treasury yields jumped and the U.S. dollar weakened against major rivals.

The decision is a blow to President Trump’s economic agenda. The president imposed what he called reciprocal tariffs on several countries in April 2025, calling trade deficits a national emergency.

What This Means for Trump’s Tariffs

Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit, had previously struck down these tariffs as exceeding executive authority. The Supreme Court affirmed those rulings, which means tariffs imposed solely under IEEPA now lack a valid legal foundation. Importers could see injunctions halting collections, and companies that already paid duties may seek refunds, potentially putting billions of dollars of federal revenue at risk.

But not all Trump-era tariffs are affected. Duties imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which are deemed as national security tariffs, as well as the ones under Section 301 of the Trade Act, which are China-related tariffs, rely on separate statutory authority and remain intact unless challenged independently.

What This Means for Farmers, Agriculture and the Future of Trade

For agriculture, the ruling adds uncertainty to future trade leverage strategies. Many farm groups have viewed tariffs as both a negotiating tool and a source of retaliation risk.

The Court’s decision reinforces separation-of-powers limits, signaling that major shifts in tariff policy must originate in Congress, not through broad interpretations of emergency statutes.

Now that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs has been struck down as exceeding executive authority, tariffs based solely on that law are unlikely to stand without congressional approval, while those enacted under other trade statutes remain in place, for now.

The ruling narrows presidential flexibility on trade and could reshape how future administrations approach tariff policy.

President Trump Reacts By Announcing New Tariffs

Speaking later in the day on Friday, President Trump announced he would issue a new 10% “global tariff,” while also arguing the Court’s decision limited one tool but clarified others, claiming the justices had effectively strengthened presidential trade authority by narrowing the scope of IEEPA rather than tariffs themselves.

In a swift response to the high court’s decision, Trump announced Friday that he will sign an executive order imposing a new 10% “global tariff,” just hours after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down his sweeping “reciprocal” import duties in a 6-3 ruling.

The new tariffs will be invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and layered on top of other levies that remain in place following the court’s decision. Speaking during a White House press briefing, Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing” and said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” for lacking “the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

The court’s ruling invalidated the legal foundation underpinning many of the tariffs Trump has argued are essential to strengthening the U.S. economy and rebuilding domestic manufacturing capacity. Despite the setback, Trump signaled he will pursue alternative avenues to maintain and expand tariffs without congressional approval.

“I don’t have to,” Trump said when asked why he would not work with lawmakers. “I have the right to do tariffs.”

His remarks grew increasingly pointed, including criticism of Justices he nominated who joined the majority. Trump said he believed their decision was “terrible” and “an embarrassment,” underscoring his frustration with the outcome.

Tariffs imposed under Section 122 can remain in effect for up to 150 days. Any extension beyond that period would require approval from Congress.

Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Tariffs

Farmers for Free Trade quickly weighed in following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the President’s authority to impose global tariffs under IEEPA.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important step toward restoring predictability and the rule of law in American trade policy,” says Brian Kuehl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade. “Tariffs imposed under IEEPA have been devastating for American farmers, driving up costs for inputs like fertilizer, equipment, and parts while triggering retaliatory tariffs that cut off critical export markets. Farmers have been caught in the crossfire, paying more for what they need while losing access to the customers they depend on.”

Kuehl notes while the ruling removes one source of uncertainty, concerns remain that new tariffs could be imposed through other legal avenues.

“Any new approach would likely invite the same retaliation from our trading partners that has already caused so much damage to American farmers. Tariffs hurt farmers on both ends, raising what they pay and reducing where they can sell,” he says.

The priority should now be stabilizing trade relationships and expanding market access for U.S. agricultural products, Kuehl adds, urging the administration to work with Congress on comprehensive trade solutions that “open markets rather than close them.”

According to Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economics at Fitch Ratings, the Court’s ruling is a material rollback because more than 60% of the 2025 tariffs effectively vanish. The U.S. effective tariff rate drops from about 13% to around 6%, removing more than $200 billion in expected annual tariff collections.

“Call it Liberation Day 2.0 — arguably the first one with tangible upside for U.S. consumers and corporate profitability,” he says. “However, the bigger macro takeaway is not just ‘lower tariffs,’ but ‘higher tariff-regime uncertainty.’ The odds that tariffs reappear in a revised form remain meaningful. Layer on potential tariff refunds, and you introduce a messy operational and legal overhang that amplifies economic uncertainty.”

In response to the ruling, the American Soybean Association (ASA) issued the following statement from Scott Metzger, ASA President and Ohio farmer: “The case at the Supreme Court has been closely followed by soybean farmers who have seen the cost of inputs rise over the past year due to tariffs. U.S. soybean growers are reliant upon imports for critical farming tools like fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and agriculture equipment. Moving forward, certainty and dependable market access are essential for U.S. soy to remain competitive globally. Because farmers are caught in a cost-price squeeze and ag input costs remain high, we urge the President to refrain from imposing tariffs on agricultural inputs using other authorities. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration and Congress to strengthen market opportunities and support a stable farm economy for generations to come.”

The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision clarifying the limits of IEEPA and reaffirming that broad, country-specific tariffs fall outside its intended scope.

“While targeted tariffs can be a tool for addressing inequities between trading partners, the broad application of this blunt instrument can disrupt markets, raise consumer costs, and place unnecessary strain on growers and producers across the supply chain,” IFPA said in a statement. “IFPA does not believe tariffs should be used as a default response to every trade concern facing the United States, nor should this ruling simply prompt a shift to other tariff authorities. Instead, IFPA hopes this ruling allows policymakers to move beyond broad tariff actions and continue working toward lower trade barriers that ensure affordable access to fresh produce and floral products.

“While tariffs have been one challenge for the fresh produce and floral sectors, IFPA appreciates the administration’s commitment to easing regulatory burdens and supporting American agriculture and looks forward to working with policymakers on long-term solutions — such as equitable trade agreements, regulatory reform and workforce stability — that strengthen food security and ensure affordable, accessible produce for all families.”

What Now? Exploring Alternatives to IEEPA Tariffs

While the Supreme Court’s ruling removes the legal foundation for tariffs imposed under IEEPA, it does not mean U.S. import duties are going away anytime soon. According to a recent op-ed , President Trump still has options when it comes to using tariffs as a tool. However, trade experts say while there are other options, statutory guardrails may limit some of the more rapid changes seen under IEEPA.

According to the recent analysis, the possible alternatives include:

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: The basis for existing China tariffs. This gives the U.S. Trade Representative broad authority to target “unfair” foreign trade practices, allowing for unilateral action once investigations conclude.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Used for national security tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, and other goods. Courts have been deferential to the administration’s claims, and new tariffs under this authority could generate revenue comparable to IEEPA tariffs.
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: Intended to address balance-of-payments deficits through import surcharges or quotas. While the statute has never been used for this purpose, it allows short-term tariffs of up to 15 percent, which could be reimposed in cycles without a congressional vote, though this strategy would likely face legal challenges.

As the op-ed points out, the Supreme Court ruling eliminates one controversial path for tariffs, but Washington still has multiple avenues to impose import duties, and legal challenges are almost certain to follow any new moves.

How Texas is Unlocking Fresh Produce Opportunity Despite Challenges

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 13:35:21 GMT

While last year’s tariffs and trade tensions impacted the fresh produce industry around the globe, in Texas, which shares the largest U.S. border with Mexico, continuation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is top of mind with its first six-year review scheduled for July 1 this year.

The Texas A&M Center for North American Studies finds that during 2022 the U.S. exported $28.5 billion worth of agricultural products to Mexico, up from $4.67 billion since NAFTA took effect in 1994. That same study finds Texas agricultural exports to the country have contributed to the growth of total U.S. exports to Mexico. During 2022, Texas accounted for 19%, or $5.55 billion, of total U.S. exports to Mexico.

“In 2024, from Mexico through Texas by truck, we received 13.1 billion pounds of fresh produce,” says Dante Galeazzi, president and CEO of the Texas International Produce Association, which represents the business, economic and political interests of Texas-grown fruits and vegetables.

As the USMCA review approaches, TIPA is engaging with all three governments to shine a light on what’s at stake, he says.

“We want to be part of the conversation to remind folks in the administration — and not just in our administration — but in Canada and Mexico, of the importance of this agreement,” Galeazzi says. “Because it has really set the table for how fresh produce is exchanged in North America for over 30 years. And so, if we are going to look at changes, we have to be mindful of the impact, not just on future business but [also] on existing investments.”

Galeazzi points to multimillion-dollar produce facilities built in North America based on USMCA.

“If the agreement goes away, what happens to those investments? And furthermore, do you really want to put those investments in an even greater challenging position when the economy in all three of our countries is already in a challenging position?” he asks. “Don’t we want to be securing existing investments, with existing jobs, with existing profitability, rather than exposing all of those to potential damages during these trade agreements?”

Dante Galeazzi is president and CEO of the Texas International Produce Association.

(Photo courtesy of TIPA)

While Galeazzi acknowledges USMCA isn’t perfect and aspects could use modernization, “we are pushing folks to remind all the administrations that the USMCA agreement has a lot of benefits,” he says.

There is also talk that the Trump administration may want to move to separate bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada, he says.

“We are talking about a potential disruption to the supply chain, if the agreements are not handled correctly,” he says. “Now, I think there’s a way that we can move forward, both maintaining USMCA or going the direction of two bilaterals, but the point is we are trying to stress to all three countries that we have got to do as much as possible to not interrupt or disturb the flow of fresh produce.”

Investment and Opportunity in Age of Uncertainty

Despite these challenges, TIPA sees continued investment in Texas.

“We have people here that are still building warehouses in South Texas. We have people that are still planning on importing into the Port of Houston,” Galeazzi says. “We have growers who still want to expand their operations, but it’s hard to do that when so much of the business environment is outside of their control and covered by uncertainty.”

Gaining certainty with North American trading partners is key to unlocking opportunity, he notes.

“The sooner we get an agreement in place, the sooner everyone gets back to business,” Galeazzi says. “And the sooner we get the right agreement in place, the sooner those investments start flowing.

“There is a ton of opportunity and potential out there, but it’s bottled up right now,” he continues. “And the sooner we can get past that obstacle, the sooner those opportunities can be realized.”

Water, Labor and Tariffs Prove a Triple Threat

“Last year was an extremely challenging year, especially in terms of profitability, not just for our Texas growers but also for our importers,” Galeazzi says.

Weather and water shortages played a major role, says Galeazzi, who notes Texas water shortages led to decreased production of between 30% and 40% this season for growers in the state.

“A lot of the country is suffering from water shortages, and just like in Texas, we are seeing that result in production shortages or production limitations,” he says. “Now with limited supply, you would hope to see increased prices. Unfortunately, we didn’t see that. Instead, we saw increased cost of inputs. So, not only were you paying for tariffs, but you were also paying higher prices for just about everything it took to grow your crop: your ag inputs, your chemicals, your seed, your labor, your materials.

“Across the board prices went up, and a lot of that was driven by tariffs,” says Galeazzi, who adds the produce industry is still feeling the impact of tariffs.

“We get a lot of our ag equipment from Europe, where we still have some unfriendly tariff rates. We get a lot of our ag inputs, like fertilizers, from Canada, Eastern Europe and South America, all of which had tariffs at some point during the season last year,” he says. “So, you can see how this compounds the problem. Because if you’re already dealing with weak markets — and that’s tough on any given year — but now you add the increased price of inputs, and you add the impact of tariffs, and you add weak markets, come on, how many punches can our guys take?”

The perishability of fresh fruits and vegetables adds to the complexity and vulnerability of produce trade.

“Fresh produce is not like widgets. When it’s ready to go, it’s ready to go. That’s why last year in March, when there were three days of tariffs, guess who paid a lot of those tariffs? Fresh produce,” Galeazzi says. “We didn’t have a choice. We couldn’t sit around waiting to find out what was going to happen.”

While labor remains a universal challenge, Galeazzi sees some progress being made with H-2A reform.

“The government finally heard what we’ve been saying for the better part of a decade. ‘Your formula for AEWR [Adverse Effect Wage Rates] is not correct. The methodology is not correct. It can be better. Let us work with you and help you,” he says. “It only took 10 years of saying that and three court cases, but now they’re at the table ready to talk.”

Galeazzi says TIPA will join other organizations, led by Georgia, in Washington, D.C., in late February to have conversations with lawmakers about formulas, costs and other markers that can be used to determine an AEWR that “makes sense.”

“We’re not aiming for cheap labor; that’s not the goal,” Galeazzi says. “We want certainty, and we want a clear path forward. You can’t have a clear path when you are having to anticipate an X-percent increase on your labor year over year, without having any idea what that increase is going to be.

“Texas is growing its H-2A use, and what I’m hearing from our farmers is they really love the quality of worker they’re getting with H-2A. Where they’re challenged is a lot of the bureaucracy of applying for those workers,” he says.

Viva Fresh 2026 Returns to San Antonio

Opportunities for driving growth in fresh produce still abound, and it’s these opportunities that Galeazzi says the industry will have the chance to embrace at Viva Fresh Expo 2026.

Hosted by TIPA, this year’s Viva Fresh is set to take place at the JW Marriott San Antonio Hill Country Resort & Spa, April 16-18.

“I love Viva Fresh because it’s an industry event, but it really feels like a gathering of friends,” Galeazzi says. “You actually have this chance to sit down and visit with people and engage and network and build those relationships.”

This year’s Viva Fresh promises ample opportunity for connection, he says. From golf to pickleball to a wine experience to the expo floor, Viva Fresh combines networking, education and fun.

“Viva Fresh is really an opportunity for us to celebrate the region,” he says. “There are so many cool things that happen here in our region. Texas is the land of eternal summer, except for about three or four days where we get crazy winter storms. And we have so many people who are constantly pushing new ideas, that are building new enterprises, that are bringing new things to life, and Viva Fresh is the celebration of that.”

Fresh Produce Must Avoid Becoming ‘Collateral Damage’ in USMCA Trade Talks, Says CPMA President

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 13:29:30 GMT

BERLIN — While 2025 was a year in produce defined by tariffs , 2026 will likely focus on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), slated for its first six-year joint review on July 1, 2026.

At last week’s Fruit Logistica, The Packer sat down with Canadian Produce Marketing Association President Ron Lemaire, who has repeatedly urged for the full 16-year renewal of USMCA, to discuss the current state of negotiations, reasons for optimism and what the industry needs to do now ahead of July.

“Starting in 2026, I was quite optimistic. We had good consultations on USMCA in the U.S. as well as in Mexico and Canada, and there was a willingness from the produce sector to look at doing no harm to USMCA, but trying to find improvements where necessary,” he says. “I think the primary goal for our sector is, let’s keep the trilateral deal in play.”

One challenge, says Lemaire, is talk of the U.S. government pursuing a bilateral rather than trilateral agreement.

“When meeting with officials with the U.S. government, there has been a lot of discussion on having more bilateral deals than trilateral, and I know for our sector, that would be a challenge relative to the administrative burden — the time and the challenges that we would all face relative to how efficiently we can run our businesses,” he says.

“The trilateral deal works, and I think moving into the review process, everyone has to do their part in messaging that to their governments,” he adds.

In recent meetings of North American leaders, like the 2026 State Agriculture and Rural Leaders (SARL) Legislative Agriculture Chairs Summit, which convened state and provincial legislators from the U.S. and Canada to address agricultural policy, technology and rural community strengthening, Lemaire has seen reasons for optimism.

“We were very happy going to SARL, the State Agricultural Rural Leaders, meeting in New Orleans in early January and hearing from state legislators that they are believers in the trilateral deal and the importance of working collaboratively with stakeholders in Canada, as well as stakeholders in Mexico,” Lemaire says. “So, there’s a lot of moving parts, but I think it’s positive to see the provincial- and state-level collaboration that hopefully will resonate up to the federal level.”

The July 2026 USMCA review is a high-stakes juncture that will determine whether the U.S., Canada and Mexico extend the trade pact to 2036 or initiate its termination. Key stakes include restructuring auto industry rules, addressing energy and agriculture disputes, preventing major disruptions to more than a trillion in annual regional trade and more.

Lemaire cautions the produce industry to ensure it doesn’t get swept into other trade deals on the table in July.

“USMCA is going to be a primary focus [for the produce industry], especially when we lead into June and July,” he says. “I’m part of a group, a coalition of North American trade that not only includes fruit and vegetables but also automotive, steel and aluminum. And I think those are the moving parts we have to be continually watching, because we can control our sector, but it is the demands outside of our sector that are really going to influence what USMCA looks like going forward.”

“So, it’s vital that we start expanding our networks, to start working with those other commercial sectors that are influenced and impacted by USMCA to ensure that we’re not collateral damage and that pushes to change USMCA that may be detrimental to feeding our nations [are not realized],” he continues.

The message the produce industry must push forward, Lemaire says, is how USMCA supports North American consumers’ access to nutritious and affordable food.

“We’re dealing with food inflation. We’re dealing with high costs of inputs. We’re dealing with growers who aren’t able to be profitable,” says Lemaire. “And when you start seeing these changes impacting our food supply, it’s vital that we find the most efficient, cost-effective trading mechanisms so that we don’t add to the burden which we’re already all experiencing, not only in the U.S. but also in Canada and Mexico and around the world.

“It’s a global change happening right now on the cost of food, so the simplest way to deal with it is to find efficiencies,” he says. “And the first efficiency is a free trade deal.”

Your next read: North American Produce Industry Calls for Full Renewal of USMCA

UPDATE: Supreme Court Did Not Issue Ruling on Tariffs Case, Decision Still Pending

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:31:51 GMT

UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to release its ruling on President Trump’s global tariffs Wednesday. A decision is still pending.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue one or more rulings on Wednesday in cases already argued before the justices as major legal disputes remain pending, including litigation testing the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

The court is set to release rulings at about 10 a.m. ET (1500 GMT). The court does not announce ahead of time which rulings it intends to issue. The court issued one ruling last Friday but did not act in the tariffs case, which was argued on Nov. 5.

The challenge to Trump’s tariffs marks a major test of presidential powers as well as of the court’s willingness to check some of the Republican president’s far-reaching assertions of authority since he returned to office in January 2025. The outcome will impact the global economy.

During arguments in the case, conservative and liberal justices appeared to cast doubt on the legality of the tariffs, which Trump imposed by invoking a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies. Trump’s administration is appealing rulings by lower courts that he overstepped his authority.

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from individual countries — nearly every foreign trading partner — to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits. He invoked the same law to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the U.S. as a national emergency.

The challenges to the tariffs in the cases before the Supreme Court were brought by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-governed.

Other cases awaiting rulings include disputes concerning voting rights, religious rights, Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commission member, LGBT “conversion therapy” and campaign finance limits, among others.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

USDA Releases Per-Acre Rates for Farmer Bridge Assistance Program

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 21:17:14 GMT

The long-awaited Farmer Bridge Assistance rates are out! Rice and cotton will receive the highest per-acre rates, in keeping with earlier predictions.

On the last day of 2025, USDA announced the Farmer Bridge Assistance program rates for row crop and oil seed farmers hit hard in 2025 by the ongoing trade wars.

“Farmers who qualify for the FBA program can expect payments in their bank accounts by Feb. 28, 2026,” says Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in the announcement.

The following per-acre rates apply:

Corn: $44.36
Soybeans: $30.88
Wheat: $39.35
Cotton: $117.35
Rice: $132.89
Peanuts: $55.65
Sorghum: $48.11
Barley: $20.51
Canola: $23.57
Sunflower: $17.32
Lentils: $23.98
Peas: $19.60
Oats: $81.75
Mustard: $23.21
Safflower: $24.86
Flax: $8.05
Chickpeas: $26.46 (large), $33.36 (small)
Sesame: $13.68

Oil seeds rapeseed and crambe — which were included in the original list of commodities to receive payments according to USDA’s Dec. 8 announcement of the bridge payments — were not included in the Dec. 31 rate list.

The payments, which amount to $11 billion, are intended to bridge the gap between current economic straits of farmers dealing with “unfair market disruptions” and the stepped-up farmer support programs from the previously titled “One Big Beautiful Bill Act ,” which will take effect in October 2026.

In addition to the $11 billion for row crops, $1 billion was set aside for specialty crops and sugar. The Dec. 31 rate announcement, like the Dec. 8 initial announcement of the bridge payments, notes “timelines for payments to producers of these crops are still under development.”

The bridge payments are funded under the Commodity Credit Corporation and will be administered by the Farm Service Agency based on 2025 acreage reports. Payments will be released to eligible producers by Feb. 28 with a limit of $155,000 per entity or individual. Click here to access USDA’s FBA program calculator.

Reaching the Farmer Bridge Assistance Rates

According to USDA, the FBA rates were developed using “a uniform formula to cover a portion of modeled losses during the 2025 crop year.” This loss average was reportedly based on planted acres reported to the Farm Service Agency, cost of production estimates from the Economic Research Service, and yields and prices from the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report.

The announced rates were mostly in keeping with earlier estimates. For example, shortly after the bridge payments were announced Farm CPA Paul Neiffer projected that corn would see rates of $43.52 to $48.35. Later in December, University of Illinois’s farmdoc Daily released its own estimates , which trended a bit higher than Neiffer’s, but they were also in line with the Dec. 31 announcement. For example, farmdoc estimated cotton would see a $115 rate.

Both based their estimates on how USDA did the 2024 Emergency Commodity Assistance Program payments given the similarities between how that is calculated and how USDA described it would calculate the FBA rates to row crop and oil seed growers.

What About the Other Commodities?

Notably absent from the list of crops benefiting from the bridge payments are fruit, vegetables, dairy, meat, and nuts, crops that collectively represent hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy.

According to USDA’s Dec. 8 announcement, “the remaining $1 billion of the $12 billion in bridge payments will be reserved for commodities not covered in the FBA program such as specialty crops and sugar, for example.”

By contrast, the Dec. 31 rate announcement specified that the $1 billion would be just for specialty crops and sugar.

Shortly after the FBA program was announced, the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance expressed disappointment that specialty crop growers were not included directly in the bridge payments. The group noted specialty crops account for more than one-third of all U.S. crop sales. Later, on Dec. 18, the Congressional Specialty Crop Caucus urged congressional agricultural committees to make that $1 billion available to growers immediately .

According to records from USDA’s Economic Research Service, these agricultural commodities not directly named to receive bridge payments saw the following total cash receipts in 2024 :

Cattle and calves; $112.09 billion
Dairy products; $50.73 billion
Fruits and nuts; $31.34 billion
Hogs; $27.31 billion
Vegetables and melons; $25.31 billion
“Other Crops” which include commodities like sugar, mushrooms, flowers, and herbs; $40.58 billion

Speaking specifically about the specialty crop industry, Rebeckah Freeman Adcock, vice president of U.S. government relations for the International Fresh Produce Association, told The Packer that $1 billion is not enough : “Quite frankly, the $12 billion is not enough for agriculture in general, and USDA knows that, it’s just this is what they have.”

Some See Payments as a Bandage on a Bigger Problem

Following the announcement of the planned bridge payments, commodity groups and ag economy experts voiced appreciation for the planned payments, but some also noted the payments would be too little, too late in many cases.

Ed Elfman, senior vice president of agriculture and rural banking policy at the American Bankers Association, told AgWeb that the support will help , but it won’t fix structural issues in the ag economy.

“Any aid will help,” he said. “It’ll help make cash flow work a little better. It’ll make the margins look a little better. Profitability will go up, but at the end of the day, it’s just a Band-Aid. It’s not a long-term solution.”

Jerry Gulke, president of the Gulke Group, had much the same to say, calling the payments “like a bridge to nowhere.” Referring to earlier estimates on the FBA rates for corn, he told AgWeb a $46-per-acre payment is woefully inadequate for him to plant corn next spring and that he may need to shift to soybeans in 2026 where the cost of production is lower.

Luke Lindberg, USDA under secretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, acknowledged the bridge payments are a short-term solution in a one-on-one interview with AgWeb .

“We don’t want Band-Aid programs. We want fundamental shifts to the farm economy that allow our producers to be profitable for the long run, bring rural prosperity back to rural America,” he said, pointing to USDA’s three-point plan , announced in late September, aimed at bolstering international demand for U.S. ag products.

“Our team certainly plays an important role in generating demand overseas for the products,” he said.

“A lot of those One Big Beautiful Bill provisions, like some of the taxing, tax expenses and things, all start next year,” he added. “We’re bridging the gap from today to what that better future will look like next year.”

Tariffs and Trade Wars in 2025 and Beyond

Mon, 29 Dec 2025 22:25:23 GMT

True to his campaign promises, President Donald Trump began announcing tariffs shortly after taking office on Jan. 20. Since then, announcements of tariffs have been on then off in a matter of hours, creating what has been called a chaotic landscape of trade wars that is unlikely to end any time soon.

Most recently, Trump threatened Mexico with a 5% tariff if they didn’t start paying down their water debt, and it’s possible growers could get refunds for tariff damages in the future. Billions could be in the balance.

After roughly nine months of real and threatened tariffs, early November 2025 saw the first day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on whether or not the Trump administration had the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Packer’s Jennifer Strailey covered what we knew that day. Namely, that the U.S. could owe billions in tariff refunds , including to produce importers.

Getting a refund could be a complicated matter and comes with a ticking clock, however. And, according to Strailey’s sources, the Supreme Court did not give guidance about how specific companies should seek a refund.

The commodities particularly hard hit by tariffs

Produce casualties of the 2025 trade wars could be felt in winter of 2026 because many fruit and vegetable favorites available during winter and early spring depend on imports. These could include exotics such as bananas and mangoes, and seasonal favorites such as berries of all kinds, avocados, broccoli, cucumbers, strawberries, peaches and many more according to reporting by Strailey during the summer.

She talked to Miguel Curiel, the president of Aneberries, Mexico’s National Association of Berry Exporters, during the group’s July trade fair . He said the U.S. consumer currently enjoys berries all year round due, in large part, to trade with Mexico. Tariffs could threaten that, he said, adding that “in the mid to long term, it is the consumer who takes the hit. There’s no doubt about that.”

But it wasn’t just berries at risk. Basically, any fresh produce available en mass in winter would be struck down in the trade war, according to one of Strailey’s reports in August .

“I think there will be a decrease in variety, and I think there will be price increases,” one source said, adding that the Make America Healthy Again movement might help mitigate some of the negative impacts of the trade war on fresh produce and consumers’ pocketbooks.

Things started quickly in 2025 and will continue in 2026

The impact of the tariffs, realized and threatened, was felt in the earliest weeks of 2025.

In the first week of February, Strailey reported from the floor of the Fruit Logistica trade show , having talked to Ron Lemaire, president of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. He told her Trump’s threatened 25% additional tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada would represent a significant risk to the Canadian produce industry, especially the greenhouse industry.

“Ontario greenhouses ship about 80% to 85% of their product to the U.S., and they’ve integrated their business strategy having Canadian and U.S. operations. Tariff systems in that sector would be dramatically consequential to that industry,” he said.

The message was much the same on the southern border. In late February, Texas produce growers had a front-row seat to the potential impact of Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico. The Packer’s Christina Herrick interviewed Texas International Produce Association’s CEO, Dante Galeazzi , on potential impacts to the state and the country overall.

Most immediately, tariffs on Mexican fresh produce imports would “close the valve of the fresh fruits and vegetables arriving in the country,” particularly in the U.S.’s growing off-season. That’s something that “could not come at a worse time” according to Galeazzi.

As the ongoing trade war updates and tariff news breaks, The Packer will be here covering what growers need to know.

Commodity-Specific Trade War Battles to Watch for in 2026

Tue, 23 Dec 2025 20:12:01 GMT

While larger-scale trade battles dominated national headlines, different fresh produce commodities had their own trade fights to pick. The Packer covered these in detail in 2025, and it is almost certain that the ongoing issues will hit headlines in 2026 as well.

For example, The Tomato Suspension Agreement was one of the biggest examples of a commodity-specific trade fight to grace the headlines. In late November, a source told The Packer’s Christina Herrick that U.S. tomato growers might not see the impact of the termination of the Tomato Suspension Agreement until the January 2026 crop and beyond into spring.

Coverage of the tumultuous trade fight in 2025 started in summer when Herrick sat down with Robert Guenther , executive vice president for the Florida Tomato Exchange, as the agreement neared the end of its 90-day implementation period.

“For decades, Mexican exporters have dumped tomatoes into the U.S. market below their cost of production, by margins as high as 273%, which are injuring American tomato farmers,” Guenther said.

“The 2019 Suspension Agreement and the previous four suspension agreements were supposed to stop this,” he continued. “Instead, it became a shield for repeated violations. It failed in its basic purposes: to shield U.S. tomato producers from dumped Mexican tomatoes and to ensure fair trade as required by U.S. law.”

Later, in mid-July, when the U.S. Department of Commerce ended the Tomato Suspension Agreement and imposed a 17% tariff on most imports of Mexican tomatoes, the reaction from the fresh produce industry was pronounced and deeply divided. Herrick and The Packer’s Jennifer Strailey covered the controversy’s sides .

On the one hand, Florida claimed victory. The Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association and the Florida Tomato Exchange called the end of the agreement a victory for U.S. tomato growers and a positive movement “toward fairer competition, not only for tomato growers but for all specialty crop producers nationwide.”

On the other hand, the controlled-environment agriculture industry was “deeply disappointed,” by the move.

“Because most high-value greenhouse growers farm in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, the termination of this agreement will cause significant damage to these growers, serving as a financial barrier to new investment in U.S. greenhouses,” the CEA Alliance said.

But the situation with tomato prices, tomato trade, and prices is a nuanced one. Because they are such a staple to U.S. consumers, and supplies are dependent on Mexican-grown tomatoes, the situation begged the question: Are tomatoes poised for an eggs moment?

Other commodities faced trade threats and dumping issues

Tomatoes weren’t the only commodity to see trade war battles in 2025 that will likely continue in 2026.

For example, in mid-September, Herrick covered the growing fight over mushrooms . A group of U.S. mushroom growers accused Canadian growers of dumping mushrooms in the U.S. market below the price of production.

“These practices have resulted in significant negative impacts on U.S. mushroom growers and packers, including lost sales, depressed prices and declining profitability,” they said.

Herrick reported the trade situation between the two countries is more than a symbiotic relationship, however. Canada supplies almost all of the peat moss substrate for U.S. growers, and the U.S. supplies most of Canadian growers’ mushroom spawn, for instance.

According to the U.S. International Trade Commission , the case will extend into 2026 due in part to the government shutdown’s impact on its operation late in the year.

California’s citrus industry also found itself at the center of a pitched trade battle in 2025 as well. As Strailey reported in early October , the Golden State’s citrus growers found themselves pressured by imports exceeding exports, pest and disease threats, and tariff pains from China.

Long a desired destination for California citrus exports, China answered President Donald Trump’s first term tariff threats seriously.

“China took retaliatory measures and increased tariffs substantially,” said California Citrus Quality Council President Jim Cranney. “And since then, we’ve been operating with tariffs that are in a neighborhood of about 46%.”

The tariff fight with China looks like it will be an on-going issue in 2026. As will the question of Argentinian dumping of lemons and limes with the shifts in reciprocal tariffs on the country, among others.

Produce Gets Political: NYPS Panel Discussion Examines the State of Trade

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:08:00 GMT

NEW YORK CITY — The New York Produce Show’s Global Trade Symposium on Dec. 2, explored the many challenges facing the North American fresh produce industry during a “Politics and Produce” panel discussion, moderated by Tom Stenzel of The Stenzel Group.

“The No. 1 issue that we’ve all been dealing with is the tariff issue in the United States this year, since President [Donald] Trump issued ‘Liberation Day’ back in the spring and imposed a 10% tariff on the world. How has that affected you or your constituents?” Stenzel asked the panel.

“It has definitely impacted us,” says Jessie Capote, executive vice president of J&C Tropicals. “Margins are down.”

Capote says J&C absorbed the 10% rather than pass it on to its customers.

“At the end of the day, the two most important stakeholders at J&C Tropicals are our growers and the consumer, and most of our decisions are based on the long-term success for both of those groups,” Capote says. “We didn’t think [passing along the additional cost] was the right thing to do long term.”

Tariff and trade wars have created a rocky road for Canada-U.S. relations. When the U.S. imposed tariffs on Canada, our neighbors to the north imposed retaliatory 25% tariffs on U.S. goods.

“That was a very contentious discussion, especially for citrus, tomatoes, peaches and a few other commodities, and they were removed in August,” says Ron Lemaire, president of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. “But it really showed the dynamic of negotiations and how countries react to the administration in the U.S., and how the downward pressure, pressure from politicians, is truly impacting how businesses need to act.”

The impact of tariffs is broader than what’s been placed on fresh fruits and vegetables, Lemaire says. It’s also tariffs on materials from China used in creating produce packaging and more.

“The first thing we did when Trump won is we went out and pre-bought all of our chemicals, because we said, ‘he’s going to hammer China,’ said John Pandol of Pandol Bros. “A lot of our inputs went up. I bought them for last year, so with the crop I just finished, I had last year’s cost.”

But that $5 million was working capital “that’s not working,” Pandol says.

Fernando Cruz Morales of Grupo Consultor de Mercados Agricolas, a Mexican consulting group that analyzes the fresh produce market, says if the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is abandoned and 25% tariffs are imposed on produce from Mexico, prices will soar and supplies will be disrupted.

“GCMA has run some numbers in economic models, and we find that the prices of fresh produce in the United States will increase 30%, and the total production of Mexico will decrease around 12%, and the total amount of exports from Mexico to the United States in Canada will probably decrease around 35%,” he says.

Washington apple grower Chuck Zeutenhorst of FirstFruits Farms looked at tariffs from the lens of the exporter.

“Obviously the USMCA piece is a big deal, but we are up against tariffing,” he says, noting that the U.S. apple industry exports to 40 to 50 different countries with Mexico and Canada, its two largest trading partners.

“In other producing countries, it’s not a level or a fair playing field,” he says. “Many times, other countries are going in with apples that have no tariff whatsoever.”

Zeutenhorst says the apple industry took a hit when the first Trump administration imposed steel and aluminum tariffs and countries including India and China retaliated.

“During Trump one, those tariffs basically took China and India out of our opportunities because their retaliation tariffs were so large that we couldn’t afford to go in there,” he says.

U.S. and Canada Produce Relations

Recent tensions around tariffs and trade and Trump referring to Canada as the 51^st state drove many Canadians to eschew products, including produce, from the U.S.

“Three in five Canadians in February of last year were not going to buy U.S. products,” Lemaire says. “We’ve never seen the Canadian perspective consolidate and gel like we have since President Trump, and that has truly driven behaviors. Right now, 63% of Canadians still feel the increased cost of food is due to the U.S. administration and its tariff strategy.”

Lemaire says the diversity of trade channels have already changed. Canada is now purchasing high volumes of Australian, Morroccan and Spanish citrus, for example.

“There’s a massive shift in behaviors of buying because of what we’ve seen in play,” he says.

But Lemaire says things are calming down.

“We’re down to about a third of Canadians saying they will avoid or make a choice depending on price or other factors, on U.S. products,” he adds. “So we’re seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but it all comes back to a perspective of, how do we work with each other in North America? And it will take time to rebuild.”

The California wine industry has also been impacted by trade wars with Canada, as Lemaire says Canada has banned the sale of U.S. wines in Canada.

The Packer spoke with Lemaire following the panel discussion to learn more.

“What really happened in Canada was a patriotism that grew out of comments from the administration; that really drove behaviors to look at buying anything but American,” Lemaire says. “And on top of that, within the provincial framework, the provinces are responsible for our liquor control boards and purchasing and selling and importation of liquor around the country, and they made decisions actually to pull U.S. product off the shelf because of tariff discussions, because of the trade discussions. And that was a political move at a provincial level, and it’s caused significant impact to the U.S. wine industry.”

As for fresh produce, Lemaire says progress is being made.

“When we look at fresh produce, Canadians are starting to shift their behaviors, with about 31% that are looking at buying U.S. product, where you have 69% saying, ‘You know what, I will either avoid or not buy U.S. product.’ Now that is down from well over 70% at the beginning of the administration, when everything was heating up. So, the good thing is, we’re seeing trending away from behaviors that are really not sustainable long term when we look at the importance of our integrated market in Canada.

“But there’s a lot of work to do to try and regain the trust of Canadians on the U.S. commodity markets as well as U.S. products in general,” he continues. “Our work’s cut out for us, but it’s important that we drive forward together to try and find solutions, because without an integrated North American market, the only losers are the consumer.”

As we approach the July 2026 six-year review of USMCA, how are Canadians feeling?

“If we see a real turbulent negotiation that Canadians feel their backs are being placed against the wall, it’s not going to help the entire perspective on purchasing U.S. products,” Lemaire says. “But right now, especially around food, we’re seeing alignment between philosophies, especially within the U.S. state officials and also the Mexican government. And we’re very hopeful that as we move forward, we’re going to see a strategy and clarity around the trade discussion within USMCA and hopefully build on that so that Canadians will be buying strawberries and citrus out of the U.S. and happily consuming them.”

White House Drops Reciprocal Tariffs on Fertilizer, Other Ag Products Not Produced in the U.S.

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 23:50:06 GMT

President Trump signed an Executive Order Friday afternoon that modifies the scope of the reciprocal tariffs he first announced on April 2, 2025. The Executive Order now exempts several agricultural products from tariffs, including fruit, coffee and fertilizer.

In a fact sheet released Nov. 14, 2025, the administration says President Trump has determined that “certain qualifying agricultural products will no longer be subject to those tariffs, such as certain food not grown in the United States.”

This is good news for farmers, as certain qualifying agricultural products will no longer be subject to those tariffs, including fertilizer. However, the announcement could open the door for more beef imports, as the move also gets rid of reciprocal tariffs on beef.

The document goes on to spell out examples of products that are now exempt from the reciprocal tariffs. According to the fact sheet, “The President has thus determined that certain agricultural products shall no longer be subject to the reciprocal tariffs.”

Some of these products include:

coffee and tea
tropical fruits and fruit juices
cocoa and spices
bananas, oranges and tomatoes
beef
additional fertilizers (some fertilizers have never been subject to the reciprocal tariffs).

“I have received additional information and recommendations from various officials who, pursuant to my direction, have been monitoring the circumstances involving the emergency declared in Executive Order 14257,” stated the Executive Order. “After considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me, the status of negotiations with various trading partners, current domestic demand for certain products, and current domestic capacity to produce certain products, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to further modify the scope of products subject to the reciprocal tariff imposed under Executive Order 14257, as amended.”

President Defends Tariff Strategy, Says It’s Working

In the fact sheet, the White House went on to defend the reciprocal tariffs.

“In less than one year into his second term, President Trump has strengthened the international economic position of the United States by delivering a series of historic wins for the American people,” the fact sheet states.

The White House says through these tariffs, “President Trump is bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, revitalizing communities, and strengthening supply chains.The Administration will continue to use all available tools to protect our national security, advance our economic interests, and uphold a system of trade based in fairness and reciprocity.”

You can read the entire fact sheet here.

Billions in the Balance: Are You Entitled to a Tariff Refund?

Thu, 06 Nov 2025 13:04:37 GMT

Nov. 5 marked the beginning of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Trump administration tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Did Trump have the authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA?

It’s been the source of a major legal battle in the lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the federal courts, which have already ruled that Trump’s use of IEEPA this year has exceeded the authority granted by the statute. The Trump administration has appealed this ruling, saying that striking these tariffs could undermine diplomacy and national security.

Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule those tariffs invalid, U.S. produce importers who have paid IEEPA-related tariffs could potentially be granted refunds.

Tariff revenue increased over 200% in the U.S. from January to July, generating over $100 billion in revenue for the U.S. federal government, just from the baseline tariffs that began in April, says International Fresh Produce Association Vice President of U.S. Government Relations Rebeckah Freeman Adcock.

Based on those figures, estimates suggest the U.S. could owe $750 billion to $1 trillion in potential refunds, says Adcock, adding that depending on the outcome of the case, federal revenue would fall by about $2.2 trillion through fiscal year 2035, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The question of tariffs is critical to the fresh produce industry for many reasons, but this case also raises larger legal questions in the U.S., especially the question on whether the court will apply the major questions doctrine that limits executive action not clearly authorized and enumerated by Congress, she says.

Adcock says justices will be considering three key issues in the case:

Does IEEPA give the president the authority to impose tariffs?
Does using that emergency power to manage trade constitute an overreach?
How broadly should courts interpret the executive authority under the major questions doctrine?

The outcome will have significant implications not just for tariffs, says Adcock, but also for the future of U.S. trade policy and for the distinction between presidential power and the other branches of government.

What We Know from Day 1

Jonathan Stoel is co-director of the Washington, D.C.-based global law firm Hogan Lovells’ international trade practice that employs a team of professionals around the world that he says work 24/7 on trade issues.

Stoel’s colleagues, present at the oral arguments on Nov. 5, say while President Donald Trump was absent from the proceedings, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. trade representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer all attended and sat in the front row.

“The administration was certainly conveying how important it believes this case is to them on a variety of grounds,” says Stoel. “I don’t know if there’s ever been a case where you’ve had three cabinet officers in the court. Usually, the administration is solely represented by the solicitor general.

“I also think the president has been very clear in his tweets and elsewhere that the tariffs are fundamental to his economic policy and that, in his view, they are necessary for a host of reasons — not only to reduce the trade deficit, for example but also because of the administration’s ongoing negotiations with other countries,” he adds.

A centerpiece of Trump’s trade agenda since Jan. 20, IEEPA tariffs were first applied to Canada, Mexico and China, including Hong Kong, under the “fentanyl tariffs,” he says. These tariffs affected more than 40% of U.S. trade.

On “Liberation Day,” or April 2, Trump announced IEEPA tariffs, or “reciprocal tariffs,” that affected all U.S. imports from around the world.

Third and most recently, says Stoel, the president assigned special IEEPA tariffs to imports from Brazil, a result of ongoing diplomatic strains between the South American country and the U.S.

Two of those types of tariffs — the reciprocal tariffs — and the tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, are at stake in the Supreme Court argument that began Nov. 5, he says.

Path to Pursuing Refunds

Interestingly, during the Nov. 5 Supreme Court oral arguments, there was almost no discussion about how refunds would or would not work, says Stoel, who spoke with The Packer that day.

“I don’t think the Supreme Court gave us any guidance today, nor should we expect that in the Supreme Court’s decision that they’re going to give us guidance about how specific companies should seek a refund,” he says.

If the Supreme Court invalidates the IEEPA tariffs, the key issue for all importers to consider is whether their entries have liquidated or settled under U.S. law, which typically provides 314 days for entries to liquidate, says Stoel.

Why does that matter? Once liquidation happens, there are far less opportunities for refunds, he says.

“So, it’s important that you’re working with your customs brokers and your attorneys and keep an eye on when your entries are going to liquidate,” he says.

Stoel says if an entry is going to liquidate, meaning the time for liquidation is drawing close, he advises importers ask Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to provide an extension of liquidation. U.S. law, specifically, customs regulation, provides that customs can extend liquidation one year at a time for up to three years, he says.

The goal of extending liquidation is to preserve all of your options as an importer and make sure that you’re able to obtain a refund on all the entries that have been made subject to the tariffs, he says.

“One of the goals of keeping the entry from liquidating is that, if the entries have not liquidated, you should be working with your customs broker to file a post summary correction, or PSC,” says Stoel. “This can be done with simply one piece of paper with your broker. Once filed, the government can be asked to both liquidate the entry and refund the tariff that was collected.

“If CBP grants an extension of liquidation and the entries remain unliquidated at the time the Supreme Court issues a decision invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, the importer should be able to file a PSC to revise the entry and seek a tariff refund,” adds Stoel. “A PSC must be filed with respect to each entry and must be filed at least 15 days before liquidation.”

Depending on how long the tariffs have been collected, importers may also be eligible for interest in addition to the tariffs they paid, he says.

And if an importer’s entry is liquated anyway, “don’t panic,” says Stoel. “There should be alternatives available to you. If CBP liquidates an entry, you have 180 days after liquidation to file a protest with customs and ask the government to refund tariffs paid.” Stoel says even if the government denies a protest, importers should still be able to appeal that denial to the U.S. Court of International Trade.

“The third option, depending on the Supreme Court decision, is that it may be necessary to file affirmative litigation, most likely in the Court of International Trade,” says Stoel, adding that the purpose of the litigation is twofold: “One, you’re asking the court to protect your entries and not let them liquidate, so that you preserve all of your options to obtain a tariff refund. The second is that we don’t know if the Supreme Court will decide if the litigations already ongoing will apply to everyone, meaning to all importers, or if they only apply to the specific plaintiffs that are before the court.”

If the courts decide they don’t apply to everyone, then it may be necessary to file your own litigation in order to preserve your rights, with respect to both entries you made in the past and those entries in the future, he says.

“Lastly, all of this takes time and takes care,” says Stoel. “Don’t panic doesn’t mean don’t do anything.”

Preparation is Key to a Refund

Stoel says there are three things for produce importers hoping to secure a tariff refund to keep in mind:

Don’t panic. Importers have 314 days from the date of entry before entries are liquidated or finally settled under U.S. law.
A decision is expected by the Supreme Court relatively soon (either later this month or after the holidays), which will provide clarity and ease the uncertainty that has surrounded tariffs this year.
Preparation is critical. As the industry awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, importers need to assess their legal and tactical options. “It’s important to gather your documentation, identify relevant entries and work with your customs brokers and lawyers, as well as your advisers at IFPA, to make sure that you’re ready, so that if, and when, the time comes to secure refunds, you’re not left behind.”

Tariffs ‘Likely to Remain a Fixture of U.S. Trade Policy’

It’s important to keep in mind, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs, tariffs are going to remain a central part of Trump’s economic agenda, says Alexis Taylor, IFPA chief global policy officer.

Taylor says the key tariff takeaway is this: Even if the Supreme Court finds IEEPA tariffs cannot be used to impose tariffs, the president still retains multiple legal pathways to shape trade policy with tariffs, and they’re likely to remain a fixture of U.S. trade policy for the foreseeable future.

Fresh Produce Focuses on Growth, Health Amid Tariff and Trade Tensions

Tue, 28 Oct 2025 12:27:40 GMT

ANAHEIM, Calif. — While tariffs and trade uncertainty persist, the fresh produce industry remains focused on growth and increasing access to fresh fruits and vegetables. This commitment to “Fight for Fresh” was evident in every aisle of the recent International Fresh Produce Association Global Produce and Floral Show.

The Canadian Produce Marketing Association‘s Shannon Sommerauer and Jeff Hall pose with some uniquely Canadian treats at the IFPA Global Show.

(Photo: Jennifer Strailey)

CPMA Talks Tariffs

At the Canadian Produce Marketing Association booth, Shannon Sommerauer, senior director, government relations, discussed the importance of free trade for fresh fruits and vegetables in North America.

“We’re happy the Canadian government removed most of the retaliatory tariffs,” says Sommerauer, referring to the government’s move on Sept. 1. But she also says it feels a bit like the “calm before the storm.”

“We’re looking to work with the U.S., Mexico and Canada to put the message to all three governments that tariff-free produce is what we need,” she says. “We hope that by putting that collective voice to all three governments, we really mitigate any unintended consequences.”

Sommerauer says the U.S. is a critically important export market for Canada, especially for highly perishable produce.

While potatoes can travel to export markets with relative ease, cucumbers are another story, she says.

“It’s a key reason the U.S. has been such an important market for us,” she says.

“We’re hearing from everyone that they don’t want tariffs,” Sommerauer adds. “They’re no help in making fresh food more accessible.”

The Equifruit team celebrates feeling good about paying banana farmers fairly.

(Photo: Jennifer Strailey)

‘Banana Badasses’ Pose for Wellness

Known for its attention-grabbing marketing and dynamic trade show booth themes — all in the name of fairer wages and better conditions for banana farmers — Equifruit didn’t disappoint at the IFPA Global Show.

The Montreal-based Fairtrade International-certified banana company promoted fair-trade bananas as the ultimate wellness product. It’s simple, says the Equifruit team: “Wellness is all about feeling good. And paying banana farmers fairly makes you feel good.”

In September, Equifruit was named one of Canada’s top growing companies by The Globe and Mail for a fourth consecutive year. Ranked No. 174 with a growth rate of 195%, it marked the company’s highest position on the list yet, up from No. 229 in 2024.

Even with the growth, Equifruit still has work to do in the U.S. market, where it continues to communicate its message that a switch to fair-trade bananas only costs $5 a year, says Jennie Coleman, president and co-owner of Equifruit.

Now tariffs are threatening to disrupt these efforts.

“We finally got to a place where consumers have accepted [a modest price increase on fair-trade bananas] and then tariffs eat all that up on a product that can’t be grown in the U.S.,” Coleman says.

But Coleman is keeping her eye on the prize of better and fairer conditions for banana growers.

“We’re excited and amazed by our brand recognition,” she says. “Tariffs will pass, and our values will remain. And when people are ready, we’ll be there.”

Lipman Family Farms’ Morgan Stuckart discusses the benefits of being a vertically integrated company.

(Photo: Jennifer Strailey)

Lipman Family Farms Focuses on Fresh Cut

Lipman Family Farms, a vertically integrated grower-packer-distributor, grows tomatoes in California, Florida, Canada and Mexico, giving it a unique perspective on both tariffs and the U.S.-Mexico Tomato Suspension Agreement.

“We support the fairest trade and prices for all,” says Lipman Family Farms Marketing and Communications Manager Morgan Stuckart. “It affects everyone.”

Lipman operates greenhouses in both Jalisco, Mexico, and in Canada, enabling year-round supply; while there may be tariff and trade turbulence, the company is focused on what it can control — including expanding the fresh cuts side of its business for both retail and restaurant foodservice.

“Fresh cut has grown exponentially for us in the last 10 years,” Stuckart says. “We’ve grown from three facilities to now eight.”

Stuckart says Lipman’s customers are looking for more convenience, labor-saving solutions and the highest food safety standards, which its custom, fresh cut program provides.

“Labor is always an issue,” she says. “With our products our foodservice customers can make the most of their time in the back of the house. Restaurant staff can go home an hour earlier to their family because they’re not chopping after close.”

Stuckart says this support on labor and consistency of food safety to support growth has been a “big ask” from Lipman’s customers.

And as a vertically integrated company, Lipman has greater control over the entire field to table process.

“Ninety-five percent of the seeds we grow were created in house by our genetic scientists,” says Stuckart, pointing to Lipman’s Crimson Tomatoes that are field-grown from a proprietary seed.

“We’re continuing to improve our tomatoes with better disease resistance and stem strength,” she says. “Crimsons are great for slicing and have a stronger skin. They also have a deep red color, meatier center and great flavor.

“We truly created the Crimson Tomato from the ground up,” she says.

Zespri Marks Record Season

Despite economic headwinds and competition from other fruit categories this summer, Zespri says it fueled double-digit growth with an earlier start to the season, expanded distribution of Zespri green, organic and Zespri RubyRed and continued strong consumer demand for Zespri SunGold kiwifruit. Zespri says these efforts have made kiwifruit the fastest-growing category in the fruit department, according to Circana data.

Canada currently takes 1.5% of total global kiwifruit production, says Zespri CEO Jason Tebrake, who adds the goal is to reach 3% to 4% of global production with Canada in the next four to five years and then “see if it continues to grow from there.”

But the U.S. is a “growth market,” says Tebrake. “This was the biggest season we’ve ever had. We increased volume to the U.S. by 30%.”

The brand says it’s investing in distribution and shopper programs that not only grow Zespri but the entire kiwifruit category.

Tebrake says that “even with tariffs concerns, [Zespri] is taking a long-term strategic” view. “We’re focused on giving the consumer a great experience,” he says.

Your next read: The Heat Is on as Fresh Produce Weathers Tariffs

The Heat Is on as Fresh Produce Weathers Tariffs

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 12:19:20 GMT

ANAHEIM, Calif. — Tariffs’ impact on the fresh produce supply chain was a key topic at last week’s International Fresh Produce Association’s Global Produce and Floral Show.

How’s the industry weathering the storm? To find out, The Packer spoke with IFPA Vice President of U.S. Government Relations Rebeckah Freeman Adcock on Oct. 16.

“We’re still really mostly in a place of uncertainty. There’s been a lot of adjustments that have been made — country by country,” she said. “We certainly still have a baseline tariff, but that is under court review. So, although the tariffs are being collected, it’s unclear whether they will stay in place and what would have to happen if the court decided those tariffs wouldn’t stay in place.”

While Adcock says the industry is weathering tariffs and the uncertainty they have caused “pretty well,” she also says more changes are coming as the seasons change.

“It will be interesting to see how things move when we see changes in seasonal movement of produce — when we see the domestic supplies that we normally see in the summer shift with what comes in and out of the country, and how that affects prices and people and the movement and logistics,” she says.

IFPA members have told the association that advocacy is of utmost importance, and the organization says it continues to urge the government to support policies that increase Americans’ access to fresh produce and create an environment in which business can flourish.

“We’re very, very focused on trying to make sure that folks don’t walk away from produce should it become more expensive because of tariffs or because of things in the dynamics and the uncertainty in the industry that tend to drive costs up,” Adcock says.

Adcock says USDA data predicts that, despite tariffs, imports will continue to rise in the U.S.

“This is tough for the United States, and it’s about a lot more than trade and tariffs,” she says. “It’s about labor. It’s about inflationary costs. It’s about many other things. Tariffs aren’t necessarily kind of a symptom of the problem rather than the underlying problem. So, we have that conversation with the administration to help them understand the dynamics of what it takes to feed people.”

IFPA is hopeful that the fresh produce industry will play a crucial role in the Make America Healthy Again movement.

“We know what a critical part our industry can play in that, and we want to do that in a way that empowers U.S. producers, which is something that the Trump administration is interested in,” she says. “We’re going to have to stay focused on making it a good place to do business in the U.S. and certainly in North America.”

In her State of the Industry address, Oct. 16, IFPA CEO Cathy Burns said the uncertainty surrounding tariffs has been particularly hard on suppliers. Adcock agrees.

“In some ways, suppliers are truly caught in the middle. We know that it’s a very difficult time to be a grower in the U.S.,” she says. “Suppliers are trying to navigate those pressures that the growers are feeling all the way up to retailer and the consumer and trying to find a way to compensate and make up for those prices and see how much they can actually absorb into the system, where we’re seeing price increases — where things are costing more to do business. Suppliers are definitely feeling the heat as well.”

The International Fresh Produce Association’s Global Produce and Floral Show featured a session titled, “Leadership Through Turbulence.”

(Photo: Jennifer Strailey)

Tariffs and Turbulence

Tariffs also took center stage during an Oct. 16 IFPA Global Show panel discussion, “Leading Through Turbulence,” featuring John Anderson, chair, CEO and managing partner for The Oppenheimer Group (Oppy); Adriëlle Dankier, CEO of Nature’s Pride; John Simko, president and CEO of the Sunshine Bouquet Co.; and moderator Alexis Taylor, IFPA’s chief global policy officer.

For Oppy, which operates in 30 different countries, navigating tariffs requires quick action, Anderson says.

“We … figure out how [to] quickly make sure that we’re giving the right price to the customer, and we’re making sure that the grower is not paying any more duty than is required,” he said. “And now you have an option to go back later on, and if you’ve made a mistake, to get your money back, if it’s overpaid or underpaid, but it takes time to do that.

“The other thing that I noticed being a global company — and we have lots of resources — is that not everything needs to be done in house,” he continued.

As a member of the IFPA board of directors, Anderson joined the board at the White House, where they met with President Donald Trump’s advisers.

“We had a discussion about tariffs,” he said. “It was actually quite a good discussion — an open discussion.”

Anderson says the discussion included talk of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which calls for zero tariffs on produce in all three countries, though the Trump administration had said it would get rid of that.

“We said to him, ‘well, you want America to be healthy, don’t you? Yeah, he did. He would like grocery store prices not to rise. We would like that [too],” he said.

The IFPA contingent to the White House urged the government to keep USMCA in place until it’s time to renegotiate in July 2026.

“To make a long story short, that recommendation was made, and the president accepted, so that was a really big win for the entire industry,” he said.

Mark Your Calendars: Nov. 5

Simko says since the “Liberation Day” roll out of tariffs, “it’s been constant turmoil” for anybody dealing with imported products. “Every day has been a new challenge,” he said.

The Supreme Court will hear the case on tariffs that apply to the fresh produce and floral industries on Nov. 5, Simko said.

It’s important to understand that Congress gave the office of the president the power to impose tariffs related to national security — tariffs on steel and aluminum, he said.

Trump is using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to apply the other tariffs, actions which have been taken to court.

“It’s been ruled unlawful — twice ruled unlawful. It was appealed again, and Trump lost,” he said. “The Supreme Court is going to rule on this Nov. 5., so that is a key date to watch.”

Your next read: The ‘Fight for Fresh’ Continues, Says IFPA CEO Cathy Burns

How Global and Domestic Economics Will Shape Fresh Produce

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 12:24:45 GMT

ANAHEIM, Calif. — Arjun Chakravarti, managing partner of a Chicago-based consultancy Cogknition Analytics, offered a look at the current economic climate globally and in the U.S. to kick off his session at the International Fresh Produce Association’s 2025 Global Produce and Floral Show.

In the first quarter of the year, Chakravarti says businesses pulled back due to the uncertainty of trade policies, but by the second and third quarters, businesses began to adapt. He says what’s happening is almost a tale of three economies in the U.S. as the economies of Southern states in the U.S. are growing much more rapidly than the rest of the U.S. States, such as Pennsylvania, Indiana and Wisconsin, are also growing as well, but states such as California and New York are on the edge and could tip into a down cycle.

“We’re really seeing that the economy is muddling along at 1.5%,” he says. “We had kind of a collapse at the beginning of the year, but we got some pull of growth back in the middle of the summer and people have started to get more clarity.”

But, with the 1.5% economic growth rate, it’s also important to consider inflation’s impact on the economy. While inflation sits at about 2.9% percent, the economy shows signs of slowing, Chakravarti says. He points out, however, that inflation doesn’t feel as high as it did in 2022 when the inflation rate peaked at 10%.

“It’s quite high, given the lack of growth that we have right now,” he says. “You have to think of what or how much inflation we are getting, given the amount of growth that we have.”

Chakravarti says that while imports face inflation rates twice as high as domestic goods, consumer spending continues to show growth — but not all consumers are fueling that growth.

“We’ve started to see, particularly since COVID, this compression towards who is spending,” he says. “The top 10% of spenders in the U.S. account for 50% of total spend. So, that’s why you’re seeing high spending still driving the economy, but it’s being driven by a narrower and narrower group of people.”

Chakravarti says this type of distribution hasn’t happened in the U.S. in around 100 years. These compressed spending habits and slowing wage growth in lower-income households have impacted the economic outlook for spending.

“Ninety percent of households report changing grocery and restaurant behavior in response to inflation,” he says. “Ninety percent are deal-prone right now; 60% are saying they’re eating out less; 40% are switching to private label; 38% are making checklists to make sure that they’re really being mindful about what they spend at the store; and then waste mindfulness is even accounting for about 25% of behaviors as well.”

Chakravarti says produce industry businesses need to ensure that marketing efforts align with these shifting shopping habits.

“You’ve got to really track where the inflation is going,” he says. “So, if you’re finding that these folks are going to be fairly constrained in their spending and they tend to spend the dollars that they have once they get them in the pocket, that’s where you would see inflation, but those folks are going to be fairly depressed in spending.”

Global Perspective

In terms of the global economy, Spain is the most well-positioned in the aggregate with higher tourism, lower gas costs and higher consumer confidence, Chakravarti says, adding that this is a good opportunity for the country.

Germany, as an export-based economy, now competes with China rather than selling directly to the country, he says. Germany keeps its debts low, but if it decides to invest in infrastructure, it could boost the economy. The country has also faced some gas price increases due to the war between Russia and Ukraine.

France and Italy face high debt and low investment. Italy also faces a rapidly aging population and higher oil and gas risks. The Netherlands, too, faces gas availability challenges and issues with competing with China instead of selling to China.

“When you net all of that out, I’d say Spain is the best sort of opportunity inside of the EU right now in terms of consumers’ ability to spend and people actually having money in their pocket, not being as worried about other expenses like gas,” Chakravarti says.

Canada’s economy fares better than expected due to the majority of its trade being exempt under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, he says.

“And that has helped not only in terms of mitigating some of the losses that were expected from the United States but also in allowing them to be more competitive in selling abroad as well,” he says.

But Chakravarti says Canada still faces some structural issues that need to be worked out; it’s important to see if there are structural reforms that help consumers become less controlled by high housing prices.

“They need to improve their economies by actually trading between their provinces a bit better,” he says. “And they also need to make sure that people are putting their money into something other than real estate right now in Canada.”

Pulling It Together

Factoring in the current economic picture, Chakravarti says he sees a lot of opportunity for the produce industry for those who understand the needs of category managers.

“A lot of produce really, really works in terms of marketing in the mid funnel, your ability to … move the needle in the middle of the funnel with great innovation is really offsetting a lot of these tariff effects,” he says.

Chakravarti says there are opportunities on the demand side that, when married with the opportunities on the supply side, could be seen in tax benefits for investing in new technology. He says the 20% pass-through deduction for LLCs and S Corps, the increase in SALT (State and Local Tax) Cap can all help produce industry businesses through changes in demand, especially when a produce business focuses on promotions.

“There’s a lot of ability for you to be seen as major players in those systems to offset some of the demand costs,” he says.

Chakravarti says he sees fertilizer and anything coming from China as a risk for inflated costs. He says import fees on produce such as bananas, grapes and tomatoes are also a challenge.

“I’m talking to a lot of importers who are telling me, ‘We have to make entry exit decisions right now from certain markets to manage cash flow,’” he says. “Where there’s opportunity for investment, maybe from a tax basis, is on the cold chain side because you’re seeing increases in compressor refrigeration replacement costs, holding costs are getting higher and spoilage costs are going up as well.”

Chakravarti says retailers have the most power in the market due to the high pass-through rate to consumers.

“Produce is historically moderately price sensitive and income level is really the bigger determinant here,” he says. “When you start to take all of this together and you start to think, what are the costs really going to be? We’re looking at an anticipated pass-through of about 6 cents to 8 cents per dollar.”

Chakravarti points to a Harvard study that tracks price changes. With a commodity such as avocados, which is embedded with high-income consumers, he says that the tariff pass-through goes directly to the consumer, who is willing to pay for the product.

“If you’re dealing with other parts of the produce chain, you’re seeing maybe about as low as 50% is actually hitting the consumer in terms of who ends up paying the incremental dollar for every tariff that we pay,” he says. “What we’re seeing is that retailers are able to pass through in the long run, the most both downstream and upstream to consumers.”

Importers with weaker foreign currencies may pay a lot more of the trade impacts, Chakravarti says.

Another thing to look at, he says, is that there will be a slowing of population growth, which will directly impact demand and supply in the future.

“We actually expect that if this is going to be the trend moving forward, that we’ll get a population decline in the next 10 years,” he says. “So, this is something we really need to start tracking over the long run.”

Chakravarti says that produce industry businesses need to balance consumer pressures with business upsides.

“That starts with an understanding of this wonderful product that you have, that’s an amazing complementary good inside of these retail media networks,” he says. “There’s major opportunities for figuring out how to partner with your category managers and retail to really move the needle there and help them be great and be great partners to them. We think that there’s major returns there that can help offset some of the tariff effects.”

Understanding retail loyalty programs, Chakravarti says, can help produce industry businesses.

“Truly understanding sort of how to become next level in customer acquisition and retail partnering is going to be critically important moving forward,” he says.

California Citrus Industry Faces Significant Trade Challenges

Thu, 09 Oct 2025 11:53:44 GMT

California’s citrus industry is facing unprecedented challenges, including strong headwinds on both the import and export side of the trade equation, where imports now exceed exports. Adding to these difficulties, are the rising cost of production, labor challenges and the threat of pests like huanglongbing (HLB) and the Asian citrus psyllid .

California Citrus Quality Council President Jim Cranney says the organization is focused on facilitating changes that will help move the industry forward and weather some of these challenges.

CCQC’s mission is to represent the California citrus industry in response to issues at the state, national and international levels, which means everything from quarantine matters to technical assistance to international compliance to understanding regulations with trading partners and assisting with reducing barriers to market access.

But recently, Cranney says the CCQC has been doing a lot of work, providing input and comments to the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, focused on the trade front.

“I came to California in 2008 as the new president at CCQC, and at that time it was all about exports. The industry was very outward looking,” Cranney says.

Much has changed in the 17 years since he took the helm at CCQC, including both increased competition on the domestic citrus market and, in some cases, crippling tariffs on the export side.

CCQC President Jim Cranney says, recently, the council has been doing a lot of work focused on the trade front.

(Photo courtesy of CCQC)

“Recently, we’ve seen more difficulties on the export side and a lot of imports coming into the U.S., so much so that, regrettably, I would say when we look at trade policy, we’re paying a lot of attention on the import side,” he says.

Family Farms Under Pressure

California lemon growers are increasingly facing competition from lower-priced imports to the U.S.

“Lemons from Argentina have been a big problem,” Cranney says. “APHIS granted market access to lemons coming in from Argentina, I think it was around 2016 or 2017, and from 2018 until this past year, we’ve seen an increase from approximately 8,000 metric tons to 93,000 metric tons in that short period of time. That’s been an enormous increase in supply, and quite honestly, there’s a big differential in our cost of production as compared to Argentina.”

“It’s very difficult for our industry to meet the kind of prices that are coming in from Argentina,” he adds.

In addition to higher labor costs compared to Argentina, California also has more stringent regulatory requirements, Cranney says.

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangered Species Act? You can multiply that by 10 with requirements that are necessary in the state of California,” he says. “The regulatory costs for producers here are tremendous, so we feel the playing field is unfair for California citrus producers.”

While the CCQC continues to advocate for the industry, Cranney says it can only do the best it can to meet lower prices in the marketplace.

“Returns back to growers have been lower, and it’s been a very difficult situation for lemon growers,” he says.

For some California citrus growers, the situation is reaching a tipping point.

“Farms are under pressure,” he says. “Some of these are family farms that have been in the family for generations, and you can imagine it’s not an easy decision for these farming operations to just say, ‘We’re going to give up now.’ A lot of this is happening in places in California, where development is a real possibility and there’s potential in the next two to three years, if this continues, we’ll start to see farms coming out of production and just going into shopping malls.”

Cranney says CCQC has been bringing its message of an unlevel playing field to the U.S. Trade Representative’s office.

“We have been saying that we’re not so much upset that Argentina has access to the U.S. market, but we expect them to operate in a more responsible way in terms of marketing their fruit in the U.S.,” he says. “We haven’t gone to the level of documenting dumping on their part, but if you look at market conditions, it’s also very difficult for them to be selling at cost of production.

“We have questions about how rational it is for producers in Argentina to be dumping product into the U.S. market, when they’re not making money either,” he adds. “Our industry’s opinion is that the U.S. government should put a limit on the amount [of lemons] coming in from Argentina to protect the industry from predatory behavior on the part of Argentine interest, and we’ve been advocating for the industry along those lines with USTR.”

A lot of this is happening in places in California, where development is a real possibility and there’s potential in the next two to three years, if this continues, we’ll start to see farms coming out of production and just going into shopping malls.

Jim Cranney, president of California Citrus Quality Council

While the U.S. government has imposed 10% tariffs on products from Argentina imported into the U.S., Cranney says it’s not likely to have measurable impact.

“Ten percent isn’t likely to make a huge difference,” he says. “It will deter and restrict some imports coming in, we’ll have to wait and see by how much, but probably we need a tariff quite a bit higher than 10% to really get to the level where there’s not real disruption in the marketplace.”

Opportunities and Challenges in China

When it comes to exports, California citrus has long eyed China as a market with tremendous potential for growth.

“If you look at what has happened in China over the last 10 to 15 years, they’ve had one of the largest migrations of people in rural areas to cities in human history,” Cranney says.

China’s urban population in 2024 was approximately 943.5 million, according to Statista. To put that in perspective, the population of New York City was 8.5 million in 2025.

“When you look at it in those terms, and you’re a produce supplier or food producer, you don’t have to think too long and hard to know that demand is going to increase substantially when you have people coming out of rural areas and into a city where they can’t produce their own food,” he says. “Because of that, China has always been viewed by the industry as a really interesting top growth market.”

While the California citrus industry had been exporting to China, Cranney says that with the trade disruptions from about 2018 to around 2020, California citrus saw its exports decrease to the country by 28% to 30%.

“China took retaliatory measures and increased tariffs substantially,” he says. “And since then, we’ve been operating with tariffs that are in a neighborhood of about 46%.”

Steep tariffs have made California far less competitive in China’s citrus market, where suppliers from other countries have a large advantage as far as price.

“That has been an ongoing problem because China hasn’t really reduced those retaliatory tariffs,” says Cranney, who adds that COVID-19 further exacerbated the situation with supply chain disruptions and shipping delays that are less than ideal with a perishable product.

“It’s been a challenge for the industry to overcome those difficulties, and there’s still a lot of residual problems from COVID in the supply chain that have not been completely resolved,” he says. “We’re still faced with delays that make it difficult to make customers happy halfway around the world.”

If China would lower tariffs, giving California citrus growers greater access, Cranney says, “it is a very promising market.”

“But if we can’t, then we feel like we’re stuck in the same boat as many other types of producers going into China,” he says. “We hear a lot about soybeans, for instance. China has always been a very big market for soybean producers, and we also hear about different government programs or bailouts, if you will, that will compensate those growers for loss of market and financial difficulties.

“We would just expect that California citrus growers also would be included in any type of market assistance programs along those lines, including purchases that the government may make for [federally funded] food programs or other types of government programs that can utilize citrus from California.”

Cranney says that as CCQC and the citrus industry continue to navigate these difficulties, there is some good news on the horizon.

“It looks like we have a good crop coming up this year, with probably a little bit larger size fruit,” he says. “Some markets like larger fruit, and that is a bright spot for the industry.”

Divine Flavor Delivers Grapes From Around the Globe

Mon, 15 Sep 2025 19:34:58 GMT

As the fall table grapes season is underway and as the International Fresh Produce Association’s annual show is coming, The Packer talked with Divine Flavor’s quality assurance and public relations manager, Michael DuPuis, on the international table grape situation.

He reports the table grape season, particularly from its international suppliers, has been mixed. On the one hand, there have been better yields in some growing regions and good supplies of consumer-favorite varieties. For example, during last season, he noted Peru saw “nearly a 48% increase in production compared to last year.”

Michael DuPuis, quality assurance and public relations manager for Divine Flavor.

(Photo courtesy of Divine Flavor)

“Chile also saw a rise in output despite reduced acreage,” he adds.

Divine Flavor’s Mexican table grapes season started in March in Jalisco. He describes this region as having become a key region for growing proprietary varieties like Autumncrisp, Cotton Candy and Sweet Globe that are consumer favorites.

“These arrive at an ideal time, when South American grapes are aging and nearing the end of shelf life, making Jalisco fruit a standout during the early import window.”

Challenges of table grape imports

On the other hand, there have also been challenges related to weather, tariffs and oversupplies for Divine Flavor’s international table grape operations. Weather repeatedly became a problem for Mexican growers, for instance.

Tropical Storm Alvin struck in late May and early June. This system particularly caused problems for the Flame seedless grapes grown in Sonora, where humidity from the storm caused cracking just before harvest.

“However, through our mother-ship company, Grupo Alta, and other experienced growers, we adapted quickly to navigate through the early rain issues that hit in early June,” DuPuis reports. “By the time our premium varieties came in, quality and consistency were back on track.”

Tariffs can also be a challenge for the grape importer, but because Divine Flavor sources from several different countries throughout the season, the impact varies. DuPuis explains grapes from the Mexican operations enter the U.S. tariff-free due to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

“This gives our Mexican programs, particularly from Jalisco and Sonora, a strategic advantage in terms of cost and competitiveness,” he says.

The situation is more challenging when it comes to grapes from the South American countries, however. DuPuis describes the tariffs as playing a significant role in the current import landscape for Divine Flavor’s South American operations. Chile and Peru are both currently under a 10% tariff.

“Since Peru begins the season earlier, the added cost is immediately felt by exporters and importers, impacting overall pricing and margins,” DuPuis says. “For Chile, the effect could be even more significant. As they finish later in the season — when Mexican fruit starts hitting the market — the 10% tariff could reduce their competitiveness and potentially limit the volume of Chilean grapes shipped to the U.S.”

Potentially the most pressing challenge is an oversupply of table grapes compared to consumer demand, however, which puts pressure on prices for growers. DuPuis says this dynamic is at play in both the international and the California-based table grape industries and for traditional varieties as well as newer proprietary varieties.

“While premium grapes, such as high-flavor varieties and organics, are still performing well, the sheer abundance of grapes across all categories is creating a difficult environment,” DuPuis says. But the company is rising to tackle those obstacles, he adds.

“At Divine Flavor, we manage our programs strategically — timing promotions, client needs and variety selection to stay ahead of these challenges.”

Looking to the table grape future

DuPuis says one of the biggest opportunities for the table grape industry is to deal with the issue of overproduction.

“To address this, it’s critical that the grape sector comes together to collectively promote grape consumption,” he says. “We have incredible varieties, both established and in development, but without unified marketing efforts, we risk missing the opportunity to grow demand alongside supply.”

He also describes oversupplies of table grapes as something that “can tempt the system to accept subpar fruit, which ultimately hurts consumer trust and long-term demand.” And keeping consumers’ changing demands in mind is key.

“Looking ahead, consumer demand is clearly moving toward grapes that offer both exceptional flavor and enhanced health benefits,” DuPuis adds. “Grapes are already a naturally healthy fruit, but ongoing innovation from breeders is introducing varieties with even higher levels of antioxidants, vitamins and overall nutritional value.”

He additionally praises the ongoing innovation from table-grape breeders to make more sustainable, nutritious grapes one of the most exciting innovations going on in the industry. This is particularly important as consumer preferences become more personalized.

“Variety matters,” he stresses. “People know what they like, and flavor drives their choices.”

Divine Flavor at 2025 Global Produce Show

When it comes to looking to the future, Divine Flavor will have a booth at the upcoming International Fresh Produce Association’s 2025 Global Produce and Floral Show in Anaheim, Calif. Oct. 16-18.

“Our goal at events like this is to share our story, update our retail partners on the upcoming season, and provide real solutions to their retail needs,” DuPuis says. “While we’re best known for our premium table grapes, our footprint continues to grow across our vegetable programs, including bell peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers and other hot house items, available in both conventional and organic. We’re working hard to close production gaps and become a true year-round supplier across all our core categories.”

DuPuis adds that the entire Divine Flavor sales team will be out in full force at the event, urging attendees to “come stop by and visit us at Booth 647 to chat more about the opportunities we can create together.”

Your next reads:

U.S. Sweetpotato Exports Grow, But Not Without a Challenge

Wed, 10 Sep 2025 18:11:25 GMT

When it comes to exports, the sweetpotato industry has made some significant gains over the past decade.

In 2024, growers sent 21% of their sweetpotatoes to buyers outside the U.S., says Jerry Hingle, international program consultant for the Benson, N.C.-based American Sweet Potato Marketing Institute (ASPMI). Ten years ago, that figure was about 8%.

Canada is the No. 1 market for U.S. sweetpotatoes, followed by the United Kingdom as well as some European nations, such as Germany and the Benelux region, says Jeff Smutny, ASPMI’s executive director.

However, shipments to Europe have dipped into the “low two-digits” over the past couple of years, Hingle says.

“The sole reason is Egypt,” he says. “Egypt’s exports to the European Union and the United Kingdom are up tremendously, and we’re taking it on the chin.”

Egyptian growers were able to secure seed for the same sweetpotato varieties as those grown in the U.S., Smutny says.

Growing operations are government subsidized, sellers can take advantage of a favorable currency exchange rate, and Egyptian growers have a location advantage — Egypt is much closer to Europe than the U.S. is — Smutny says.

Rise in Mexico

While exports to Europe might be down, Mexico is an up-and-coming market.

“Mexico is a new market for us solely because of the work we’ve done,” Hingle says. “Mexico now ranks among the top five markets. It was not even on our radar screens five years ago.”

And the market continues to grow.

ASPMI has worked with importers in Mexico, attended trade shows there and has conducted abundant sampling in Mexico’s largest retail chains, Smutny says. In fact, 160 samplings were conducted in the past six to seven months.

The favorable reputation of U.S.-grown sweetpotatoes was largely developed through the marketing efforts of ASPMI, Hingle says.

“We invest heavily in promoting sweetpotatoes around the world,” Hingle says, especially by touting their nutritional value and quality.

ASPMI promotions also stress the growing practices used by U.S. producers, the safety regulations they abide by and growers’ emphasis on sustainability, Smutny adds.

Marketing Revamped

Smutny assumed his leadership position last year and says one of his first tasks was to review the institute’s marketing activities.

“We decided to make a more retail-focused approach,” he says, since consumer outreach is expensive and ASPMI has a small budget, supported by USDA funding. “We have to use it sparingly.”

The institute replaced some of its marketing firms overseas.

“We just signed on with a more nutritionally focused firm in Europe,” Smutny explains.

ASPMI works directly with importers and grocery store chains worldwide, conducts in-store sampling and strives to educate consumers at point of purchase by providing recipe ideas, sharing handling and storage practices and explaining how flexible sweetpotatoes are.

“You can use them for baking anything from brownies to just having sweetpotatoes themselves,” he says.

As for varietal preferences, consumers in other countries lean toward varieties like beauregard and other moist-flesh potatoes similar to those U.S. shoppers, Hingle says. However, purple sweetpotatoes are often the preference of Chinese and Japanese consumers, Smutny adds.

Tariff Talk

While tariffs can be a moving target, they have not yet had much of an impact on sweetpotato movement, Hingle sys.

Fortunately, there are no tariffs on sweetpotatoes produced in North America that are sold to buyers in Canada or Mexico thanks to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, he says.

Mexico Probably Won’t Deliver All the Water it Owes

Mon, 25 Aug 2025 14:34:58 GMT

Mexico has two months left to deliver almost 1 million acre-feet of water to the U.S., but all that water probably won’t be coming, according to U.S. experts.

“Barring some kind of tropical system, that’s not going to happen,” says Sonny Hinojosa, current water advocate and former general manager at the Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 in San Juan, Texas.

According to the 1944 treaty that governs water sharing between the U.S. and Mexico , Mexico must deliver 1.75 million acre-feet of water from the Rio Grande into Texas every five years. The current cycle ends October 25. As of Aug. 25, it only delivered 747,982 acre-feet , 43% of the total.

“The only thing that can bail Mexico out is a tropical system,” Hinojosa says. “Now, this is a monsoon season in northwest Mexico and west Texas, so we’re still hopeful to get some precipitation, but that still may or may not be enough to get us 100% of the water that we need.”

The deliveries of water from Mexico the the U.S. on the Rio Grande as of Aug. 25, 2025, from the International Boundary and Water Commission.

(Chart from International Boundary and Water Commission)

Hoping for a hurricane

Ideally, Mexico should deliver 350,000 acre-feet of water to the Rio Grande for Texas annually to reach the five-year total of 1.75 million acre-feet. But the 1944 treaty allows deliveries to run on the five-year cycle in the case of extraordinary drought. Mexico has been citing this provision and delivering water later and later in the cycle , often getting into “water debt” by not delivering enough on time.

In the past few cycles, late-cycle hurricanes bumped up deliveries. In the last cycle, which ended on Oct. 24, 2020, Mexico made the total 1.75 million acre-feet in the last days due to a heavy weather event.

The last time Mexico delivered roughly a million-acre feet of water in a couple months — what’s needed now — was at the end of 2010 as a result of Hurricane Alex that hit Mexico in late June.

“That’s the last time our reservoirs were full,” Hinojosa says.

The recent history of water delivery cycles from Mexico to the U.S. on the Rio Grande as recorded by the International Boundary and Water Commission. The mostly-vertical lime green line on the far left of the chart is shows the impact of Hurricane Alex in 2010.

(Chart from the International Boundary and Water Commission)

Alex was a just-in-time hurricane for Texas as well. Hinojosa explains those full reservoirs in late 2010 protected the state’s agriculture while it was deep in drought in 2011 and 2012. But by 2013, the water had again run out.

“It’s horrible to hope for a hurricane, but sometimes it seems to be what we need to get us caught up,” says Troy Allen, general manager of the Delta Lake Irrigation District in Edcouch, Texas.

“We don’t want the devastating ones that kill people,” he adds. “But if we do not get a hurricane this year in the watershed area, it’s going to be very rough come next year.”

Lucas Gregory, associate director and chief science officer of the Texas Water Resources Institute, says the best-case scenario “would be for a system to move pretty far inland and rain up in the mountains, in Chihuahua and the Rio Conchos watershed. That’s upstream of Amistad [International Reservoir], and that’s where the best storage capacity is.”

It’s not just a drought problem

However, there’s far more than drought going on in the situation between Mexico and Texas.

Gregory highlights issues such as growing metro populations on both sides of the Rio Grande and the impacts of climate change as contributing factors.

“But the ability of Mexico to store water in country is improved,” he adds. “They’ve built a lot more reservoirs in more recent history than the U.S. has, so now they can actually hold that water there and use it for themselves.”

Hinojosa says Mexico has built eight reservoirs since the 1944 treaty. Most were built along the Rio Conchos, a major tributary that delivers a lot of water to the Rio Grande — or used to, he says.

“Now they’re capturing it and using all the water for their expanded irrigation,” Gregory adds. “They’re basically irrigating desert with our water.”

Every source The Packer talked to pointed to the expansion of Mexico’s agriculture as a reason the U.S. is not getting the water it’s owed. This is particularly the case in the dry state of Chihuahua, and especially problematic with permanent, water-hungry crops like pecans.

Hinojosa points to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement as when the problems started.

“It opened the doors for Mexico, mainly Chihuahua, to expand their irrigated agriculture into the desert using water that used to flow into the Rio Grande,” he explains.

“They’re using our water, and I say ‘our water’ because it’s rightfully ours,” he continues. “They’re capturing that water, storing it, using it to grow crops and then bringing them to the U.S. for us. And they’re killing our farmers. They’re killing our market.”

The impact on Texas growers

Since Mexico has only delivered roughly two years’ worth of water over the course of five years, Texas farmers and growers have been in a tough place for a while. Allen explains that his growers have been “on allocation” since April of 2023, while others in neighboring irrigation districts have enforced it since 2022.

“Meaning that they’ve told their farmers they are only going to get X number of irrigations,” he says. He calls the situation unprecedented in his 22 years at the district.

“It’s been very difficult for my farmers,” he adds, saying it is especially “looking pretty scary for the citrus farmers.”

Dante Galeazzi, president and CEO of the Texas International Produce Association, says Texas produce growers in particular are going to have to make some tough decisions.

“What it means this coming season is our growers are going to continue to veer away from water-intensive crops,” he says. “They’re not going to put in broccoli. They’re not going to put in celery. They’re probably not going to take a lot of chances on new commodities. They’re going to double down on what they know works.”

Those produce standbys will likely be crops like cabbage, onions, carrots and established citrus like oranges and grapefruit, he says. But the potential loss of produce diversity comes with its own problems.

“The diversity, the variety, the trying new things — that’s what has always helped South Texas be a region that provides commercial volumes of fresh fruits and vegetables,” Galeazzi stresses. But, without assurances about water availability, growers will likely stay in the safe lane, he adds.

“The safe lane is great, but the safe lane isn’t always profitable, and that’s challenging because now you’re coming off of two years where profits have been cut into if there’s even profits. And now, you’re about to go into year three of pretty similar conditions. It’s gut wrenching.”

What’s likely to happen in the next two months

Though Texas probably won’t get the full volume of water owed by Mexico, it will likely get some additional water this cycle. It might even amount to more than the usual annual delivery.

In an agreement signed between the U.S. State Department and Mexico in late April , Mexico pledged to deliver 324,000 to 420,000 acre-feet between the signing and October. That’s roughly a year’s worth of water delivered in five months. These deliveries are on top of the 110,000 acre-feet Mexico had delivered since the start of the current water year that started Oct. 25, 2024 and late April 2025.

If realized, the April agreement will bring the total deliveries for the current water year to 434,000 to 530,000 acre-feet, and the total five-year cycle deliveries between 854,000 and 950,000 acre-feet.

“Mexico has delivered 60.8% of the minimum that they said they would, so they’re on target to deliver this minimum of 324,000 acre feet,” Hinojosa says. “By the time this current cycle ends, it still leaves them with a deficit, but nonetheless, it has brought us some water in in recent history.”

Hinojosa praises the current administration for putting pressure on Mexico to achieve the April agreement that actually seems to be happening.

“I’ve been in this business for 38 years, and I’ve never known Mexico to do anything voluntarily before a cycle ends,” he says. “There’s a lot of pressure being put on Mexico, and that’s why they made these targets of delivering water to the U.S. before this current cycle ends.”

Needs for the future

More pressure is going to be needed to prevent this situation from repeating in the future, sources say.

“[Our administration is] going to have to implement something that puts pressure on Mexico that’s not tied to water,” Allen opines. That might mean tariffs or inclusion into the USMCA renegotiation, but whatever it is, it needs to spur Mexico to make good on their delivery requirements.

“Mexico could have fulfilled and caught up to what they owed us in 2022 because their reservoirs were full. They had a little over 3 million acre-feet in storage, and they still were over a year behind at that point in time,” Allen says. “But they didn’t deliver any of that water to the U.S.”

Hinojosa says a mindset change is needed in Mexico.

“We need Mexico to treat us, the United States, as we treat them on the Colorado River,” he says. The same 1944 treaty that dictate’s Mexico’s water deliveries to the U.S. on the Rio Grande also dictates the U.S.’s deliveries of water to Mexico on the Colorado River.

He says the U.S. takes Mexico’s allocation “off the top” of the available water in the Colorado River, then divides the rest among the seven U.S. states that rely on it. But Mexico does not return the favor, he adds.

“That has to change,” Hinojosa says. “Mexico needs to recognize that the treaty calls for a minimum delivery to United States of 350,000 acre-feet per year — that’s a minimum delivery — and they need to set that water aside and deliver that water to United States.”

Galeazzi also advocates for a mindset change here in the U.S. around not only Texas’ water issues with Mexico, but all of the country’s water issues. He describes the U.S. as having put water infrastructure on the back burner, adding that the country has “hamstrung ourselves” with excessive and burdensome regulations.

“We absolutely need to pressure Mexico,” he says. “But, if we want to prevent this from happening, the other thing we have to do is we — as a region, a state and a country — need to get serious and make some very big investments in the infrastructure of water.”

Your next reads:

Hit by Tariffs: The Produce Items Most Impacted by Trade Wars

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:40:37 GMT

As the impact of tariffs hits grocery shelves, retailers and their customers are bracing for higher prices, supply chain disruptions and potentially less variety.

Amanda Oren, vice president of industry strategy for grocery North America at Relex Solutions, a native artificial intelligence (AI) platform that helps retailers and manufacturers improve forecast accuracy, optimize operations and increase efficiency and sales, says more disruption is coming.

“There are a number of overall factors we’re seeing and specifically, the impact of tariffs. We’re definitely seeing impacts to the overall supply chain. We’re seeing higher transportation costs and some trade disruption,” she says.

Oren, whose background includes executive roles at Good Food Holdings, Grocery Outlet and Foodland, says the volatility around tariffs has been particularly challenging for grocers.

“There’s been tariffs announced and then pulled back, and then certain things have gone into effect, and then they’ve been pulled back,” she says. “What we’ve seen so far is that grocers, in particular, are hesitant to make long-term investments in changes related to tariffs, because there’s so much evolving change going on right now.”

Amanda Oren of Relex Solutions says tariffs may impact some commodities more than others.

(Photo courtesy of Amanda Oren)

The Produce Department

When it comes to which fresh produce commodities will be hit hardest by tariffs, Oren points to bananas and mangoes, which are not mass produced in the U.S.

“Then we have a second bucket of products that can be mass produced in the United States, but not year-round, and there is demand for these items year-round,” she says.

Avocados, blueberries, broccoli, cucumbers, strawberries and peaches, which are produced in the U.S. but not year-round, will be impacted most by tariffs, says Oren, adding that lower-volume items will also be more impacted by tariffs than higher-volume items.

In terms of which countries and their exports to the U.S. will be most impacted by tariffs, Oren is looking south.

“As most agricultural products from Mexico are currently exempt from tariffs, it’s basically Central and South America — which is where much of the rest of our produce is being imported from — where the price hikes are having the biggest impact,” she says. Oren adds that higher-end ethnic products imported from Asia are also going to see a pretty significant price increase.

Ultimately, says Oren, analysts expect tariffs to lead to higher prices and a decrease in the overall variety in the produce department.

“The majority of these price increases are going to get passed on to the consumer, whether or not it’s being transparently communicated, but it’s going to happen because margins are very tight for grocers, and there’s not a ton of wiggle room to absorb cost increases without passing them on,” Oren says. “That said, grocers are trying to mitigate those specific scenarios through a number of strategies. They’re trying to lean more heavily on private label and on places where they have more control over the overall supply chain.”

Oren says retailers are also trying to decrease the impact of tariffs by leaning into certain commodities that can be produced domestically or shifting or expanding their supplier base to countries with lower or no tariffs.

Retail Solutions, Pricing

Oren sees price-sensitive consumers stockpiling imported center store items like coffee and olive oil, and while that’s not possible with highly perishable fresh produce, Relex Solutions offers tools to help retailers navigate the turbulence caused by tariffs.

“There are two key areas where we play an active role,” she says. “The first one is helping grocers figure out the optimal quantities they should be purchasing based on price hikes that are coming down the way, and that has a lot to do with the shelf life of the product, obviously. So, for produce there’s less stockpiling than there would be for center store products.

“The other place we play an active role is we have a price optimization tool that [determines] the optimal price based on what the competition is doing, increased costs, etc., to meet your company’s goals, whether that is optimizing margin dollars, optimizing traffic into your stores or creating a certain price perception,” Oren continues. “Retailers need an overall pricing strategy, but then our tool helps execute on that strategy. Especially because of tariffs, companies really need an AI native machine learning tool to help them figure out what that price should be for each item.”

Relex uses a retailer’s pricing history to understand how price elastic each item is.

“As an example, if your recipe is calling for paprika, there really isn’t a substitute item, right? And so that’s an item where, No. 1, people don’t know exactly how much it costs. No. 2, there isn’t a good substitute. So, that’s an item where the data would show you can take a price increase and not have it impact your overall unit sales,” she explains.

But in produce categories like cucumbers, where a shopper might have multiple options from which to choose — organic, mini, English or Persian — a significant price hike would likely result in the consumer choosing a less expensive option.

“There is an assumption that there will be some trading down for sure,” Oren says. There’s also a question around some of the commodities that are lower volume. Are people going to just stop purchasing that rare type of mushroom, for example, if it goes to a price where they don’t feel comfortable?

“There’s also the idea that organic produce might become particularly vulnerable to demand shifts if the price premium starts to get bigger over conventional items,” she adds.

Oren also sees some consumers turning to private label for savings or shifting their produce purchase to frozen and canned fruits and vegetables.

Looking Ahead

What might this tariff volatility spell for the fresh produce industry in the year ahead?

“I think there will be a decrease in variety, and I think there will be price increases, but overall, my gut tells me that the government is very reactive right now and is seeing what’s going on and the volatility in the market and pulling back as needed, and being very strategic on where to pull back and how to pull back, so that the impact isn’t so significant to the overall economy.”

Oren is also hopeful that Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) may also help with fresh produce pricing.

“There’s a feeling that the MAHA movement within the government is going to start having a bigger voice if produce tariffs are too high and pricing is impacted … and that they’ll pull back [on tariffs] as needed strategically,” she says.

Trump Gives Mexico 90-day Tariff Reprieve as Deadline for Higher Duties Looms

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:39:13 GMT

U.S. President Donald Trump gave Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs to negotiate a broader trade deal but was expected to issue higher final duty rates for most other countries as the clock wound down on his Friday deal deadline.

The extension, which avoids a 30% tariff on most Mexican non-automotive and non-metal goods compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, came after a Thursday morning call between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.

“We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow,” Sheinbaum wrote in an X social media post, adding that the call with Trump was “very good.”

Approximately 85% of Mexican exports comply with the rules of origin outlined in the USMCA, shielding them from 25% tariffs related to fentanyl, according to Mexico’s economy ministry.

Trump said the U.S. would continue to levy a 50% tariff on Mexican steel, aluminum and copper and a 25% tariff on Mexican autos and on non-USMCA-compliant goods subject to tariffs related to the U.S. fentanyl crisis.

“Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its non-tariff trade barriers, of which there were many,” Trump said in a Truth Social post without providing details.

Trump is expected to issue tariff rate proclamations later on Thursday for countries that have not struck trade deals by a 12:01 a.m. EDT (04:01 GMT) deadline.

South Korea agreed on Wednesday to accept a 15% tariff on its exports to the U.S., including autos, down from a threatened 25%, as part of a deal that includes a pledge to invest $350 billion in U.S. projects to be chosen by Trump.

But goods from India appeared to be headed for a 25% tariff after talks bogged down over access to India’s agriculture sector, drawing a higher-rate threat from Trump that also included an unspecified penalty for India’s purchases of Russian oil.

Although negotiations with India were continuing, New Delhi vowed to protect the country’s labor-intensive farm sector, triggering outrage from the opposition party and a slump in the rupee.

Tough Questions From Judges

Trump hit Brazil on Wednesday with a steep 50% tariff as he escalated his fight with Latin America’s largest economy over its prosecution of his friend and former President Jair Bolsonaro, but softened the blow by excluding sectors such as aircraft, energy and orange juice from heavier levies.

The run-up to Trump’s tariff deadline was unfolding as federal appeals court judges sharply questioned Trump’s use of a sweeping emergency powers law to justify his sweeping tariffs of up to 50% on nearly all trading partners. Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency over the growing U.S. trade deficit and impose his reciprocal tariffs and a separate fentanyl emergency.

The Court of International Trade ruled in May that the actions exceeded his executive authority, and questions from judges during oral arguments before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit in Washington indicated further skepticism.

“IEEPA doesn’t even say tariffs, doesn’t even mention them,” Judge Jimmie Reyna said at one point during the hearing.

China Deal Not Done

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. believes it has the makings of a trade deal with China, but it is “not 100% done,” and still needs Trump’s approval.

U.S. negotiators “pushed back quite a bit” over two days of trade talks with the Chinese in Stockholm this week, Bessent said in an interview with CNBC.

China is facing an Aug. 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with Trump’s administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals.

(Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington and Aftab Ahmed in New Delhi; Editing by Nick Zieminski)

Trump Eyes 'World Tariff' of 15% to 20% for Most Countries

Tue, 29 Jul 2025 19:15:45 GMT

President Donald Trump said on Monday most trading partners that do not negotiate separate trade deals would soon face tariffs of 15% to 20% on their exports to the U.S., well above the broad 10% tariff he imposed in April.

Trump told reporters his administration will notify some 200 countries soon of their new “world tariff” rate.

“I would say it’ll be somewhere in the 15% to 20% range,” Trump told reporters, sitting alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at his luxury golf resort in Turnberry, Scotland. “Probably one of those two numbers.”

Trump, who has vowed to end decades of U.S. trade deficits by imposing tariffs on nearly all trading partners, has already announced higher rates of up to 50% on some countries, including Brazil, starting on Friday.

The announcements have spurred feverish negotiations by a host of countries seeking lower tariff rates, including India, Pakistan, Canada and Thailand, among others.

The U.S. president on Sunday clinched a huge trade deal with the European Union that includes a 15% tariff on most EU goods, $600 billion of investments in the U.S. by European firms, and $750 billion in energy purchases over the next three years.

That followed a $550-billion deal with Japan last week and smaller agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Other talks are ongoing, including with India, but prospects have dimmed for many more agreements before Friday, Trump’s deadline for deals before higher rates take effect.

Trump has repeatedly said he favors straightforward tariff rates over complex negotiations.

“We’re going to be setting a tariff for essentially, the rest of the world,” he said again on Monday. “And that’s what they’re going to pay if they want to do business in the United States because you can’t sit down and make 200 deals.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said trade talks with the U.S. were at an intense phase, conceding that his country was still hoping to walk away with a tariff rate below the 35% announced by Trump on some Canadian imports.

Carney conceded this month that Canada — which sends 75% of its exports to the United States — would likely have to accept some tariffs.

(Additional reporting by Andrew MacAskill in Turnberry, Andrea Shalal in Edinburgh and William James in London. Editing by Rod Nickel)

U.S. Agriculture Tariffs

Canadian Mushroom Growers to Fight ‘Deeply Flawed’ U.S. Subsidy Ruling

U.S. Case for Tariff Enforcement

Canadian Industry Warns of a ‘Deeply Flawed’ Precedent

Beyond Tariffs: The Dispute Over Farm Accounting Practices

Supply Chain Impacts and the Cost of Defense

Legal Timeline

Read more on this case:

The $40 Taste of Home: Diaspora Demand Drives Indian Mango Surge

India Dominates in Mangoes

Overcoming the Irradiation Knowledge Gap

‘Manageable’ Mango Prices for Consumers

Is Global Trade Volatility Putting the U.S. Fresh Produce Industry at Risk?

Why Export Markets Dictate Domestic Produce Prices

Long Road to Market Recovery

Navigating High Tariffs and the Race for Global Market Access

Protecting the North American Supply Chain

Rising Costs and the Threat of Imports

Balancing Year-Round Availability With Domestic Survival

Canadian Retailers Lean Into Domestic Produce Amid Lingering Trade Tensions

Can a USMCA Renewal Repair North American Produce Trade, Consumer Sentiment?

Red Alert: What’s Behind the Surge in Tomato Prices

Retailers Focus on Supplier Partnerships

15% Tariff Lifted on Ecuadorian Fruit, Floral Imports

IFPA Applauds Supreme Court Decision on Tariffs

Supreme Court Strikes Down Use of Emergency Powers for Trump's Tariffs

What This Means for Trump’s Tariffs

What This Means for Farmers, Agriculture and the Future of Trade

President Trump Reacts By Announcing New Tariffs

Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Tariffs

What Now? Exploring Alternatives to IEEPA Tariffs

How Texas is Unlocking Fresh Produce Opportunity Despite Challenges

Investment and Opportunity in Age of Uncertainty

Water, Labor and Tariffs Prove a Triple Threat

Viva Fresh 2026 Returns to San Antonio

Fresh Produce Must Avoid Becoming ‘Collateral Damage’ in USMCA Trade Talks, Says CPMA President

UPDATE: Supreme Court Did Not Issue Ruling on Tariffs Case, Decision Still Pending

USDA Releases Per-Acre Rates for Farmer Bridge Assistance Program

Reaching the Farmer Bridge Assistance Rates

What About the Other Commodities?

Some See Payments as a Bandage on a Bigger Problem

Tariffs and Trade Wars in 2025 and Beyond

The commodities particularly hard hit by tariffs

Things started quickly in 2025 and will continue in 2026

Commodity-Specific Trade War Battles to Watch for in 2026

Other commodities faced trade threats and dumping issues

Produce Gets Political: NYPS Panel Discussion Examines the State of Trade

U.S. and Canada Produce Relations

White House Drops Reciprocal Tariffs on Fertilizer, Other Ag Products Not Produced in the U.S.

President Defends Tariff Strategy, Says It’s Working

Billions in the Balance: Are You Entitled to a Tariff Refund?

What We Know from Day 1

Path to Pursuing Refunds

Preparation is Key to a Refund

Tariffs ‘Likely to Remain a Fixture of U.S. Trade Policy’

Fresh Produce Focuses on Growth, Health Amid Tariff and Trade Tensions

CPMA Talks Tariffs

‘Banana Badasses’ Pose for Wellness

Lipman Family Farms Focuses on Fresh Cut

Zespri Marks Record Season

The Heat Is on as Fresh Produce Weathers Tariffs

Tariffs and Turbulence

Mark Your Calendars: Nov. 5

How Global and Domestic Economics Will Shape Fresh Produce

Global Perspective

Pulling It Together

California Citrus Industry Faces Significant Trade Challenges

Family Farms Under Pressure

Opportunities and Challenges in China

Divine Flavor Delivers Grapes From Around the Globe

Challenges of table grape imports

Looking to the table grape future

Divine Flavor at 2025 Global Produce Show

U.S. Sweetpotato Exports Grow, But Not Without a Challenge

Rise in Mexico

Marketing Revamped

Tariff Talk

Mexico Probably Won’t Deliver All the Water it Owes

Hoping for a hurricane

It’s not just a drought problem