Usually, this kind of ruling infuriates one side or another. But in this case, all parties sound surprisingly happy.
I’m speaking of the announcement by the U.S. trade representative’s (USTR) office that it would not pursue a Section 301 investigation of unfair trade practices by Mexico affecting the Florida fresh fruit and vegetable industry.
The Fresh Produce Association of the Americas (FPAA), which represents growers from Mexico, applauded the ruling, which was not surprising, given its bitter opposition to the complaint.
“The claim was meritless from the onset,” said FPAA president Lance Jungmeyer. “USTR absolutely made the right decision to reject the baseless request from [Florida] Senator [Marco] Rubio, who has made this an election-year issue.”
Jim Bair, president & CEO of the U.S. Apple Association, also applauded the decision: “A Section 301 investigation could have been followed by tariffs on imported produce and, in turn, retaliatory tariffs from Mexico. That has happened in the past where U.S. apples were the targets of retaliation. We acknowledge that other sectors of the fresh produce industry are facing their own difficult challenges, but the U.S. Trade Representative came to the correct conclusion, and we are thankful.”
At the same time, the response of the Florida Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association (FFVA), which supported the investigation, was remarkably mild.
“Today’s action by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is a positive step toward securing trade relief for the Southeast produce industry and will help to ensure American families are not dependent on foreign imports for their produce supplies during the winter and spring months of the year,” said a press statement from FFVA.
The Florida Farm Bureau was also “cautiously optimistic.” Florida Farm Bureau president Jeb S. Smith said, “The extensive record of this issue on market impacts is at odds with this decision. However, we are grateful to USTR for a commitment to help our family farms and seek viable pathways to sustain them. The facts demand it.”
Why have the Florida groups spoken so even-handedly of the decision? Because the USTR ruling said it would “establish a private-sector industry advisory panel to recommend measures to promote the competitiveness of produces of seasonal and perishable produce in the southeastern United States.”
This at least potentially leaves the door open for some future trade settlements. FFVA has commented that the administration “has made clear it recognizes the urgent need for immediate, effective and enforceable solutions, which we believe includes all trade relief options.”
But relief for southeastern growers on the trade front seems extremely unlikely at this point. It is opposed by many of the largest agricultural interests in the U.S., which are acutely aware of their dependence on the Mexican market, as noted in an October 5 letter to the USTR.
Reflecting these concerns, on October 20, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators sent a letter to USTR Katherine Tai urging her not to pursue this inquiry on the grounds that it could raise fruit and vegetable prices in this country and provoke Mexico into retailing with actions against corn and soybeans.
The Biden administration has reason not to antagonize Mexico on farm trade issues. It scored an important victory earlier this year by finally convincing Mexico to open its nationwide market to U.S. potatoes.
In July, the U.S. opened its market to avocados from Mexico’s Jalisco state.
The signs point toward closer cooperation on trade between the U.S. and Mexico—which most agricultural groups would regard as a boon.
The U.S. government may well provide relief for Florida growers. But it is more likely to take the form of disaster payments rather than actions against Mexican imports.
