Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:15:53.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tomato Wars: A Discussion of How International Trade, Structural Changes, and Competitiveness Affect the North American Produce Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Edmund A. Estes
Edmund A. Estes*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Get access

Abstract

The demand for a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables, including fresh market tomatoes, has increased significantly over the past decade because of greater convenience in use, improved selection, and rising health and diet concerns. As U.S. demand for tomatoes and other horticultural crops strengthens, inexperienced domestic and international suppliers believe they can compete effectively within U.S. markets. Free trade agreements have reduced monetary barriers to trade, but remaining impediments, such as institutional and competitive market constraints, represent significant challenges for southern U.S. growers. This paper discusses points addressed by VanSickle, Eastwood, and Woods concerning trade and horticultural market development.

Keywords

fruitsmarketingNAFTAtradevegetablesF1L1L2Q17R3
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 2003 , pp. 313 - 319
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

Calvin, L., and Cook, R. (coordinators). U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, Trends, and Issues. USDA, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report 795, January 2001.Google Scholar
Cook, R. “The U.S. Fresh Produce Industry: An Industry in Transition,” Chapter 2. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. Kader, Adel A., ed., pp. 27–117. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 3311, Fall 2001.Google Scholar
Donovan, J., and Krissoff, B.. Trade Issues Facing U.S. Horticulture in the WTO Negotiations. USDA, Economic Research Service, VGS-285-01, August 2001.Google Scholar
Estes, E.A.2002 Fruit and Vegetable Situation and Outlook. Electronic Proceedings of the 2002 Southern Agricultural Outlook Conference, Tunica, MS, September 2002. Internet site: www.ces.uga.agriculture/agecon/workshops/2002 (Accessed September 2002).Google Scholar
Estes, E.A., and Davis, J.. 2002 Vegetable Budgets-Fresh Market Staked Tomatoes. Raleigh, NC: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, Budget 95-1. Internet site: www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/AgBudgets/vegetable.htm (Accessed January 2002).Google Scholar
Jordan, K.D. and VanSickle, J.J.. “NAFTA and Florida Tomatoes: How Will Florida Growers Survive?” 108 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 297, 298, 1995.Google Scholar
Kaufman, P.R., Handy, C.R., McLaughlin, E.W., Park, K., and Green, G.M.. Understanding the Dynanties of Produce Marketing. USDA, Economie Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin 758, August 2000.Google Scholar
Lucier, G.Vegetables and Melons Situation and Outlook Yearbook. USDA, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, VGS-2002, July 2002.Google Scholar
The Packer. “Fresh Trends 2002: A Profile of the Fresh Produce Consumer.” Shawnee Mission, KS: Vance Publishing Corporation, Summer 2002.Google Scholar
Pollack, S.L.Consumer Demand for Fruits and Vegetables: The U.S. Example—Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade. USDA, Market and Trade Division, Economic Research Service, WRS-01-1, July 2001.Google Scholar
Woods, T., and Cook, R.. “A Path Dependency and Cluster Competitiveness Framework to Examine Regional Marketing Systems and Conflicts.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35,2(August 2003):305–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar