Order Code RL34468
The U.S. Trade Situation for
Fruit and Vegetable Products
April 30Updated October 15, 2008
Renée Johnson
AnalystSpecialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industries Division
The U.S. Trade Situation for
Fruit and Vegetable Products
Summary
Over the last decade, there has been a growing U.S. trade deficit in fresh and
processed fruits and vegetables. Although U.S. fruit and vegetable exports totaled
nearly $9 billion in 2007, U.S. imports of fruits and vegetables were more than $16
billion, resulting in a gap between imports and exports of more than $7 billion. This
trade deficit has widened over time — despite the fact that U.S. fruit and vegetable
exports have continued to rise each year — because growth in imports has greatly
outpaced export growth. As a result, the United States has gone from being a net
exporter of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables in the early 1970s to being a net
importer of fruits and vegetables today.
A number of factors are shaping current competitive market conditions
worldwide and global trade in fruits and vegetables in particular, which explain in
part the rising fruit and vegetable trade deficit. These include:
!
!
!
!
!
a relatively open domestic import regime and lower average import
tariffs in the United States, with products from most leading
suppliers entering the U.S. duty-free or at preferential duty rates;
increased competition from low-cost or government-subsidized
production;
continued non-tariff trade barriers to U.S. exports in some countries,
such as import and inspection requirements, technical product
standards, and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) requirements;
opportunities for counter-seasonal supplies, driven, in part, by
increased domestic and year-round demand for fruits and vegetables;
and
other market factors, such as exchange rate fluctuations and
structural changes in the U.S. food industry, as well as increased
U.S. overseas investment and diversification in market sourcing by
U.S. companies.
This situation has contributed to demands by the U.S. produce sector that
Congress consider additional support for domestic fruit and vegetable growers in the
pending omnibus farm bill, especially given the longstanding support provided to the
main program commodities (such as grains, oilseeds, cotton, sugar, and milk).
Historically, fruit and vegetable crops have not benefitted from the federal farm
support programs traditionally included in the farm bill. Both the House- and Senatepassed versions of the pending omnibus farm bill (H.R. 2419) contain provisions that
provide additional support for specialty crop programs (which include fruits and
vegetables) and organic programs, including provisions intended to address existing
trade barriers and marketing of U.S. specialty crops.
Contents
Fruit and Vegetable Trade Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Product Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Importing Country Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Competitive Market Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Domestic Import Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Global Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Non-Tariff Trade Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Seasonal Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Market Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Recent Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Trade, 1990-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Trade, 1990-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Country Suppliers of U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. Import Share of U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Demand . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The U.S. Trade Situation for
Fruit and Vegetable Products
Over the last decade there has been a growing U.S. trade deficit in fresh and
processed fruits and vegetables. Although U.S. fruit and vegetable exports totaled
nearly $9 billion in 2007, U.S. imports were more than $16 billion, resulting in a gap
between imports and exports of more than $7 billion for the year (Figure 1). This
trade deficit has widened over time, as growth in imports has greatly outpaced export
growth. As a result, the United States has gone from being a net exporter of fruits
and vegetables in the 1970s to having a net trade balance in the mid-1990s to being
a net importer today.
Figure 1. U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Trade, 1990-2007
$Billions
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
Imports
Exports
06
07
04
02
00
98
96
94
92
90
-10.0
Net
Source: Compiled by CRS from data in the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Trade
DataWeb database (version 2.8.4). Includes fresh and processed products; excludes nuts.
A number of factors are shaping current competitive market conditions
worldwide and global trade in fruits and vegetables. This situation has contributed
to demands that Congress consider additional support for domestic fruit and
vegetable growers in the pending omnibus farm bill (H.R. 2419), especially given the
longstanding support provided to grains and other crops. Historically, specialty
crops,1 including fruits and vegetables, have not benefitted from the federal farm
support programs traditionally included in the farm bill.
1
Specialty crops include fruits and vegetables, tree nuts (not including peanuts), dried fruits,
nursery crops, and floriculture, as defined by the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of
2004 (P.L. 108-465).
CRS-2
This report presents recent trends in U.S. fruit and vegetable trade, and
highlights some of the factors contributing to these trends. This summary excludes
trade data for tree nuts and processed tree nut products. Although not presented here,
U.S. exports and imports of tree nuts and processed tree nut products (excluding
peanuts) have shown continued increases, with a growing trade surplus of $1.8
billion in 2006 (see Appendix).
Fruit and Vegetable Trade Situation
Summary
The U.S. trade deficit in fresh and processed fruits and vegetables reached $7.4
billion in 2007, following a decade of steady gains in both exports and imports
(Table 1, Figure 1). In the early 1990s, U.S. imports and exports of fresh and
processed fruits and vegetables were more or less in balance, with some years
showing the United States as a net exporter. This situation reversed in the mid1990s. Despite rising U.S. exports of fruits and vegetables, growth in U.S. imports
has outpaced export growth. Since the 1990s, imports have grown by an average of
7% each year, whereas exports grew an average rate of 4% during the same period,
measured in terms of trade value (Table 1). The gap between imports and exports
has widened, rising from a $0.5 billion to a $7.4 billion deficit between 1990 and
2007.
Table 1. U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Trade, 1990-2007
Product
Category
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2007
Avg. Annual
%Change
1990-2007 a
($ billions)
Imports
Fresh, dried, frozen fruit
Fresh, dried, frozen, preserved veg.
Processed fruits and vegetables
Total
Exports
Fresh, dried, frozen, preserved fruit
Fresh, dried, frozen, preserved veg.
Processed fruits and vegetables
Total
Net Trade (exports less imports)
Fresh, dried, frozen fruit
Fresh, dried, frozen, preserved veg.
Processed fruits and vegetables
Total
1.3
1.8
2.0
5.1
1.5
2.1
1.8
5.5
2.9
2.6
2.2
7.6
3.7
3.1
2.7
9.4
5.4
4.8
4.2
14.3
6.0
5.2
4.8
16.1
9%
6%
5%
7%
1.4
2.2
1.0
4.6
1.7
2.8
1.6
6.0
2.3
1.8
1.9
6.0
2.6
1.8
1.8
6.2
3.4
2.4
2.2
8.0
3.8
2.5
2.5
8.7
6%
1%
5%
4%
0.1
0.4
(1.0)
(0.5)
0.1
0.7
(0.3)
0.5
(0.5)
(0.8)
(0.3)
(1.6)
(1.1)
(1.3)
(0.8)
(3.3)
(1.9)
(2.4)
(1.9)
(6.3)
(2.2)
(2.7)
(2.4)
(7.4)
—
—
—
—
Source: Compiled by CRS from data in the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Trade DataWeb
database (version 2.8.4). Includes fresh and processed products as reflected in U.S. Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) chapters 07, 08, and 20, excluding nut products (HTS 801, 802, 2008.11, and
2008.19). Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Based on compound annual rate of growth, or the year-over-year growth rate, over period.
CRS-3
Product Overview
Table 1 breaks down U.S. trade into three major product categories: (1) fresh
fruit, including dried, frozen, or otherwise preserved, (2) fresh vegetables, including
dried, frozen, or otherwise preserved, and (3) processed fruit and vegetable products.
Since the mid-1990s, the value of U.S. fruit and vegetable exports has nearly
doubled, with the largest gains in exports of fresh fruits and processed products. For
fresh fruits, export gains were greatest for strawberries/berries, peaches/pears, apples,
grapes, and other miscellaneous fresh fruit. For fresh vegetables, export gains were
greatest for lettuce, spinach, tomatoes, potatoes, and legumes/beans. For processed
products, export gains were for processed potato products, certain preserved
vegetables, fruit juices and juice mixtures, and other processed fruit and vegetable
products.
Gains in imports, however, have exceeded that for export, as the total value of
U.S. fruit and vegetable imports has more than tripled since the 1990s. Increased
imports were greatest for fresh citrus, strawberries/berries, tropical fruits (excluding
bananas), grapes, peaches/pears, plums/apricots, and apples. Imports of fresh
vegetables and processed products were higher across most categories. Imports of
preserved mushrooms and processed tomatoes declined over the period.2
Together, roughly one-half of the 2007 U.S. trade deficit for fruits and
vegetables was composed of bananas and fresh tomatoes and other vegetables,
including bell peppers. Given that the value of U.S. banana imports has remained
largely unchanged, imports of fresh tomatoes and peppers, among other fresh and
frozen vegetables, have accounted for the widening gap in U.S. trade.3 Other
products with a large and increasing net trade value from 1997-2007 included other
tropical fruits, grapes, asparagus, cucumbers, canned fruit, fruit juices and juice
mixtures, olives, and miscellaneous fresh fruits and preserved vegetables.
Importing Country Overview
Table 2 breaks down U.S. fruit and vegetable imports from the top ten
supplying countries. In descending order (by the share of total import value in 2007),
these include Mexico (33%), Canada (14%), Chile (8%), China (8%), Costa Rica
(6%), Guatemala, Brazil and Ecuador (each with 3%), and Argentina and Peru (2%
each). Other leading import suppliers are Thailand, Spain, Honduras, Colombia, and
the Philippines (for a combined total of 8%). All other importing countries
accounted for about 10% of trade in 2007. The major imported products were
tomatoes, peppers, bananas, tropical fruits, potatoes, onions, garlic, cucumbers,
melon, citrus, grapes, tree fruit, fruit juices, and various fresh and processed products.
2
Does not include ketchup and tomato sauces (HTS 2103.2), of which the United States
remains a net exporter despite increasing product imports.
3
Both U.S. and Canadian tomato growers initiated import injury cases against each other,
which were resolved in 2002 with identical rulings of no material injury; a prior case
brought by U.S. growers against Mexico was suspended. See [http://www.usitc.
gov/trade_remedy/Report-01-08-PUB.pdf].
CRS-4
Table 2. Country Suppliers of U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Imports
Country
Mexico
1997
2007
($ Millions)
2,089
5,353
1997
Share
2007
%Chg.
Share 97-07 a
(Percent)
30
33
16
Canada
681
2,192
10
14
Chile
501
1,358
7
8
China
196
1,285
3
8
Costa Rica
505
917
7
6
Guatemala
201
543
3
3
Brazil
142
515
2
3
Ecuador
313
406
4
3
Argentina
198
368
3
2
43
341
1
2
4,869
2,205
7,074
13,277
2,777
16,054
69
31
100
83
17
100
Peru
Subtotal :
All Other:
Total
Leading Product Imports of
Fruits and Vegetables (2007)
Tomatoes, other fresh vegetables,
tropical fruits, cucumbers, melons,
grapes, citrus, onions/garlic.
22
Tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers,
other types of vegetables and fruits,
certain frozen fruits.
17 Grapes, apricots, apples, tree fruits,
citrus, fruit juices, tropical fruits,
other types fruits and vegetables.
56 Processed fruit products, fruit juices,
prepared/frozen vegetables/fruits,
onions/garlic, preserved mushrooms.
8 Tropical fruits and bananas, melon,
fruit juices, preserved and frozen
fruits and vegetables.
17
Bananas and tropical fruits,
preserved/frozen fruits/vegetables.
26
Orange and other fruit juices,
grapes, fresh/processed tropical
fruits, melons
3
Bananas, melon, tropical fruits,
preserved/frozen fruits/vegetables,
legumes, onions/garlic.
9 Fruit juices, pears, apples, berries,
strawberries, olives, grapes, garlic.
69
Tropical fruits, fresh/preserved
vegetables, onions/garlic, grapes,
bananas.
17
—
3
—
13
—
Source: Compiled by CRS from data in the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Trade DataWeb
database (version 2.8.4). Includes fresh and processed products (HTS categories 07, 08, and 20),
excluding nut products (HTS 801, 802, 2008.11, and 2008.19). Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. Based on compound annual rate of growth, or the year-over-year growth rate, over period.
CRS-5
Competitive Market Situation
A number of factors are shaping current competitive market and trade conditions
worldwide, and may be contributing to trends in U.S. fruit and vegetable trade:
!
!
!
!
!
a relatively open U.S. import regime and lower average import
tariffs in the United States, with products from most leading
suppliers entering the U.S. duty-free or at preferential duty rates;
increased competition from low-cost or subsidized production of
fruit and vegetable products;
continued non-tariff trade barriers to U.S. exports in some
countries, including restrictive import and inspection requirements,
technical product standards, and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)
requirements;
opportunities for counter-seasonal supplies, driven, in part, by
increased domestic and year-round demand for fruits and vegetables;
and
other market factors, such as exchange rate fluctuations and
structural changes in the U.S. food industry, as well as increased
U.S. overseas investment and diversification in market sourcing by
U.S. companies.
Domestic Import Regime
Lower tariffs on U.S. fruit and vegetable imports combined with relatively
higher tariffs on U.S. exports into other countries, in part, may explain why U.S.
export growth has not kept pace with import growth. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) reports that the global average tariff for fruits and vegetables is
more than 50% of the import value.4 In the United States, however, about 60% of
U.S. tariffs on fruits and vegetables are less than 5%. This compares to Japan and
the European Union (EU) where more than 60% of import tariffs range from 5%25%; additionally, nearly 20% of tariffs exceed 25%. Import tariffs in some
developing countries are often higher, with more than 80% of tariffs ranging from
more than 25% to over 100%.5 Countries with relatively high tariffs on fruit and
vegetable imports include China, Egypt, India, Korea, and Thailand.
Most of the leading import suppliers of fruits and vegetables to the United States
are granted trade preferences under an existing free trade agreement (Canada, Chile,
Honduras, Mexico, Guatemala), a pending or negotiated free trade agreement
(Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, Thailand),6 or other types of preferential arrangements
4
B. Krissoff and J. Waino, “U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Imports Outpace Exports,” Amber
Waves, USDA, June 2005. Expressed as an average; actual tariffs may vary substantially
across products and countries.
5
6
Ibid.
For information, see CRS Report RL34134, Agriculture in U.S. Free Trade Agreements:
Trade with Current and Prospective Partners, Impact, and Issues, by Remy Jurenas.
CRS-6
(Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, Thailand).7 Such trade preferences
allow imports to the United States to enter duty-free or at reduced rates, and may be
contributing to rapid import growth. In some cases, duty-free or reduced tariffs
provide an added advantage to supplying countries who may already benefit from
lower-cost fruit and vegetable production compared to that in the United States.
Many of the countries that have entered into trade preference programs with the
United States supply products such as bananas and other tropical fruits that are grown
in limited supplies in the United States. Many also provide fruits and vegetables
counter-seasonally (off-season) to production in the United States. However, there
is concern that an increasing share of imports are now directly competing with
domestically produced commodities throughout the year.
Significant gains in trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico have
followed the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Under NAFTA, additional market access was created for tomatoes and peppers, as
tariffs were phased out or covered under a seasonal tariff-rate quota. Since the
adoption of NAFTA in 1994, the volume of U.S. imports of tomatoes and certain
other vegetables from Mexico have more than doubled; imports from Mexico of fresh
peppers, including bell peppers, more than tripled.8 Imports from Canada also
increased significantly but from a smaller base. During this same period, U.S.
shipments of fresh tomatoes have declined to these two countries, while shipments
of other types of vegetables have mostly increased, but from a smaller base. Rising
consumer demand has also influenced imports, given the year-round availability of
a wider diversity of consumer choices, including new products and varieties, new
colors, mini-varieties, and hothouse-grown produce.9
Since the U.S.-Chile FTA entered into force in 2004, imports of Chilean fresh
fruits and fruit juice have shown continued gains. Volume imports of some fruits and
vegetables have risen (grapes and raisins, cherries, strawberries, cranberries, and
other types of berries, pears, kiwi, citrus, apple and grape juice). However, volume
imports of some products have decreased (apples, peaches, avocados, plums). Most
imports from Chile continue to be supplied during the U.S. off-season. Imports
under the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American (DR-CAFTA) FTA, which
entered into force in July 2006, are expected to be limited since many of these
countries already have duty-free access to the United States under previous trading
7
For example, products from some countries are eligible for preferential treatment under the
Generalized System of Preferences (see CRS Report RS22541, Generalized System of
Preferences: Agricultural Imports, by Renée Johnson); some Costa Rican goods may be
eligible to benefit under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; and products from
Colombia, Ecuador and Peru may benefit under the Andean Trade Preference Act.
8
Because of concerns about the effects of NAFTA on U.S. fresh tomato and pepper markets,
the NAFTA Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182, Sec. 316) requires annual monitoring of
these two markets until January 1, 2009. The most recent monitoring reports are available
at [http://www.usitc.gov/ind_econ_ana/research_ana/Ongoing_Inv/index.htm].
9
S. R. Cuellar, Marketing Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Imports in the United States: Status,
Challenges and Opportunities, Cornell University, Apr. 2002, at [http://aem.cornell.edu/
research/researchpdf/rb0204.pdf].
CRS-7
arrangements, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.
Some U.S. produce growers have complained that the recent FTAs allow greater
access to the United States without creating equal U.S. access to foreign markets.10
They further claim that with each FTA the U.S. produce sectors have been negatively
impacted through higher imports, lower prices, and a growing trade deficit.
Global Competition
Among the U.S. leading fruit and vegetable import suppliers, China and most
European countries do not benefit from preferential import treatment under current
U.S. trade laws. However, fruit and vegetable imports from these countries are
growing, partly because of their lower costs of producing, packing, and/or processing
fruits and vegetables, compared to producers in the United States. Among many
developing countries, lower costs are generally associated with lower overall
production and input costs, particularly for labor. Among EU countries, lower costs
largely are a function of farm subsidies and payments along with other forms of
government support for fruit and vegetable production, as part of the Common
Agricultural Policy.
In China, average farm-level costs are low because the majority of farm
production is labor-intensive on small-scale, low-technology operations, using little
or no mechanized inputs. Labor is abundant and costs are low. Marketing costs for
produce also are low, given only basic packing and packaging techniques, and lack
of uniform product sizes and grading standards. At modernized facilities, certain
capital and production technology costs are higher, but per-unit labor costs and
overall input costs still remain much lower than in the United States. Given such
differences, available cost data show that average per-unit production costs in China
for tomatoes, peppers, and citrus are roughly one-tenth that in the United States.11
By comparison, U.S. production costs are relatively high and have been
increasing due to generally rising costs for energy and other farm inputs, but also
because of what some analysis indicates has been an increasing regulatory regime,
particularly in California, where a high portion of the nation’s fruits and vegetables
are grown. A survey of California agricultural producers ranked workers’
compensation requirements, air quality, and land use regulations as the top three
regulatory areas that have a perceived negative effect on farmers’ financial,
operational, and managerial aspects of production.12 The study estimates that $1 of
10
See, for example, T. Linden, “Ag Trade Surplus Wiped Out by Imports” (Feb. 2005) and
“Ag Export Surplus Continues to Shrink” (Dec. 2004), Western Grower & Shipper.
11
Scott Rozelle et al., “Rising Demand, Trade Prospects, and the Rise of China’s
Horticultural Industry,” 2007 Working Paper, at [http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21634/
Rising_Demand_Trade_Prospects_Rise_of_Hort_NAAMIC_working_paper.pdf].
12
S. Hurley, R. Thompson, C. Dicus, L. Berger, and J. Noel, Analysis of the Regulatory
Effects on California Specialty Crops: An Examination of Various Issues Impacting Selected
Forest Products, Tree Fruit, Nut, and Vegetable Crop Industries, California Polytechnic
(continued...)
CRS-8
every $9 of farm capital investment goes toward regulatory compliance. On labor
issues, another study ranked the United States among countries with the highest rates
of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance.13 Immigration issues are
also a key concern, which may be contributing to a growing perception of a shortage
of available farm workers in some production areas, especially for harvesting tree
fruits and specialty row crops.14
Farm costs in the EU also are relatively high. However, fruit and vegetable
producers in most European countries directly benefit from support programs that
effectively offset their production costs and allow them to become competitive on
world markets. The EU’s fruit and vegetable subsidies vary by commodity, but often
include direct farm payments, compensation for further processing, co-financing of
operational funds for producer organizations, export subsidies, promotional aid, and
other types of support and financial aid.15 Commodities that benefit under such
programs include tomatoes, cauliflowers, cucumbers, artichokes, olives, peaches,
pears, plums, apples, citrus, grapes, and figs, among others. The total value of
support notified to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for EU’s fruit and
vegetable sector (excluding wine and olive oil) is estimated at 9.2 billion for the
2003/04 marketing year (about $12.6 billion).16 Such support is considered to be
“production distorting” by the WTO and is subject to reduction commitments.
Comparable expenditures for the U.S. fruit and vegetable sectors were negligible.
In the United States, fruit and vegetable producers do not directly benefit from
traditional federal farm support programs that might help offset their production
costs. However, they may benefit indirectly from certain government research and
farm assistance programs that are generally not considered “production distorting.”17
The European Commission has proposed reforms to the current subsidy program for
12
(...continued)
State University, Jan. 2006, at [http://cissc.calpoly.edu/research/49943FinalReport.pdf].
13
S. Hurley, Comparison between California and its Domestic and International
Competitors with Respect to Key Labor Issues, California Polytechnic State University, June
2004, at [http://www.cissc.calpoly.edu/research/labor-final-report-6-30-04-3.pdf]. Other
regulatory areas included water quality regulation, and pesticide application and registration.
14
Western Growers Association (WGA), “Western Growers Warns of Labor Shortage
Crisis,” WGA Press Release, Sept. 13, 2005; California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF),
“Farm labor shortage approaches critical level,” CFBF AgAlert, Sept. 14, 2005. Among the
reported reasons for this perceived worker shortage are increasingly competitive wages
within both the agriculture sectors and between the agriculture and non-agriculture sectors,
particularly higher-paying construction work given ongoing development. Also see CRS
Report RL30395, Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy, by Linda Levine.
15
For more detailed information of regulations governing EU’s programs for fruits and
vegetables, see Council Regulations (EC) 2200/96 and 2201/96 (October 1996) and the
December 2000 amendments, Council Regulations 2699/2000, 2201/96, and 2202/96.
16
WTO, Committee on Agriculture, “Domestic Support: European Communities,”
G/AG/N/EEC/53, Dec. 2006. Reflects notified Aggregate Measure of Support” (AMS).
17
For more background information is in CRS Report RL32746, Fruits, Vegetables, and
Other Specialty Crops: A Primer on Government Programs, by Jean M. Rawson.
CRS-9
fruits and vegetables that could increase the sector’s market orientation.18 Even with
reforms, the EU’s program would continue to provide government-funded income
support and risk protection not similarly afforded to U.S. producers.
Most developing countries do not directly support their fruit and vegetable
production. However, some have government-funded programs that help farmers
obtain specific varieties, adopt better farming practices, provide research and
agricultural extension services, promote exports, and provide market information.
In some countries, preferential policies and support exist at the local government
level, and may include production subsidies or income guarantees, or assistance with
start-up costs.
Recent investigations by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)
have highlighted the increased competitive market and trade pressures on U.S. fruit
producers from lower-cost foreign fruit and vegetable producers (such as those in
China, Thailand, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa) as well as from countries with
subsidized fruit and vegetable production (such as in the EU, including Spain).19
Import injury investigations initiated by the United States further highlight concerns
that some countries might be supplying imports at prices below fair market value.
Since the 1990s, dumping petitions filed by the U.S. fruit and vegetable sectors have
included charges against imports of fresh tomatoes (Canada, Mexico), frozen
raspberries (Chile), apple juice concentrate (China), frozen orange juice (Brazil),
lemon juice (Argentina, Mexico), fresh garlic (China), preserved mushrooms (China,
Chile, India, Indonesia), canned pineapple (Thailand), table grapes (Chile, Mexico),
and tart cherry juice (Germany, former Yugoslavia).20 Many of these petitions were
decided in favor of U.S. domestic producers and resulted in higher tariffs being
assessed on U.S. imported products from some of these countries.
Non-Tariff Trade Barriers
In addition to tariff-related barriers to trade, market access of agricultural
products may be restricted by non-tariff trade barriers, which may limit both U.S.
exports to and imports from other countries. Non-tariff trade barriers vary widely by
importing country and commodity, and may include, but are not limited to, import
and inspection requirements, safety and product standards, and requirements
regarding inputs, production, processing, and mitigation. Generally, individual
country requirements are provided for under WTO agreements that allow
governments to act on trade matters in order to protect human, animal or plant life
18
For information, see the European Commission’s “Reform of the Common Market
Organization for Fruits and Vegetables” at [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/
fruitveg/index_en.htm].
19
USITC, Conditions of Competition for Certain Oranges and Lemons in the U.S. Fresh
Market, Inv. 332-469, Jul. 2006; USITC, Canned Peaches, Pears, and Fruit Mixtures:
Conditions of Competition between U.S. and Principal Foreign Supplier Industries, Inv.332485, Dec. 2007. Reports available at [http://www.usitc.gov].
20
USITC, Import Injury Investigations Case Statistics (FY1980-FY2006), Jan. 2008, at
[http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/Report-01-08-PUB.pdf].
CRS-10
or health, provided they do not discriminate or use restrictions as disguised
protectionism.21
There are two specific WTO agreements dealing with food safety and animal
and plant health and safety, and with product standards in general: (1) the Agreement
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures, and (2) the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT). The SPS Agreement is designed to protect animals and
plants from diseases and pests, and to protect humans from animal- and plant-borne
diseases and pests, and food-borne risks. The TBT Agreement covers technical
regulations, voluntary standards and procedures relating to health, sanitary, animal
welfare, and environmental regulations.22 Actual SPS/TBT requirements span across
several broad categories and types, but tend to vary widely depending on the
commodity and the importing country (as shown in the box below).23
Broad SPS/TBT Categories
SPS Categories:
! additives and pesticide residues/use;
! plant pests and diseases;
! microbiological contaminants;
! chemical contaminants;
! genetically modified plants;
! irradiation; and
! various overlapping technical requirements, such as labeling and
standards, including Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) or land-use
practices, use of third party auditors, etc.
TBT Categories:
! import quotas and administration (such as licensing and auctions);
! export limitations and bans;
! food laws, including quality standards, safety and industrial
standards, and organic certification;
! input, process, and product standards, including domestic content
and mixing requirements, rules-of-origin requirements;
! packaging standards and labeling requirements;
! laws and import procedures, including media advertising regulations;
! consumer and food safety regulations — e.g., labeling, packaging,
pesticide residue testing, nutritional content labeling, and
contamination prevention;
! measures to prevent consumer fraud — e.g., shipping and financial
documentation, standards of identity and measurement, etc.
21
See WTO, Understanding the WTO: The Agreements (Standards and Safety), at
[http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm4_e.htm].
22
The SPS Agreement entered into force on January 1, 1995, as part of the establishment
of the WTO, following the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT). The TBT Agreement resulted from the Tokyo Round in 1979.
23
For more information, see CRS Report: RL33472, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Concerns in Agricultural Trade, by Geoffrey S. Becker; USDA, Analyzing Technical
Barriers to Trade, TB1876, Mar. 1999; and F. J. Adcock, “Examining and Reducing
Technical Barriers to Trade,” CNAS 98-3, Oct. 1998, Texas A&M University, at
[http://cnas.tamu.edu/publications/cnastbt1.pdf].
CRS-11
Among the more common SPS/TBT examples for produce imports and exports
are restrictions due to pest or disease concerns, and requirements specifying certain
post-harvest treatment and fumigation.24 Other requirements that reportedly have
inhibited U.S. fruit and vegetable exports to some countries are phyosanitary
requirements, food safety protocols, and marketing standards. A summary of some
of the reported SPS/TBT barriers to U.S. produce exports follows:25
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
disease transmission — e.g., fire blight, brown rot, canker, potato
wart, fungus, among others, and other unspecified diseases;
pest transmission — e.g, coddling moth, golden nematode, fruit
flies, moths, among others, and other unspecified quarantine pests;
chemical and pesticide residues — e.g., methyl bromide, hydrogen
gas; also Maximum Residual Levels (MRLs) for certain pesticides;
treatment and mitigation requirements — e.g., chemical and
other treatment options, including fumigation and quarantine;
restrictive import and administrative procedures — e.g., specific
inspection requirements for import;
other administrative requirements — e.g., protocols, risk
assessments, waivers, licenses, import tolerances, packaging
requirements;
import bans on products from specific producing areas — e.g.,
because of specific pest or disease concerns particular to a region;
import bans on production inputs — e.g., nursery stock, seeds;
product and/or processing specifications — e.g., restrictions on
the use of anti-microbials, sulfur dioxide, sorbic acid, potassium
sorbate, biotech and genetic materials, wax coating, etc.; and
health risks — depending on product and perceived risk.
Non-tariff barriers to trade remain a key concern to U.S. produce growers. For
example, under the recently negotiated U.S.-Korea FTA, despite tariff liberalization
and increases in tariff-rate quotas for many fruits and vegetables, phytosanitary
barriers have restricted U.S. exports to Korea of most key fresh fruits, including
apples, pears, peaches, and citrus.26 Similar restrictions and other technical barriers
also have limited U.S. fruit and vegetable exports with other key U.S. trading
partners, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU, India, Israel,
24
Examples within animal product trade include recent trade bans because of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or “mad cow” disease, as well as the current EU ban of
U.S. beef because of hormones used in production.
25
Based on two USDA horticulture trade reports for select products and countries during
2004-2005: USDA, FAS Guide To World Horticultural Trade, Trade Issues Editions,
Circular Series FHORT 1-05 (May 2005) and 4-03 (May 2004), at [http://www.fas.
usda.gov/htp_arc.asp]. The 2005 report was submitted as a Report to Congress, as required
under the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465).
26
See Northwest Horticultural Council, 2008 Foreign Trade Priorities, available at
[http://www.nwhort.org/nhcpublic/TradePriorities.html]; and Report of the Agricultural
Technical Advisory Committee on Trade in Fruits and Vegetables on the U.S.-Korea FTA,
April 2007, available at [http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Republic_
of_Korea_FTA/Reports/asset_upload_file166_12777.pdf].
CRS-12
Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Taiwan, and Venezuela.27 Aside
from governmental requirements, retailers in some countries have developed required
standards and practices and require certification as a prerequisite for doing business.
For example, EU’s retail-based EurepGAP for fruits and vegetables specifies a list
of requirements regarding traceability; recordkeeping; varieties and rootstocks; site
history and management; soil and substrate management; fertilizer usage; irrigation;
crop protection; harvesting; post-harvest treatments; waste and pollution
management; recycling and reuse; worker health, safety and welfare; environmental
issues; complaint form; and internal audits.28
However, many U.S. trading partners point to U.S. phytosanitary and other
technical requirements as possible barriers restricting imports of these same
commodities from other countries. In the United States, USDA’s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates fresh produce imports through
phytosanitary certificates, importation rules, and inspections.29 U.S. imports of some
fresh fruits and vegetables also are subject to federal marketing orders that require
written permits for imported fresh produce, or create mandatory grade, size, quality
and maturity requirements that apply to domestic and imported products.30 For
information, see CRS Report RL32746, Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Specialty
Crops: A Primer on Government Programs, by Jean M. Rawson.
Seasonal Supplies
As consumer demand for fruits and vegetables has grown, the United States has
become a growing market for off-season fruit and vegetable imports. Most counterseasonal trade occurs between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere countries,
which often tend to have opposite production cycles. Improvements in transportation
and refrigeration also have made it easier to ship fresh horticultural products.
Counter-seasonal U.S. imports of fruits and vegetables are supplied by Chile,
Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, but also to some extent Mexico and some
Central American countries.
Counter-seasonal imports from these countries are said to complement U.S.
production of fresh grapes, citrus, tree fruits, and berries. However, technological
and production improvements are further influencing this trend. In particular, the
development of early- and late-maturing varieties has expanded U.S. production
seasons, allowing producers to grow many types of fruits and vegetables throughout
27
USDA, FAS Guide To World Horticultural Trade (years 2004 and 2005).
28
See EUREPGAP requirements at [http://www.eurepgap.org/]. A sample protocol is
EUREPGAP’s Protocol for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, EUREPGAP Protocol Rev.02,
Sept. 2001, at [http://www.agribusinessonline.com/regulations/eurepprotocol.pdf].
29
7 C.F.R. Part 319.56 requires written import permits for fresh produce and also lists
detailed foreign quarantine notices for fruit and vegetables.
30
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, Section 8e. Currently applies to
avocados, dates (other than dates for processing), hazelnuts (filberts), grapefruit, table
grapes, kiwifruit, olives (other than Spanish-style), onions, oranges, Irish potatoes, plums
(suspended), prunes (suspended), raisins, tomatoes, and walnuts.
CRS-13
the year. As the U.S. production season has expanded, the winter window for some
imports has narrowed. As a result, imports of some fruits and vegetables are directly
competing with U.S. production. These include fresh tomatoes, peppers, potatoes,
onions, cucumbers, melon, citrus, grapes, apples, and other tree fruits. Imports of
processed fruit and vegetable products, such as fruit juices and various processed
fruits and vegetables, directly compete with U.S. processed products year-round.
Imports of counter-seasonal fruits and vegetables are generally considered to
have a positive impact on U.S. consumer demand by ensuring year-round supply and
by introducing new products and varieties, which often stimulate additional demand.
Other perceived market benefits include lowering costs (given a wider supply
network), improving eating quality, assuring food safety, conducting promotions, and
reducing product losses. For example, imports of fresh tomatoes may have
contributed to increased overall demand by providing for the introduction of new
domestic varieties, including hothouse-grown tomatoes, that are valued by consumers
for their taste, perceived higher and consistent quality, and wider year-round
availability; similarly, imports of peppers, cucumbers, and sweet onions have
contributed to increased demand through the introduction of new colors, minivarieties, and other highly-regarded product qualities.31
This expansion in consumer choice has contributed to overall higher demand for
fruits and vegetables. Between 1980 and 2005, per capita consumption of all fresh
and processed fruits and vegetables increased from roughly 600 pounds to about 700
pounds per person.32 Gains in consumption, in turn, necessitate the need for yearround supplies, resulting in higher counter-cyclical import demand. During the
period from 1980 to 2005, imports as a share of total domestic consumption
increased from about 24% to nearly 39% for all fresh fruits, and from about 9% to
14% for all fresh vegetables (Table 3). These averages mask even greater import
gains for some commodities. Imports of grapes, asparagus, and garlic, for example,
accounted for roughly 10% of consumption in 1980 and altogether now account for
at least 50%.
There also is concern that the availability of imports may be lowering prices for
fruits and vegetables because of increasing overall supplies. However, between 1980
and 2005, prices paid for fresh fruits and vegetables remained strong and, in many
cases, about doubled for all fruits and vegetables, including processed products.33
Although price changes may vary for individual commodities, prices have shown
increases over the period overall.
31
S. R. Cuellar, Marketing Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Imports in the United States: Status,
Challenges and Opportunities, Cornell University, Apr. 2002, p. 20, at [http://aem.cornell.
edu/research/researchpdf/rb0204.pdf].
32
USDA,” “Fruits and Vegetables,” Per Capita Availability, Feb.February 2007, at
[http://www.ers.
usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/FoodAvailSpreadsheets.htm].
33
Bureau of Labor Statistics [http://www.bls.gov/cpi/]. Consumer price index data.
CRS-14
Table 3. Import Share of U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Demand
Category
1980
All Fresh Fruit
All Fresh Vegetables
23.9
8.5
Apples
Asparagus
Citrus
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapes
Lettuce
Melon
Onion
Peaches/Pears
Peppers
Strawberries
Tomatoes
4.0
10.8
1.8
36.0
12.5
13.6
<0.5
9.9
5.5
1.3
26.5
2.8
22.3
1990
2000
(percent)
30.5
38.3
10.9
10.8
4.7
29.8
3.4
33.7
17.4
37.0
<0.5
14.2
10.1
9.7
19.7
4.0
20.5
7.2
59.0
10.9
42.6
29.0
45.2
<0.5
22.6
9.1
11.6
22.2
5.6
30.0
2005
38.5
13.6
6.9
66.8
17.5
49.4
48.9
54.9
2.0
23.2
11.0
14.9
33.5
7.1
34.4
Source: USDA, Supply and Disappearance data tables, Feb. 2007, at [http://www.ers.usda.gov/
data/foodconsumption/FoodAvailSpreadsheets.htm]. Expressed as quantity of imports’ share of total
estimated disappearance.
Other Market Factors
Among other market factors widely known to contribute to shifts in global
agricultural trade are exchange rate fluctuations and structural changes in the U.S.
food industry, including increased U.S. overseas investment and diversification in
market sourcing by U.S. companies.
Generally, as the dollar depreciates against foreign currencies, U.S. exports
become more competitive and relatively less expensive than commodities produced
domestically in the importing country, indicating a subsequent increase in price
competitiveness for U.S. exports or a relative increase in import prices. Conversely,
as the U.S. exchange rate appreciates (stronger dollar), U.S. exports may become less
competitive or relatively more costly.34 Information from USDA’s Agricultural
Exchange Rate Data Set indicates that as the U.S. dollar has steadily depreciated each
year since 2002, U.S. agricultural products, including fruit and vegetable exports,
have likely become more price competitive. However, the extent to which this will
actually result in reduced prices on imported products in a foreign country will
ultimately depend on how much an exporter or importer is willing to pass on to
34
For more information, see Kristinek, J., and D.P. Anderson, “Exchange Rates and
Agriculture: A Literature Review,” Working Paper 02-2, Feb. 2002, Texas A&M University,
at [http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/0/373/wp-2002-02.pdf].
CRS-15
customers.35 Monetary policies within a country, such as China’s fixed exchange
rate, may also affect its export potential by influencing relative price differences
between countries. Further appreciation of the Chinese exchange rate is expected to
make imports more affordable, which could raise U.S. agricultural exports.36
Other factors reportedly influencing produce trade are evolving business
practices in how produce is marketed and sold. A USDA study highlights some of
these factors for the produce industry.37 They include increased consolidation and
concentration in the retail and shipping sectors, and the emergence of new industry
trade practices including increased use of fee-based services, additional packaging
and certification requirements, increased use of contract and marketing agreements
with buyers, and development of emerging technologies and improved transportation.
The extent to which these factors may be influencing the individual produce sectors
varies by commodity and also by marketing channel (e.g., retail versus food service
sectors). Structural changes in the U.S. food industry are further influenced by other
economic and market changes that are occurring, including increased diversification
in supply sourcing and increased foreign investment and global integration by U.S.
agribusiness firms.
A growing share of U.S. fruit and vegetable trade (both imports and exports) is
carried out by U.S. and foreign multinational companies or enterprises. These
companies may produce the products they trade, while some may only further process
products and some companies only trade the products of other firms. Among the
reasons why companies choose to extend their businesses globally are to build a
global supply base to ensure continued, year-round supplies to meet demand, but also
to source lower-cost production in countries with relatively lower input and
technology costs, particularly for labor. These trends may have been facilitated by
the cross-national economic and financial integration that has followed bilateral and
multilateral agreements among countries.38
The increasing importance of multinational companies and their role in
international trade complicates an analysis of global trade statistics. This includes
cases where a U.S. company has subsidiaries located overseas, where products are
produced and processed, but marketed under the company’s own branded labels; in
other cases, a U.S. company may import foreign processed products made from
U.S.-exported raw material abroad only to be re-imported to the United States as
finished products. For example, a recent USITC import investigation highlights how
35
USDA, “Annual Commodity Trade Weighted Exchange Rates,” Apr. 2008, at
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ExchangeRates/Data/RealAnnualCommodityBasedExcha
ngeRates.xls].
36
USDA, China Currency Appreciation Could Boost U.S. Agricultural Exports, WRS-0703,
Aug. 2007, at [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs0703/].
37
USDA, U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, Trends,
and Issues, AER-795, 2001, at [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer795/aer795.pdf].
38
Bloodgood, Laura, et al., “Trends in U.S. Inbound and Outbound Direct Investment,”
USITC Publication 3870, July 2006, at [http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/research_
working_papers/pub3870.pdf].
CRS-16
U.S.-based Dole Food Company owns and operates fruit canneries in Thailand that
rely largely on imported fruit from the United States to produce canned peach, pear,
and mixed fruit products, which are repackaged into plastic jars and cups in Thailand,
and then re-exported back to the United States in the form of retail-ready products.39
Thailand’s competitive advantages in producing canned fruit are based primarily on
relatively inexpensive labor and technological investments provided by Dole Food
Company, which accounts for the majority of Thailand’s peach and pear canning
industry through its subsidiary Dole Thailand Ltd. Thailand is currently a leading
global exporter of canned peaches, pears, and fruit mixtures, despite its insignificant
domestic production of fresh peaches and pears.
Many U.S. companies are implementing business strategies that source
complementary fruit and vegetable products globally, which some argue may
compete with domestically produced product. An import injury investigation brought
by U.S. mushroom processors highlights competition concerns by some domestic
producers about competition from imports of transnational production by U.S.-based
multinational companies. Among the marketers of preserved mushrooms
participating in the case was General Mills, Inc., which imports a range of food
products produced and processed by its subsidiaries overseas (in Indonesia and India
among other countries), including preserved mushrooms that are marketed under its
Green Giant brand. Among the reasons General Mills officials cite for establishing
overseas operations are year-round product availability and lower labor costs.40
Some companies do not own and operate foreign operations, but instead enter
into licensing arrangements with other foreign companies who produce, pack, or
process products, which are marketed under the company’s own branded labels and
either sold in the United States or in other foreign markets. Examples of such firms
were described in another USITC import investigation into the global sourcing
strategies among the major global suppliers of fresh oranges and lemons. Reasons
cited by some U.S. produce companies for implementing global business strategies
include the desire to source complementary fruit and vegetable products globally to
meet year-round demand, reduce processing costs, and build an international
customer network and brand recognition.41
39
USITC, Canned Peaches, Pears, and Fruit Mixtures: Conditions of Competition between
U.S. and Principal Foreign Supplier Industries, Inv. 332-485, Dec. 2007, at [http://www.
usitc.gov/publications/pub3972.pdf]. Most fruit imported to Thailand is supplied in
institutional-size metal cans.
40
Hearing before USITC, regarding certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India,
and Indonesia, Inv. 731-TA-776-779, Sept. 9, 2004, at [http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/
731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/2003/preserved_mushrooms/final/PDF/Hearing%2009-0
9-04.pdf].
41
See, for example, “A Cooperative Evolution — Sunkist Competes in the Global Market,”
a presentation by Sunkist Inc. officials at the USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum, Feb. 20,
2004, at [http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/123456789/2059/1/fo04sm02.pdf]; and
USDA, U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, Trends, and
Issues, AER-795, 2001, at [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer795/aer795.pdf].
CRS-17
Recent Congressional Action
California’s produce industry has long sought to draw attention to the generous
support to U.S. program commodities (grains, oilseeds, cotton, sugar, and milk),
compared to that provided for U.S. specialty crops, including fruits and vegetables.
Starting in 2005, the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance began promoting
recommendations for the 20072008 farm bill, initially through the efforts of the United
Fresh Produce Association.42 These efforts were expanded and nowto include 85
specialty specialty
crop organizations nationwide. The alliance’s goal ishas been to enhance the
competitiveness of U.S. fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and other specialty crops by
adding specific programs and provisions to the omnibus farm bill (last enacted as
P.L. 107-171).43 Both the House- and the Senate-passed versions of the omnibus
farm bill (H.R. 2419) currently being conferenced by Congress contain provisions
that specifically address as part of the omnibus farm bill.43
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008) includes new provisions for horticulture and organic production under a new
bill title. Numerous provisions in this and other titles of the bill specifically address
specialty crops and expand the amount of available funding
for several major programs.
Among the key trade-related provisions in both the House and Senate bills are
proposals to specifically address SPS/TBT issues in the specialty crops sectors. The
House bill requires for several major
programs, providing nearly $1 billion in additional funding (FY2008-FY2017).
Among the farm bill’s key trade-related provisions are those that specifically
address SPS/TBT issues in the specialty crops sectors, as well as those that generally
address export market promotion and barriers to U.S. trade. The farm bill contains
a provision that directs USDA to coordinate fruit and vegetable market analyses with its
USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service and with the private sector; it also requires USDA to
publicly listprovide the status of all plant-related export petitions, and provides for other
SPS-related information (Sec. 11307). The Senate bill (also H.R. 2419) encourages
USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative to increase attention to specialty crop SPS
trade issues, and to develop a strategic risk management framework; it also requires
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the impact on specialty
crops of reducing foreign trade barriers and to prepare a strategy for addressing the
issue (Sec. 1833 and Sec. 1831). Both bills also generally provide for export market
promotion and for addressing SPS/TBT barriers to U.S. agricultural exports, as part
of their respective trade titles. Both bills also contain provisions providing for
increased market data and information on the specialty crops sectors, and amend
current marketing orders for avocados and clementines. Both the House and Senate
bills also contain provisions addressing specialty crop food safety issues.
Information on these and other proposed; and requires USDA
to publish an annual report on SPS trade barriers to U.S. specialty crops (Sec. 3203).
In addition, the farm bill provides for increased market data and information on the
specialty crops sectors (Secs. 10107 and 10103) and addresses specialty crop food
safety and related research issues (e.g., Secs. 7311, 10105, and 10109). The bill also
amends current marketing orders for avocados (Sec. 10108) and clementines (Sec.
10102), governing grades and standards for these commodities and requiring that
imports meet similar standards.
Information on these and other enacted farm bill provisions directed to the
specialty crop sectors are described in CRS Report RL33520, Specialty Crops: 2007
Farm Bill Issues, by Jean M. Rawson, as well as in other reports on the farm bill at
the CRS Current Legislative Issues Web page on the “Farm Bill and Farm Policy,”
at [http://apps.crs.gov/cli/cli.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=641&from=3&fromId=1]2008
Farm Bill Issues, by Jean M. Rawson.
Two SPS-related provisions that were proposed as part of the Senate-reported
farm bill (H.R. 2419), however, were dropped during conference negotiations. One
provision proposed that USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative increase attention
to specialty crop SPS trade issues and develop a strategic risk management
framework. Another provision would have required the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to investigate the impact on specialty crops of reducing foreign trade
barriers and to prepare a strategy for addressing the issue.
42
The association represents the produce industry, and resulted under a 2006 merger of the
United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association and the International Fresh-Cut Association.
43
The United Fresh Produce Association, Priorities for the 2007 Farm Bill, Specialty Crop
Farm Bill Alliance, at [http://www.unitedfresh.org/newsviews/farm_bill].