Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:46:35.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S.-Canadian Tomato Wars: An Economist Tries to Make Sense Out of Recent Antidumping Suits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

John J. VanSickle ,
Edward A. Evans  and
Robert D. Emerson
John J. VanSickle
Affiliation:
International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Edward A. Evans
Affiliation:
International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Robert D. Emerson
Affiliation:
International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Get access

Abstract

U.S. growers filed an antidumping case against Canadian growers of greenhouse-grown tomatoes, alleging that U.S. growers were being injured, or threatened with material injury, by imports from Canada. The U.S. Department of Commerce determined that imports of greenhouse-grown tomatoes were being sold in U.S. markets at less than fair market value. The U.S. International Trade Commission determined the “like product” to be all fresh market tomatoes, concluding the domestic industry was not materially injured. Anecdotal evidence used by the Commission Department in determining like product ignores the wealth of knowledge that economics can add. An economic model is proposed for purposes of determining like product.

Keywords

antidumpinglawtomatoestradeU.S.-CanadaF13F17K33Q17
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 2003 , pp. 283 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, J.M., Carter, C.A., Green, R., and Pick, D.. “Whither Armington Trade Models?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1990):455–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francois, J.F., and Hall, H.K.. COMPAS: Commercial Policy Analysis System. Washington, DC: U.S. International Trade Commission, 1993.Google Scholar
Jordan, K.H., and VanSickle, J.J.. “Integration and Behavior in the U.S. Winter Market for Fresh Tomatoes.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27,1(July 1995a): 127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, K.H., and VanSickle, J.J. “NAFTA and Florida Tomatoes: How Will Florida Growers Survive?” Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 108(1995b): 297–301.Google Scholar
Lele, U. “Market Integration: A Study of Sorghum Prices in Western India.” Journal of Farm Economics 49(February 1967): 149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, B.The U.S. Antidumping Law Rhetoric versus Reality. Washington, DC: Cato Institute Trade Policy Analysis Paper No. 7, August 16, 1999.Google Scholar
Ravallion, M. “Testing Market Integration.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(1986):102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Greenhouse Tomatoes from Canada. Investigation No. 731-TA-925 (preliminary), Publication 3424, Washington, DC, May 2001.Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Greenhouse Tomatoes from Canada. Investigation No. 731-TA-925 (final), Publication 3424, Washington, DC, April 2002.Google Scholar
VanSickle, J. “Florida Tomatoes in a Global Market.” 1996 Proceedings of the Florida Tomato Institute. PRO 108(1996):1–6, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
VanSickle, J. “A Compromise in the Fresh Tomato Trade Dispute.” Florida Journal of International Law 11(1997):404–405.Google Scholar